No support for cruise port in OBC

| 14/10/2015 | 167 Comments
Cayman News Service

Proposed cruise dock for Grand Cayman

(CNS): The updated Outline Business Case does not support proceeding with the development of a cruise port in George Town but the findings are being ignored by the Cayman Islands Government, which has confirmed it is still pressing ahead. Far from finding compelling reasons to develop the piers, the consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers, found that the data is insufficient to justify the project and in some scenarios it could lead to serious economic losses along with the environmental ones.

In a report that indicates throughout the massive disparity in predictions because of a lack of information regarding visitors’ behavior, as well as assumptions being made based on unsubstantiated figures and estimates, the consultants stated on page 23: “The current data which underpin the economic and environmental impacts, including the marine resource valuation, are inconclusive and do not provide the basis for drawing a definitive conclusion about whether or not to proceed with the CBF.”

Pointing to three possible scenarios, the report reveals that questions that are fundamental to the economic rationale of the project have not been answered.

PwC indicates that under the lowest impact scenario for ecosystem services, the economic impact of the damage to the reefs would have a minimal impact on the economic benefit, but under the highest impact scenario for ecosystem services, the damage to the reefs “more than outweighs the economic benefits” of the case for building the piers.

“If ‘divers’ are on the scale envisaged and respond in the ways outlined to the loss of parts of the reef, then the costs of the CBF would exceed its economic benefits,” the report warns.

Indicating that an increase in cruise passengers, as predicted or hoped for, could see cruise tourism outweigh watersports tourism but, the report says, “The poor quality of the data currently available means that this upside scenario should not be relied upon for the overall assessment of the costs and benefits of the CBF.”

Warning that government should not base the decision on the information and statistics which underpinned the OBC, the consultants recommend that government, before pressing on, should develop a more detailed understanding of the scale of the impacts put at risk by the CBF and the anticipated behaviour of “divers” in response to loss of parts of the GTH reefs.

“This could be conducted through a detailed survey of tourists, combined with questionnaires /interviews with dive, water sports and other leisure industry operators. It will also be important to consider the ways in which the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated,” PwC added.

The OBC and additional Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA) report on shopping behavior of cruise passengers was released by government to just one media house Tuesday. The remaining press corp received a copy of the report on Wednesday afternoon. The documents are published below.

The tourism ministry also sent a statement in which it stated that the report “concludes that the estimated economic benefits to be derived from the piers exceed the environmental costs associated with the damage to the reef”, but it is not clear where the consultants make that claim given their statement that the data is “inconclusive” and in one scenario could in fact be the opposite.

Although the BREA report, which is based on data commissioned and collected for the cruise lines, may imply that the piers increase how much cruise passengers spend, the consultants also raise questions about the limitations on that data for that report. PwC said that the findings do not alter the OBC base assumptions as there is not enough data to conclude that the port should progress.

Long term data from BREA also shows it is impossible to establish any trends regarding the shopping behavior of people on a cruise vacation due to numerous variables impacting their decisions.

A local economic expert who requested to remain anonymous told CNS that the OBC has not been conducted based on any primary data, which presents a significant gap in the starting point for this project. Regardless of the environmental impact, the economic risk to the public purse is extremely significant, he warned.

A weakness in the OBC could have a long term impact on the project if government presses ahead. At a recent Public Accounts Committee meeting, Mary Rodrigues, who is heading up Project Future, indicated the most fundamental starting point for any new government capital project had to be a solid business case. (See Cultural change is biggest challenge in CS reform)

However, in its statement, the ministry spoke to the policy position that is supporting the decision rather than the economic one.

“Feedback from the cruise lines affirms the inconvenient truth that the Cayman Islands will continue to lose market share unless a berthing facility is constructed to facilitate the fast, easy and safe movement of passengers to and from their ships,” the ministry stated. “Without berthing facilities the Cayman Islands will not be in the consideration set when itineraries for these ships are being crafted and we will continue to be bypassed, as is currently the case with the Oasis ships … The question for the Cayman Islands therefore becomes distilled to, do we want to remain in the cruise tourism business? If we do, we must understand that doing so means we must provide berthing.”

PWC Addendum to OBC Environmental Economic Appraisal

BREA Sept 2015 REPORT

Ministry statement-PwC Report Concludes Economic Benefits of Piers Exceed Environmental Costs_October 2015

Tags: ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (167)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Panama has now signed an agreement with Lufthansa, and are now in talks with El-al and Turkey airlines to fly directly to Panama. They understand the importance of bringing people in for extended visits. Here we are looking for an unnecessary dock, with a declining tourists market.

    How about we work on improving the product, making it more affordable and getting people to want to come and visit??!!

    The airport is where we should be focusing on improving, along with the flights that come here.

    But no, we are building an expensive cement structure to appease a few royal Cayman families.

    Can’t make this stuff up.

    • Anonymous says:

      Guess you missed all the headlines saying the airport is under way for expansion already

    • Anonymous says:

      First of all the airport expansion has already begun, yet stay over tourism is likely to take the biggest hit in a few years when Cuba opens to the US market no matter how many 5 star hotels we build. With cruise ships they have multiple stops and with Cayman close proximity to Cuba so Cayman will benefit. The dock is necessary to stop cruise tourism declining, also lets not forget with the help of an updated cargo facility included within the current dock plans, if you want things to become more affordable here, this will play a large part of that. Also, to say the dock is for the benefit of a few Cayman families when over 3500 people are employed by cruise tourism market. Go speak to a lot of the tour operators (which are mostly Caymanian owners) and see where the vast majority of their business comes from. Cruise tourism brings $160m a year to the country. Stay over may bring higher spenders but there are less than 400,000 of them a year, even with a healthy % coming back after first visiting Cayman on a cruise ship, and we still cannot fill the hotels and condos for more than about 30% of the year. Too many people underestimate the importance of cruise tourism and what it brings to Cayman, which right now is way short of its potential thanks to the lengthy tendering process.

    • Anonymous says:

      @11:50am, your next to last statement sums up the true reason you are against the CBF,ie ” a few royal Cayman families” might benefit. The truth is if the Dart Group was building it ,you would be out there pushing for it to be built.

