Are boaties polluting waterways as much as the Pacific Adventurer

[shrunken pojie]

I just listened to the interview from ABC radio. 1 thing struck me as very odd. Gary Fooks said that his 50hp old technology 2 stroke emitted 4.7L of oil per hour. Now, based on the oil usage of my old technology 2 stroke 40hp I think he has this figure a little wrong. I have only had it for a short time have put through about 80L of fuel and at a ratio of 50:1 oil that is only 1.6L of oil for about 8 hours of travel time. I too would like to know where he is getting his figures from cause this stinks of scare mongering to me. Shame on you Gary Fooks for your misinformation!

[charlie09]

I watched the story on 9 news last night and they said that a 15 hp uses 3 litres of oil per hour. Something must be wrong with the 15 hp because its 3 times smaller than than Mr Fooks 50 hp which he claims uses 4 litres p/h.

Also if the old tech outboards are so "bad" for the environment why does he still use one?

Cause its all a load of bs thats why. !!

[Gary Fooks]

HOW MUCH POLLUTION?
My data / calculations goes on for pages – and took me weeks. But just so the numbers make more sense pull out your calculator and go through these rough, very rough estimates.

Lets assume for this simple example that the average outboard is 15hp. (that is the most popular size) Well a 15hp 3 star rated outboard puts out 200g of emissions per hour and a carby 2 stroke 3.6kg. difference 3.4 kg. But lets be conservative and call it 3kg per hour. These numbers are published on the web, the testing is done by the outboard manufacturer, and audited by the USA EPA. Repeat – these are the numbers that Mercury Yamaha , Tohatsu Evinrude etc admit to in writing.

They inlcude all hyrdrocarbons - thats fuel and oil as well as a mush smaller amount of NOx.

Now industry says the typical outboard does 100hrs per annum. Some less, some more. So lets be conservative and call that only 50 hours.

There are over 200,000 Registered boats in Qld. (source Qld Transport) And that doesn’t count the small unregistered ones. Now we know in 2005 that 55% of sales were 0 or 1 star. (Source OEDA/ DEWHA Report)

So lets be real conservative and say that just 100,000 boats do only 50 hours p.a and an extra 3kg of emissions – mostly Hydrocarbons
That’s 100,000 x 50 x 3 = 15,000,000 kg per annum that we wouldn’t have if only 3 star outboards were allowed. That’s 15,000 tonnes.

The Pacific Adventurer oil spill was 250 tonnes. So based on the above that’s 60 oil spills a year that comes from outboards - or more than one a week.

NOW my estimates were far more conservative, and detailed. So when I conclude ONE oil spill a month in Qld (not one a week) then I am being conservative.

By the way, my estimates were audited by business people and public servants when I entered the Healthy Waterways Awards in 2007


POLITICS
For those of you who think I am some closet greenie, consider this question.

Think for a minute – why do you think the Green Party has zero interest in outboard emissions regulations? None at all?

Also – when I was on Channel nine especially - they cut out a lot of my explanation – making it more sensational and less accurate.

[royslaven]

All I can say is Mr Fooks will be on my xmas card list next to Mr Simon Ballsout,NOT
cheers, Royslaven.

[Gary Fooks]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary

[oldboot]

The comparison between a large scale oil spill and the emissions of any motor remain totaly unrelated and irrelivent to each other.

This is not meaningfull reasearch...this is simply gathering a few partly related statistics and banging them together.

This sort of comparison will lead to incorrect and erronoious conclusions being drawn.

It is this sort of "popular science" that has resulted in the large amounts of hokus pokus environment polocy we see today.

Now you talk about 200g compared to 3.6Kg.. of emmissions.....even that comparison is not valid because the types and content of those emmissions are not specified......as soon as we start including gasseous products, we get further and further seperated in validity.
Now these figures at what state of throttle and load are they taken.