    • Anonymous says:

      I wonder howvlong you would last in front of the 400 Caymanians depending on cruise tourist, with your BS about a declining tourists market and a Royal Cayman Famil? Damn! We got some ignorant dudes around!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Hi Peter , Would like to ask a few questions about diving in GT. How many times a week do you dive Balboa in the day time? How about Cali? Eden Rock? Do You dive Kittiwake at night ? How many boats do You run? What is your carrying capacity? Do You hire any Caymanian dive masters?
    Land and Sea co-op members are 107 share holders who own their busses and boats , they are all Caymanians. They will be used on a rotation system which means anywhere from once a week to 3 times a week. So they can handle a lot more business if we get this dock. When they are not used they can solicit business from the dock like the rest of the taxi rank in which their business price goes to $40 per person. Land and sea after admin. costs which also has Caymanians working in the office and dispatchers on the dock also get paid. Profit for boats and busses is US$ 12 per person. We need more volume.
    Problem with people they assume they know everything about a business without asking. We know we need a dock from 30 years ago. You know you need a dock to facilitate a large cruise ship. You wouldn’t want 10 planes holding 20 people flying in and landing on a grass field, right? Cause I believe thats why tourism is low in Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. You want a Airbus 380 right? So what would make anybody else to say and different.
    Cozumel Mexico has 3 piers now , they have just opened a new one. 70,000 people depend on tourism . Only by building piers have they saved their country from going down in tourism. They face east so that means the sea and wind blows into the town. So yeah they had sargasso weed on every piece of coastline . They had people working with a rake and trash bags cleaning it up as it came in. They of course were paid. All the resorts did the same. What happened here? They could have paid people who wanted to work. Nothing happened, so why pretend we are a high class place? Why can’t they even clean their beaches? They have condos up to 44 million. Then that weed started to rot and stink. If it was me , I would be suing the strata . Oh wait a minute , they’re rich people . That means the strata would have divided the bill and they would have had to pay it themselves. Why didn’t they? A top rated beach ? Number 1? Sad.
    We will build this pier with the help of cruise lines . So ,no bill for your Grand children.
    Our population is growing and anybody that can’t see that is blind . Are you seeing how fast South Sound is selling all of their projects. Red Bay will eventually have a canal straight thru the channel it is only a small amount of time. People will want to have a boat tied up to a “dock” where they can take their families out for fishing or sailing. How long will the youth listen to old people who don’t want progress? Buildings are on there way up and higher then 10 stories. I would love to live higher, You can see more.
    But the important part of all of this is “change”. We look at our neighbors and watch how people from China and India are buying up Jamaica and getting richer . What do you think cause that? People like you causing businesses to die from stupid environmental rules which will not apply to rich investors like “Dart”.
    Don’t think for a minute that coral bleaching is not going to wipe out all the coral of the world. Its coming and no , they are not going to save it.

  3. Let me also touch on another point that seems to slide on by with hardly any comments especially from the good folks that run our North Sound trips.From what I can understand most cruise booked trips are paid for on board each ship and when all is said and done the boat(s)taking these folks out may get 10$ a head(us$ or CI$) if that much.WE are being dictated to by these Cruise Ships and as far as I am concerned YOU should ALL be getting far more per head from the ships.Is it any wonder that so man new ships are being built?The local boat operators need to take this up with our govt.You are all worth way more than you are being paid period.
    Peter Milburn

    • Anonymous says:

      If you increase the time cruisers have here the spend increases as well. The independent watersports operators will have a much better opportunity for business with piers because of how the tender disembarkment works. Right now passengers with pre-booked tours get the first tender tickets and priority to leave. Those that have not booked through the cruise lines have to wait 1-2 hours minimum to get off of the ship. Once we have berthing and all passengers can walk freely out those that would take the opportunity to arrange tours on island will actually have the time to do so. Lastly we are not talking about a huge increase in total numbers. We are talking about making the most of what we get with a slight increase over time. Cayman has fallen way behind the region in cruise growth and will continue to do so as long as we are tender only.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not true. Cozumel has longest time ashore and only $4 more average spend than Cayman.

      • Anonymous says:

        If not a significant increase in tourists, why bother with destroying the harbor?

        • Anonymous says:

          What part of Cayman you living? No report have to tell you the cruise tourist is increasing! Open your eyes and stop letting people take you for a fool!

        • Anonymous says:

          What’s your definition of destroying the harbour? I thought this major undertaking was to improve our infrastructures, the cargo dock and piers to safely disembark our visitors off their cruise ships. Do you really understand whats going on or you listening to the BS?

  4. Have not been on here for sometime but wanted to mention ONE fact that has not been brought out in all this back and forth and that is our carrying capacity.How can we possibly plan and make all these comments and NOT figure out how many cruise visitors we can handle on a daily basis and still possibly give these folks a good time that will make them come back as stay over visitors.Lets look at some numbers.Two mega ships 6000 each=12000 then add two mid size ships approx. 3500 per ship =7000 =19000 or more when u factor in crew members that will also come ashore.Now this is where the GREED steps in.Are we ONLY going to allow 4 ships per day OR are we going to let another 2-4 ships anchor or be on engine further north of the dock.Lets just say 6 ships total for the day that extra 2 will add another 6-7000 more visitors to the G/Town area and VOILA you now have close t0 25000 total passengers adding to the mass confusion which will make it look like a”chineese fire drill”no offence intended In my humble opinion we CANNOT possibly handle that many passengers safely or better yet sensibly What about our stay over visitors?These are the ones that spend the big bucks which have always been a strong point for Caymans Tourism product.I want to make this perfectly clear to all I am NOT against cruise tourism,We need it BUT at what cost if we cannot figure out our true carrying capacity?
    Peter Milburn(no I am not afraid to sign my name like so many seem afraid to do)

    • Anonymous says:

      Mr. Milburn I have heard you one the radio and a big part of your incorrect facts stem from bad mathematics. There are currently two mega ships. Neither ever cross Cayman at the same time or on the same week. During the summer only one passes Cayman currently but again they have never been in the vicinity of Cayman on the same day ever. You will only likely see one mega ships per week for years. The business case looks at a 1% and 3% increase in volume per year. That isn’t exactly doubling the numbers that we receive. We are talking about EFFICIENCY not maximizing number of passengers. As of next spring there will only be 3 mega ships of 6000 capacity in existence. We have a long way to go before having more than one mega ship in port at a time could possibly be a reality. I understand your “carrying capacity” line but your numbers just don’t make sense.

      • I dont usually reply to comments made about my blogs BUT to my learned friend I was not the one who came up with the fact that the dock would/could hold two mega ships at one time plus two smaller ships.Our Govement came up with this scenario so I was using figures in direct referernce to them so how you like them figures now BOBO??

        • Anonymous says:

          Peter I will assume you believe in evolution, which not only plays a part in man from monkey according to Science, it also plays a big part in business and developments,the future Peter, we must look to the future, a time is coming when the small ships will sell for scrap metal and we will have 4 mega ships at these piers.

    • Ginnie says:

      Good to read your thoughtful comments with the courage to own them with your name, Peter. I don’t have much of a dog in this fight but do wonder if quality of life for Caymanians, quality of experiences for stay-overs, and other quality aspects are explicated in the cost-benefit analysis. If such exists, it would be nice if CNS would link us to such work.

    • Jonas says:

      I Bull crap they will build their ships but they will never provide a written guarantee that they will come. How in the world can they guarantee us numbers of people think about it and moreover how can you guarantee per passenger spend you can’t; all you can do is guesstimate. Is that good enough reasoning is that sound rationale for the enactment of a policy by the dumbfounded CIG to proceed. To proceed to create the biggest fiasco since the fiasco of the schools.

      Can these morons predict the weather now, how long will we suffer these power hungry people to continue to destroy what was founded upon the Seas Through sacrifice, through blood sweat and tears. Why do we allow these come lately so called educated fools to take our livelyhood in their hands and destroy it all for the sake of one upmanship and based on suppositions, assumptions and skin in the game.

      Pwc has said it, the data is not there to come to a conclusion of success with this project. Why then is the conflicted CIG going to hold discussions with the cruise lines?. Is it because there is indeed skin in the game ?. The previous administration was labeled as corrupt, gamblers etc, but what difference is there in this administration who seemingly again want to gamble our resources and our future on what ; “skin in the game”. Pardon me but the election mandate given to you was not to be destructive or are we again going to invoke divine intervention?.

      Since the numbers don’t clearly fit and the prediction is for wholesale destruction of a high number of acreage of coral, and further, there is no scientific evidence or otherwise that the glorious 7 mile brach will not be affected why then, why then would this present day government insist on going further.

      People you now have all the facts they have spent our money and now we have “the facts”. Think people think, what is the “skin in the game” and whom is this proverbial skin going to benefit long term?

    • Anonymous says:

      Ask yourself what Disney did to accommodate millions, expanded, fix GT it is a dead town, that’s where you need to focus!

  5. Caymanian idiots says:

    The premier tried to get his legacy with the schools, off course he scewed thatvup.
    Now he is trying to do the same with the port, just another screw up from the ppm.
    They won’t be getting my vote this time… Out on the streets I say….

  6. Anonymous says:

    So what’s wrong with coral sunshine?

  7. Anonymous says:

    I would like someone tell me how bringing only the rich to this country is going to hire more Caymanians? I would like them to tell me how anyone beside rich people going to eat in a overpriced rest.? So are you saying segregation? So is that what you think will make Cayman better a division of the haves and have nots? First of all people working at Ritz only make good money during 5 months of the year ( in season). So what the hell are you talking about? Are you people trying to create more crime?
    We are building a port It will not destroy all the reef in GT . Coral bleaching will. What is Plan”B” ? We are losing coral all around the island, not only us but the world. Why deny it?
    Building a cruise ship port will bring rich and middle class to our island. They will have plenty to see and do. No one can bake a cake unless they know someone is coming to buy it. Its common sense that investors will take advantage of more people coming. Its just economics, more supply more demand. We need a new town for all . Build a 5-10 story building and sell or rent apts.,1st and second floor should have retail. How about a boardwalk from Boilers rd to Mary street? Make it 2 story tall so that people will have shade on the first floor but also be able to walk through retail on the second floor. People can enjoy even in the summer the cruise lines will keep coming back. Lets be unique and do something different.
    Stop complaining port will be built by outside investors.

    • Anonymous says:

      My dear boy! Of course there will be employment, we all need servants you know. Pip pip and Gin and Tonics all round!

  8. Anonymous says:

    What Grand Cayman really needs are more attractions for non diving tourists. Add a major waterpark with slides for the children to play in and a family oriented amusement center and people will come. How many times have you heard “The Cayman Islands??? Isn’t that the place with the turtle farm and the stingrays???” The island needs another attraction, not a dock.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Government just needs to get on with the dock. how many reports and studies do we need to tell us the same things we already know-THAT WE NEED A DOCK

    • Anonymous says:

      Yea we need it like a bullet to the head!

    • L. Tibbetts says:

      No. “We” don’t need a dock. Are you a feather merchant or a dockbot? You might want a dock but I don’t. The only thing it will accomplish is making some contractors rich and put the rest of us in debt. It’s too bad the CIG bigwigs don’t care about anyone but themselves.

      P.S. Why are the pro-dock sports afraid to use their names?

    • Anonymous says:

      Govrment’s biggest mistake was to promise the objectors that corals could be saved, they should have just build the port.

  10. Anonymous says:

    BREA report claims that Cayman’s passenger number and expenditure is correlated with the lack of a dock. It is a fundamental error to imply causation from correlation.

    Looking more closely the data offered do not even support a correlation. Cozumel, the destination with the most piers has the lowest disembarkation rate, only 45 minutes average longer time ashore, the lowest spend rate per hour and only $4 higher than Cayman but $71 less than St Maarten.

    What the data do suggest is that there is a fundamental difference in the cruise product and/or cruise consumer between the eastern (spend $191 and $150) and the western Caribbean (spend $115 and $120). Without other alterations, building piers will not solve that difference.

    • Anonymous says:

      What gets left out of the difference in “time ashore” is the consideration that the extra time (sometimes hours) standing in line to get back on the tenders is still considered “time ashore. I agree that there is a difference in cruise product between Cayman and Jamaica or Mexico, but as long as Cayman is tender only we will lag far behind even these inferior, less safe and less desired ports.