Now lets talk a real example.....my young brotherinlaws boat powered by an old technology 2 stroke 30 HP mercury motor, consumes about 5 litres of fuel an hour ( the way I drive it, we don't all go everywhere heavily loaded at WOT)......at worst it runs about 20:1 fuel oil muxture.
This is a motor twice the 15Hp example.....total fuel and oil input would be under 5KG.
So even if we say the two stroke only burns 66% of its fuel and oil....there is no way we can get 3Kg of hydrocarbons out the spout.........and even then if only 50% of the two stroke oil burned that would work out to less than 100g of oily content.

Now all of this "output" is warmed in the exhaust and vigourlusly agitated and combined with air and water in the boats wake that would accelerate its breakdown and dispersal.

Sorry mate no matter how you look at your figures they do not stack up in reality.

Ok we say the word "hydrocarbons", even a comparison of that alone is questionalble.....A very high portion of hydrocarbons emmited from 2 stroke outboard motors would be highly volitile and would evaporate, be absorbed or reacted.....an incredibly small amount would be oily product which as we have seen can easily be biodegradable TCW3 spec two stroke oil.

To try and compare that with black, sticky fuel oil is rediculous to say the least

Now we all know that the governments figures on boat usage can not be trusted.....from experience we know that it is reasonable to say a great many registered boats get used less than 4 times a year for less than 2 hours run time per outing....we all know someone who hasnt had their boat in the water for several months or over a year.

My mate Tony.. 18 foot cruse craft 115 johnson..owned 7 years.....had it in the water less than 10 times.
My mate Neil....16 fott alloy woth a 60hp evenrude went fishing with him the easter before last......boat hasn't moved since.
My mate George plywood boat his father built don't know the motor, still registered hasn't been started in 5 years.
My young brotherinlaws boat....hadn't been started for 3 years till I took it in hand..registered all, that time.
My mate steve 12 foot tinny, 15Hp evenrude..still registered.. not started in 5 years.

It would entirely reasonable to find that a very large portion ( probaly the majority) of the boats in use do less than 20 hours a year

Any estimate on recreational boat usage is an poorly informed estimate at best at worst it is a guess.... sorry at worst it is a figure selected to achieve an outcome.

The government has absolutly no means of assertaining the level of boat usage with any sort of meaningfull accuracy.

Sorry having your figures audited by business people or public servents is no recomendation of credibility........unless these prople have the time and understanding to varify the source information all they are doing is checking you have added up the figures you provide.

As for winning an award......sorry mate..... I have a pretty heavy exposure to the operation of business and entertainment awards.......In my view having one of those awards is no reliable reference for anything............The best having one of these awards means is that you managed to convince the majority judges your presentation was better ( in their view) than someone else who entered....mostly a limited field.....At worst you mates with the judges or your view is favoured by the orginisation sponsoring the awards..

Mate having you story edited by a media outlet means nothing.....they are not interested in the facts either way, they want a story of a specific length usulay in multiples of 3.5 minutes and to appeal to a viewer profile..

Sorry mate but you model does not stand up.....you argument is greatly flawed in its proportion and relivency..... and one inaccuracy, compounds upon another to create a mathematcal model that is so inaccurate to be unusable.

Now don't get me wrong.......I am all for replacing old technology two strokes with newer cleaner motors...... but the argument as presented is unhelpfull and poorly concieved.

Oh by the way......what is the environmental impact of the manufacturing, transport and fitting of a new engine.

If two strokes are banned..who is going to compensate me for replacing my existing motor......That would cost me $10 000.

OH by the way have you reeplaced yours and baught that new ETEC that was on your shopping list?

cheers

[trueblue]

Also – when I was on Channel nine especially - they cut out a lot of my explanation – making it more sensational and less accurate.

and you thought they wouldn't do that......... very foolish assumption

[PinHead]

so the exhaust emissions are identical in chemical compostion to the oil spilt by the Pacific Adventurer?

If they are not identical then any comparisons are merely farcical and sensationalist.

[royslaven]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary

your welcome

[PinHead]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary

facts? there is a lot of assuming and estimating in there..just seems like a lot of guesswork to me.

[mudrunner]

why hasnt anyone asked.....'gary....' about the mud churn, tubidity, and pollution of the big ships, ferries and barges of stradbroke ferries in moreton bay...?

why do you let these......'green people' avoid it?

go on. ask him. gary, tell us. whats your opinion on shorter barge routes???????????????

he wont answer. because he wants to attack. what im suggesting, he must defend!!!!!!

come on gary. call my bluff!!!!