      • Anonymous says:

        Something else that was also left out regarding Cozumel is that like the Bahamas it also gets a lot of shorter 4 day itineries (cheaper cruises) which would raise their overall arrivals but bring the average spend down. Due to the position of Cayman, its usually on a minimum of a 6 day cruise (higher ticket price)

      • Anonymous says:

        With all that “extra” time they still don’t spend more in Cozumel. Those are our same customers. Not the high spenders in Eastern Caribbean.

  11. BREA Confuses Correlation with Causation says:

    The BREA report makes a fundamental error. Correlation does not imply causation.

  12. Anonymous says:

    for the pro-port bots…..
    if you are so confident of public support for the dock ….why would you be afraid of a referendum to be completed in the next 3-6 months?????

    • Anonymous says:

      EXACTLY!! Shouldn’t it be THE PEOPLES CHOICE!!? If you pro-dockers are correct then you have nothing to fear!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Ecowackjob diatribe. Build the dock already.

  14. Anonymous says:

    CNS: read the sentence immediately above the one you’re quoting….. “However, the poor quality of the data currently available means that this upside scenario should not be relied upon for the overall assessment of the costs and benefits of the CBF.”

    That is why better quality data was sourced. Had the Gov not done that, there would quite rightly be an outcry. So they go ahead, commission the experts in the field to get the data (yes, BREA are the experts and FYI, even the FCCA rely on BREA’s data to make their own business decisions. I’ve not seen a bankrupt cruise ship yet!)

    Once PwC had better quality data, which on top of page 25 they (PwC) describe as “ data and analysis which are more up to date than those available at the time of the preparation of the OBC…” they were able to base their calculations on facts, not assumptions.

    Using the facts, they reached the conclusion that the benefits outweigh the damage to the (less than 1% of the Cayman Islands overall) marine environment.

    Since Pwc were paid handsomely to provide an economic analysis, and they’ve told us the economic benefits outweigh the negatives, surely you’re not suggesting to ignore what they’re saying?

    • Rocktheboat says:

      It seems to me a case of lets keep piling the negative PR, with the hope that it will gather traction and public sentiments with the intention that Government will listen. I have never seen so many angles of attack like this. Can we just really be objective for crying out loud? This is at a stage of getting boring. Truly.

      • Anonymous says:

        What doesn’t help is Save Cayman scaremongering all the people that don’t live here or have any idea of our economy, that all diving on the island will be gone if the dock goes ahead (which is clearly not the case, as at least 98% of our dive sites will be unaffected). This kind of negativity is not helping anyone and its sad to see!

  15. Anonymous says:

    This whole things stinks of special interest and corruption.

  16. Anonymous says:

    People who want to come to Cayman make that decision, not the cruise industry. The cruise industry has Cayman as a destination because people want to come here. Whether we have a expensive port or not, will not change that fact. We do not need this port. It will cost us twice as much as they say at the end of the day.

    We won’t put in jet ways at the airport, but spend hundreds of millions on a unnecessary port?! We should be investing in an airport that brings tourist from Asia, the Middle East and South America, where the money is!!!!

    • Connie LeGrande says:

      Absolutely correct, 9:26. But there are those that think only of themselves.

    • Rp says:

      Well said. We aim to compete with 3rd world countries instead of aiming high for exclusivity. We have no competition for exclusivity around us but we want quantity rather than quality.

      We have an exclusive product unlike anyone around. Best beaches, best diving, sting ray city (unique world wide), high end accommodation, high end services, high end dining galore, a financial industry attracting wealthy professionals. All we need is a top class airport and heavy marketing in high end circles. Ie hedge fund conferences.

      Why do we want mass tourism instead? To crowd and destroy the exclusive experiences we offer? To drive the exclusive traveler away?

      I just don’t get it. Why can’t we aim higher than competing with Jamaica, Honduras and Mexico and soon come Cuba?

      • Anonymous says:

        Your point is perfect. Please don’t turn Cayman into “every other tourist attraction with cheap plastic souvenirs and amusement park entertainment. Stay special!

      • Anonymous says:

        3:18 Anyone who believes these islands can somehow morph from a rather scruffy, over-priced destination to some kind of exclusive, high-end product needs to go check out the local competition in this region. I’ve visited (something DoT needs to try for a change) some of the hotels and resorts that are currently bringing thousands of tourists from the UK and Europe into places like Cuba and Jamaica – trust me we have a very long way to go before we come close to them.

        The problem is DoT has created this high-end myth without really understanding what it means. High-end is not simply offering expensive or over-priced accommodation it’s a complete package of tourism products and services that these islands do not have. In fact, as UK tour operators have demonstrated for the past 10 years and more, you can have both high-end service and exclusivity without spending a fortune but DoT can’t get their heads around that idea.

        • Anonymous says:

          8:09 The problem with staff at DoT is they are so used to spending someone else’s money on travel and accommodation they’ve lost track of the economic realities that influence tourist travel planning.

          At the end of the day a 300 room resort catering for the mass all-inclusive market operating at near max capacity all year round makes a lot more money for these islands than a ‘high-end’ hotel catering for a very limited market that sits empty or near-empty most of the year.

          It’s the same problem we’re having with DoT’s refusal to embrace the Casa Particular room letting option – they simply don’t understand the concept or the economic benefits.

          How long is it since DoT actually employed someone who really understands the tourism industry? I can’t think of anyone there for at least the last 15 years who met that requirement.

  17. Anonymous says:

    MONEY, MONEY MONEY — God must wonder how so many of his flock could go so terribly astray when he gave us a reef to make money from FOREVER, and we destroy it to desperately keep an old business model long after it should have faded away. The internet is here folks, and people can buy this stuff at home. HERE they want to see the reef, and so do our citizens, and so do our overnight tourists.

    • Anonymous says:

      To 9:16
      Yea, lots of money being made from our 55 miles of reef especially off east end and north side. There is no reef in GT harbour, defination of a reef a crop of corals, rocks or sand bank just above or below the surface of the water, I wish people would stop misleading the world that cayman is going to destroy our reefs.

  18. Anonymous says:

    IT IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!! IT IS ABOUT LIFE STYLE! We like driving by our beautiful clear, vibrant harbour. Our cruise tourists (and our overnight tourists) LIKE swimming in the clear water and looking down on our lovely reefs. It is the reason they come here. I choose to put a VERY high price on my life style!!

    The marine park is a resource creating more fish for our fishermen.

    The unique shallow reefs are the most visible reefs our cruise visitors can see!! That was not considered in the reports!!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Kirk-bot pulling Mickey Mouse numbers out its @£$%.

  20. Anonymous says:

    So what is the logistical plan to continue to accept cruise ships & tenders while that major re-development project is ongoing? Will the government share that with the public? How exactly will cruise visitors (and cargo shipments) be handled?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Assume the port will cost twice as much as expected. Not an unfair assumption given the CIG’s track record of large infrastructure projects. There is not a positive case for the dock even if it came in at budget. So there is definitely not a case for taken such a big leap when real world factors are brought in. Improving and extending the airport and high end hotels have far fewer risks associated with them that the crazy dock idea.

  22. The Thinker says:

    Just sell the Brac to Carnival and lets move on with everyone happy.

    • Rhett says:

      LOL. Or to RCCL, just like Labadee in Haiti.

    • Anonymous says:

      The Brac is a liability not an asset.

      • Rp says:

        Open a high end resort and casino there and legalize ganja on the Brac only and watch the Brac turn into an asset overnight.

        Simple solution to turning a welfare island into a booming destination.

        If you can turn a desert into a tourism Mecca (Vegas), we can turn a Carribbean island into a profitable destination.

        We just need to think 21st century but our politicians are stuck in the past.

  23. Anonymous says:

    In a nutshell Price Waterhouse is saying in plain English, “We don’t know for sure, and we certainly can’t guarantee what will happen from an economic point of view once the piers have been built. Well, the majority of the Cayman public could have told Price Waterhouse that, no matter HOW many reports are prepared or how much guesswork is done at whatever ridiculous cost to this country. Risk taking is ALWAYS a part of moving forward, Cayman. This project is not, nor is there any reason whatsoever why it SHOULD be the exception to that rule. Do Mr. Dart and Mr. Leyton have any guarantees whatsoever that their projects will eventually be economic successes? No they absolutely do not, and the very plain and simple reason they do not have guarantees is that it is just not possible for anyone, anywhere, at any price to provide guarantees, or should we say, accurate projections, of this nature. They are very simply moving forward largely in good faith as all progress on planet earth must ALWAYS do. Build the piers, Mr. Premier.

    • Unison says:

      Interestingly, isn’t this how Mckeeva Bush operated when he was Premier and they gave him flack about it? You know… moving forward, skipping processes and ignoring what reports say.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is no future in the past, my friend. And most definitely not in mckeewa’s past.

        • Woof error woof says:

          7:02, I can see clearly that you don’t understand our future in tourism is d. D…doomed with the building of the monstrous piers. Who wants to have 30. Thousand people in their front yard on a given day with no space to put them. Come on get ya finger out!

    • Anonymous says:

      You are comparing apples and cart horses. Mr Dart is a seasoned international and very successful entrepreneur who is making a calculated and great success of Camana buy. CIG and your cronies are nowhere near as talented and with a proven history of project failure and severe cost overrun on white elephant projects. The evidence is there for all but the willingly blind to see.

      • Anonymous says:

        Since we have to get into this,you are very obviously too blind to see that Mr Dart’s seasoned international and very successful entrepreneurship has gotten him chased out of and banned from several countries around the world, including his own. Thanks to our admittedly less than forever honorable last government it seems Cayman is the one that is permanently stuck with him. This country has done its best to change that and is moving forward with or without the support of geniuses like yourself. Do yourself a favor and stop running your backside off behind darts money.

        • Anonymous says:

          You seemed a bit touchy with a reasonable contribution to the thread.
          If you are so comfortable with the CIG business decisions over the past 2 decades what are you worried about?
          There are a string of sound governmental decisions made by both parties. I would list them but you must know them already.
          Sleep well.

        • B. Hurlstone says:

          Great comeback, Anon 7:24! I wish we had someone with your intelligence in our Legislative Assembly!!!

      • Anonymous says:

        6:56
        You hypocrite, but you were happy with Cig when they gave you status!

    • Janet Greenspan says:

      Just for you, Anonymous 6:06 No, Mr. Dart and Mr.Leyton have no guarantees, but they have their own money to work with. Keep in mind, we do not have that kind of knowledge in our leadership, which is not good when making decisions that will cost the Cayman people HUNDREDS of MILLIONS!

  24. Anonymous says:

    Another heavy Chinese morning of action for the kirk-bots. Do they get a watch bonus for the most cache refreshes?

  25. Anonymous says:

    I would love to sit Alden down and ask the following;

    Alden, considering all that has gone on and is anticipated regarding the CBF proposal in respect to; the destruction of the environment, expected congestion, lack of clarity from the cruise lines, $200m plus (reality) cost, $40m estimated “coral relocation”, your track-record of wasteful and deplorable spending, scientific research warning against, heightened risk of vessel collision and capsize in Hog Sty Bay, a clear risk to the pristine and world-famous Seven Mile Beach (just to name a few issues) – if you were in my position and looking on,

    “Would you support YOU in this endeavour? If so, why?”

    *Help me to understand brother – because I fail to see the wisdom in this proposal. Apart from bailing out a woefully out-dated and over-stretched business model of selling over-priced jewellery (to the cheaper “Walmart-class” tourism sector – of all markets) and securing the jobs of taxi and bus drivers (as if that and any closely related industries should be a priority in this sought-after, precious, island-paradise that is the Cayman Islands) – I fail to comprehend why anyone would support this proposal. Can we please see the bigger picture folks?

    Perhaps our local rich families should open their windows and realise it is no longer 1995 out there, and try as they may, it ain’t coming back.

    Downsize. Adapt. Move on.

    – Whodatis

    • Anonymous says:

      Apologies Whodatis, but I have to agree with you. Kind of goes against the grain, especially on a wet Thursday morning, but dammit you hit it on the head this time. Best thing you have written.

      • C. Brown says:

        No apologies, Whodatis, but that’s Dawayitis! Dump the dock!