.

[castlemaine]

Think for a minute – why do you think the Green Party has zero interest in outboard emissions regulations? None at all?

Unfortunately Gary, the Green Party and their fringe groups will have an interest now. As fishos we always seem to be on the defensive side ... defending extrapolated figures that put us in bad light.

[mudrunner]

FFS!!!!!!!. FOOKS AND BALTAIS ARE TERRORFIED OF THE STRADEBROKE FERRY ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOVE IT DOWN THEIR THROATS!!!!!!!!!!


HERE...LOOK!!!!!


simon baltais supports an investigation into straddie ferry mud churn in moreton bay!
In an environmental coup for redland bay fishos. High profile green, simon baltais supports an investigation into stradbroke ferries and barges mud churn in moreton bay!

it has been widely observed that because of the shallow water level of moreton bay, the big ships of stradbroke ferries are creating an environmental nightmare, due to the ammount of mud, pollution, and terbidity they are infecting the bay with.

in an email i have from simon, he admits that there is a problem and tests need to be done. What amazes me is that with all the resources he has at hand, the political influence, and the friendly media at his disposal, he has never taken steps to see tests implimented himself, nor has he suggested that these tests be carried out by official sources.

it seems simon would prefer to slow the process of protecting moreton bay, by leaving it to private interests to do the testing. How many animals will die, waiting for simon to say? How much of the environment will suffer, waiting for simon to act?

simon says,.. In the testing....."I’m glad someone is doing water quality testing, should helpful if done correctly..."

which, as i have said, he admits there is a problem and the water needs to be tested.

wow!!! Sea grass is dying, turtles, dugongs, fish 'road kill', the water is getting more turbid, and all these things are happening....;

*turbid water reflects light... (sea grass)
*turbid water heats up more readily ....(the bay is shallow, and arent the oceans already warming)
*silt enters crevices where creatures wouldusually live. ...(destrys habitat)
*suspended particles can clog fish gills and introduce disease....

*possibly 10,000km of barge and ferry kms per week in the smb.
*10,000 km of fuel pollution.
*10,000 km of mud churn
*10,000 km of heavy metal spread
*habitat destruction due to turbidity
*warming of the bay due to turbidity
*'road kill' of marine life. Including turtles, dugongs, fish etc.
*increased small boat traffic for transport to mainland. (cheaper alternative to ferry charges)
*10,000 km of wave damage per week of big ships in shallow bay.


and simon is "glad someone is doing water quality testing..."


how can the environment survive when people like simon are in charge?

[PADDLES]

this is just getting ridiculous.

firstly gary puts out some real numbers (as provided by the manufacturers) and gets crucified. admitedly, the timing was dreadful with the water quality report card issue. but this is a real issue guys and boat engine emissions will shape the future of boating in our bay, it is NOT going to go away. and as for him not knowing that channel 9 would edit his interview, what does the poor guy do? do you flatly refuse an interview and let them completely make stuff up and think you've got something to hide?

and now mudrunner, someone is at least launching an investigation into your claims with the churned up water, and so they should if what you are saying is the case. but they're doing what you wanted and you're still attacking them, what gives, brother????

[TimiBoy]

Paddles, you're kinda right. Kinda.

The really huge issue here that has got everyone's back up is that Gary has connected two just about unrelated issues in order to emotionalise the debate.

The oil spill is not particularly relevant to outboard usage.

The numbers are from the Government, and we've been going nuts for ages about how much crap Government numbers are.

Gary has used a tactic which I for one have foresworn. It has always been the province of the WWF, Greenpeace, PEW, Al Gore and the like to emotionalise. It has always been something we (well a lot of us anyway) have railed against. So it is not OK for someone supposedly on our side to start using it.

On the other issue, congrats to Mudrunner for getting Dear old Simon to say something positive. I would caution this way. What Simon does and says is always on Simon's behalf. Not anyone elses. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat.

Cheers,

Tim