      • Anonymous says:

        Whodatis, I also agree with you, but as a non Caymanian don’t have the wherewithal to demand a referendum on this matter.
        I continue to favour a floating dock which could be installed at a fixed price. If a hurricane does damage it in part then it can be repaired without any ecological damage. GC had a hurricane in 1932 and then 72 years later Ivan came along.
        Not bad odds and the reason behind my purchasing a condo on GC.
        Whodatis, wasn’t it your idea to have specific tenders taking tourists directly from their ship to their destination? A great idea and one which would not only give the opponents of the present tender monopoly some satisfaction, but also afford the tourists with a boat trip of a lifetime for many.
        How do we go about constitutionally forcing Alden and the rest of the lodge to initiate a referendum?
        This matter is becoming more serious by the day.
        Are these people intent on milking the cow dry and then retiring to Georgia or elsewhere where they can stay out of sight from the real people of the Cayman Islands who will be left holding a very heavy bag full of debt?

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry, Whodatis, Alden would just repeat the PPM’s mantra – something to the effect of – not even God will stop this. Remember the schools? He just does not care about Cayman, nor the people, nor the environment. He and his supporters of this foolishness can’t see anything because of the $$$$$ in their eyes.

    • Anonymous says:

      Careful there whodatis. I remember one time foolio was asking Alden silly questions in the LA. He answered them everyone standing up. And when he was finished poor foolio was cross eyed and unconscious on the floor. Just sayin, who.

    • Dos Equis says:

      I don’t often agree with Whodatis but when I do, I troll him anyway.

    • Datisme says:

      It will be the UK that ultimately saves us from this mess as Alden is well aware. How does that make you feel?

  26. Anonymous says:

    “However, in its statement, the ministry spoke to the policy position that is supporting the decision rather than the economic one.”

    CNS: you seem to be forgetting the ministry drafted a Strategic Outline Case which gave 8 options, ranging from building the bees knees of a facility to building nothing and staying with the tenders.

    Pwc’s job was to evaluate the 8 options and determine which, if any, would be the most viable and develop a solid business case explaining why.

    The ministry is right on this one. It does have a solid business case… and an addendum to the business case from Pwc which lays out the economic reasons for building the piers. They could do a dozen more reports and business cases but at the end of the day, the fact still remains that most of the cruise lines are building bigger ships and they will not stop here if we don’t have piers. Don’t believe me? The Oasis ship floats by every fortnight. How many times has it stopped here? Exactly!

    As a Country, we have to decided whether we want a cruise industry or not? If we do, build the piers. If we don’t, spend the money on something else. But we can’t not have the piers and still expect to be a player in the cruise leagues. Its omelets and eggs!

    • B. Hurlstone says:

      Poppycock! The real reason the megaships would not and do not stop here is that they know that 5000 people ashore in George Town at one time would be a very unpleasant experience for their clients. Tourists…. and I have made a few cruises myself…. do not like to be crowded and jostled when they are shopping or eating or seeing whatever is offered. Believe me, we do NOT have enough “things to do” on shore to support 5000 tourists. Even Li’l Abner can see that. Don’t even THINK about two megaships!

    • Anonymous says:

      How many simplistic platitudes can you cram into one comment.

  27. Anonymous says:

    The PwC report says, “The estimated economic benefits of the Cruise Berthing Facility now exceed the environmental costs associated with the damage to the reef under the ‘low’ and ‘high’ environmental impact scenarios. Further, if BREA’s scenarios for increased spend per passenger with the CBF are taken into account, the net benefits increase substantially.”

    It could not be any clearer folks …. the benefit of the piers outweigh even the worst case environmental impact. In fact, with the projected additional passenger spend based on behaviour documented at the other ports shows the benefit to Cayman to be even more than the stated $439 million dollars!

    Good job PwC for a complete report. But, we don’t need to pay you for any more detailed studies. This one is clear enough. Time to start building our dock.

    CNS: Everyone should read p.23 carefully: “As such, the current data which underpin the economic and environmental impacts, including the marine resource valuation, are inconclusive and do not provide the basis for drawing a definitive conclusion about whether or not to proceed with the CBF.”

  28. Anonymous says:

    You’re darn right telling PPM not to ignore this report, we would be out of a massive opportunity for the Island’s economy if they do. Cruise spend over the next 20 years is in the billions if we have a dock. Keep playing around and if this gets stopped you can ask all the dive companies what the going pay is on an island that used to be a top destination.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Going back to an older article. There were documents that showed the Tender Company makes $5.50 per person on cruise passengers.
    2016 Estimates put arrivals at 1.9 Million. So if we assume not growth beyond that it is $10,450,000.
    Since these reports are looking at 20 years lets add forward. 20 years at the current rate would gross the tender boats $209,000,000
    That would go a LONG way towards building Cayman a new port for its own people rather than filling one companies pockets.

    • Just Saying says:

      If you look at it in the long run it is a good thing, but you have to look at things differently, sometimes even the less cons out weighs the pros in the long run. So the questions are: Where is the money coming from? Isn’t it going to have an effect on us (the residents)? If the Government actually have the money for this “port” what about the MAJOR issue about the homeless people?

      The Government need to take a few steps back and think about the short terms first now such as the homeless which is bad for our island. We are becoming more and more like the more developed countries (states), nothing but buildings, nothing to actually say we are proud to be The Cayman Islands because we contain our history and we appreciate the Natural recreations that we have that most places in the world don’t have. I’ve asked a few tourist about their stay, an I quote exact words – “It is rather too expensive and they hate it because there is nothing natural about it, they see nothing but constructing and a waste of their money. They leave their home to see natural and unique lives outside of their home, we don’t want to see our life styles all over again”.

      I don’t support the dock, because we have to “relocate” our coral reefs which we all know won’t survive (majority of them). We are in debt, only they know how deep, but yes bringing the port will create jobs, but who’s to say for Caymanians?? It could even mean more jobs for expats. It also mean, more money to be spent fixing it in hurricane season or when something go wrong. Who knows if bringing this port might eventually drive every Caymanian off this island? It doesn’t have to necessarily mean to say they are only thinking about money, it is very clear to see they aren’t thinking about the impact it will have on the people?

      Would either of you want to live somewhere that will have even higher expenses on you when this port fails and the Government go into an even bigger debt and have to start taking even more from your salaries and charging even more on daily needs, etc..?? This is my opinion. I’ve read many of your opinions and I don’t judge any of them.

  30. Anonymous says:

    It’s done cause it’s required. However they are not required to use anything they say in the reports. PPM, UDP, doesn’t make a difference, it’s the same outcome.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Building a pier according to BREA will impact Cayman in the following scenarios:

    Current Spend by cruise tourists in Cayman – $160,000,000.00

    Low Impact 15% growth in spend – $202,000,000.00
    Medium Impact 30% growth in spend – $227,900,000.00
    High Impact 65% growth in spend – $290,500,000.00

    • Woof woof says:

      Yeah redden these are all suppositions aren’t they?. Tell I something if Suppose had no nose would you give him yours?

  32. Anonymous says:

    Cruise growth since 2004 – Bahamas 43%, Cozumel 19%, USVI 6%, St Maarten 49%, Cayman -5%

    Cruise growth since 2009 – Bahamas 48%, Cozumel 53%, USVI 32%, St Maarten 65%, Cayman 6%

  33. Anonymous says:

    Get that dredge going – full steam ahead!

  34. Grande Cuatro says:

    So E&Y didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear (and paid for), now PWC. Who’s next in line. Better try KPMG next I guess.

  35. Anonymous says:

    here come the kirk bots…….

  36. Anonymous says:

    don’t worry,…. nothing will be done before the next election…..then expect everything to go back to square one…….its the cayman way…..

  37. Anonymous says:

    bottom line is….if this makes economic sense…just let the private sector move forward and control it….
    not sure too many investors are prepared to roll the dice on this one….(except dart….welcome to 4 years ago)…….

  38. Bob says:

    Has anybody asked the question why do we need ,any more cruise ship passengers than we already get? What can they do when they get here? Turtle Farm… great idea, send them to a place that should have been shut down long ago…. alternatively, send them into the North Sound to visit the 50 or so stingrays…. awesome, lets over-run North Sound…. or even send them to SMB…. fantastic lets bus another 5,000 up the road so they can sit on the beach, drink some cheap beer, smoke, buy chips, then leave all their crap / pollution everywhere. Have some sense people, spend the money on the airport and giving the overnight tourists who do spend some actual money here a worthwhile experience that will see them return.

    • Anonymous says:

      Money money money money money money. I lub money money. I’m scared when I think I won’t get MONEY

    • Anonymous says:

      Its not even about getting more cruise ship passengers but rather trying to protect what we have. The statement says the major cruise lines are all moving to larger ships. Oasis class was yesterday. Now they’re moving to Quantum Class! In passenger numbers its the equivalent of one and a half Oasis class ships all on the same vessel.

      Bottom line is they will not tender these ships. If Royal, Carnival and the rest cannot physically come here, what will we be left with? What will the thousands of folks who depend on the industry be left with? And how will we make up that shortfall of hundreds of millions to our economy? Cruise ship PASSENGERS alone contribute $1.67 million. Never mind about the crew and the ships themselves with whatever supplies they get while in Port.

      If we build it they will come, and the entrepreneurs among us will come up with new tours and attractions to entertain them with.

    • Anonymous says:

      Bob, we don’t need cruise tourists to pollute SMB, cayman’s finest can do that all on their own!

      • Bob says:

        Sadly you’re right. If you’ve been up near Public Beach lately it’s a disgrace. My next plan after banning cruise ships altogether would be to have some low risk offenders from Northward or Fairbanks do a dawn patrol litter pick every morning. If I was banged up I’d love that job!

    • Dena says:

      My dear Bob, you are so right on your post! Cayman should be building up the economy for the people that would spend the big bucks. Your Wal-mart scenario is straight to the point! People go to visit and take vacations to see attractions and relax. They want to see,feel and taste the island life! The tourist that come on those cruse ships don’t care about the Cayman reefs being torn up. They are trying to spend as less money as possible. They get back on the ship and eat as much as they want to because, everything was included in their cruse fare. Only the true lovers of the island life, are the ones that are hurting over this issue. So very sorry that this is happening to my beautiful island.

    • The Synthetic Caymanian says:

      Yes, Bob, I’ve asked that question many times. If anyone has been in G-Town when the ships are in, they know it’s a glommed-up nightmare. People everywhere. Clogged streets. Clogged sidewalks. Clogged shops. Clogged everything! I do my best to stay away when it’s like that. We need more stay over visitors, not trinket buyers. A better airport, not a dock!

  39. Anonymous says:

    Seems like both CNS and some of the commenters on here either didn’t read the report, don’t know how to read or are the types that can look at an orange and call it a watermelon. The ONLY thing the final OBC did was PROVE that the port makes even more sense than it did through the first round.

    CNS: Really? See page 23 (bottom) to top of page 24: Quote:

    However, the poor quality of the data currently available means that this upside scenario should not be relied upon for the overall assessment of the costs and benefits of the CBF.

    As such, the current data which underpin the economic and environmental impacts, including the marine resource valuation, are inconclusive and do not provide the basis for drawing a definitive conclusion about whether or not to proceed with the CBF.

    Prior to continuing with the CBF project it would, therefore, be valuable to develop a more detailed understanding of the scale of the impacts put at risk by the CBF and the anticipated behaviour of “divers” in response to loss of parts of the GTH reefs. This could be conducted through a detailed survey of tourists, combined with questionnaires / interviews with dive, water sports and other leisure industry operators. It will also be important to consider the ways in which the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated.

    • ANONYMOUS says:

      TEK DAT KIRK BOT!!!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Kirkbots hate pure quotable facts that show their arguments are drivel! There will be someone telling you shortly how the report didn’t really mean it, and it truly meant “just build the port”, even though it says not based on current info

    • Anonymous says:

      Hmm…ok, so to arrive at a definite conclusion, pwc asked for:

      a) Detailed survey of tourists …. check. (BREA report)

      b) Interviews with dive, watersports and leisure operators…. check (comments and feedback were, and continue to be provided.

      c) Find out ways in which potential adverse impacts can be mitigated…. check. (Benthic survey)

      Ah! So that’s why they asked for the extra reports? Well at least they (pwc) were able to make up their minds and give us a final answer that the port is worth it.

      Now we know.

      • Anonymous says:

        I find it worrying that you do not seem to have a problem with BREA (the cruise lines own data analysis and collection company) providing us with “independent” data (NOT!) but the government had to spend more unneccessary money to check up on the information provided by truly independent consultants on the composition of the reefs in the harbour. Perhaps you should read the one full page of disclaimers on the BREA report (and the PWC report for that matter!!!) and then decide whether you would gamble your personal future on it, never mind that of an entire country. Unless of course you just don’t give a hoot!! Oh, and btw, structured interviews given to a properly selected sample population is a legitimate way of collecting data, comments and “feedback” from parties (some conflicted) are not reliable data as they tend to suffer from “response bias” – much like the thumbs down that will likely accompany this comment!

        • Anonymous says:

          The government spent ‘more unnecessary money’ as you put it because the truly independent consultants asked for it! Had the government NOT spent that money I bet you’d be talking out the other side of your mouth, asking why the government didn’t go as far as possible to get the information needed? Let’s face it, a decision has to be made one way or the other. Would you rather it be made with some of the important facts missing?

          As for the disclaimers, every one of the reports, including the EIA all have the same disclaimers. Some of them run for pages, so what’s your point?

          I can only speak for myself but at the beginning I wasn’t sure one way or the other about this port. I chose to base my decision whether I supported it or not on the facts as they emerged. Having read the reports I do support it. But that’s just me. You Sir/Madam are entitled to your own opinion.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m pretty sure no one at PWC writing that analysis would risk one red cent on this project, not even the one MoT paid them.

  40. Anonymous says:

    And pray what exactly does a highly respected international consulting firm such as PWC, with experts in every field (and if they don’t have them, they can find them) know about this??

    Clearly CIG is much better informed and along with the few pro-port muppet multiple “like” button pushers on here, and have the expertise to make a decision themselves. Jeez…wake me up, I think I am having a nightmare. Alternately I could be having another day of watching Cayman interests and back scratching converge…

    Why do they bother getting experts to write these reports if they don’t follow the advice therein? Gross stupidity or gross negligence? Or both? Pretty certain the “better thought out” port lobby could sue CIG of they sign off on this in the UK courts…and win…

    • Anonymous says:

      Build the port in the Red Bay/Prospect area, where the experienced caymanians of old had suggested over 40 years ago. The reef is further out and inside of the reef is shallow. Dredge that area and create the upland, and the break water. Travel abroad and see how other countries build their ports away from the city and utilize their buildings for tourists and for other port operations (dual purpose).

      • Anonymous says:

        See what you went and did now CNS you stirred up the captains from davey jones locker. Some how they keep forgetting that if its the dredging we fear then there is no way the port goes in Red Bay or North Sound.

    • Anonymous says:

      Err…. the advice therein says the economic value exceeds the environmental value.

      I totally agree with you. It would definitely be gross stupidity or gross negligence not to follow the advice of the experts, not that they’ve told us to go ahead.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Not a surprise that PwC recommends more reports, after all that is how they make a living.

    • Anonymous says:

      Exactly right. No more consultants. This report clearly said ‘CBF now exceed the environmental costs’. PPM needs to build the piers.

    • Anonymous says:

      PwC didn’t get paid for the additional reports. They just needed the additional information to arrive at a definitive conclusion. It was up to us whether we forked out the money to get them done or not.

      • Anonymous says:

        If a slew of caveats and assumptions amounts to a definitive conclusion I guess I understand why it’s called ANALasys

  42. Anonymous says:

    CNS: Since you’re asking where the consultants make that claim check page 28 to see where PwC have stated clearly and categorically that ‘the estimated economic benefits of the CBF NOW EXCEED THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DAMAGE TO THE REEF under the ‘low’ and ‘high’ environmental impact scenarios.

    The same paragraph goes on to say “Further, if BREA’s scenarios for increased spend per passenger with the CBF are taken into account, THE NET BENEFITS INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY.”

    I expect it was because of the ‘poor quality of data’ that the BREA report was commissioned – to provide accurate, credible, factual statistics that meaningful analysis could be based on.

    You’re welcome!

    • madoff investing 101 says:

      So does the OBC consider the costs the country will have to deal with the extra load on the infrastructure? Will the Elmslie congregation be buried in poo? How will the buses take those extra people out to feed the rays without us being buried in tyres? Will we have to build new roads, power generation, better emergency services, or have more cruise ship garbage dumped at sea wash up on our shores?

      Think about this. An extra 365000 cruise ship arrivals per year equates to an average of another 1000 people on the Grand Cayman every single day. That is about a 2% rise in population. How many extra tons of garbage does that produce in a year? The cost of dealing with that eats into every cent of “profit”, if there is any.

      Commercial boat owners, the extra traffic out to sandbar will mean that there will probably have to be an expansion of the permit system and increased fees to take your passengers out there. Or it’s possible there may have to be limits placed on how many people enter the WIZ daily. You can’t make money when the larger operators own all the passes.

      Think this through, there are probably other impacts from this as well. More is not always better. This is a huge expense with high risk that isn’t worth it.

    • Real Talk says:

      Poor thing Kirk Bot #1 is hard at work again to discredit any persons asking questions about the royal family’s master plan that will be subsidized by John Q. Public. The game is over the public understands your agenda.

      Pro Port lobbyists and merchants who believe in the project and who are driving the process from behind the scenes should put some “skin in the game” and help the ppm to finance this potential white elephant as evidence of their patriotism and confidence in the project.

  43. ALL SEEING EYE says:

    Dear PPM

    Your collective political futures now hang in the balance as “There are none so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see”

    • Anonymous says:

      PPM you committed to build the dock in your manifesto. EIA proved it won’t hurt SMB, PwC proved $400+ million benefit. Time to live up to your commitment.

      If you don’t there will be mass unemployment and you risk not being reelected. Make it happen.

    • Anonymous says:

      I couldn’t agree more. They better see and hear the reports, especially the one from Pwc saying the economic value exceeds the environment value, and get this port project going.

  44. Revelations 3:45 says:

    After reading the report Moses K, Hamaty, Kirkonnell’s, G Thompson, Alden and ppm are mortgaging Cayman’s future by building their house on sand. The report is frightening and illustrates the gamble being taken to placate a few greedy merchants and short sighted politicos

  45. Anonymous says:

    Please progressives do not ignore this report. The PWC consultants seem unable to tell the government what they need to hear to justify the project just like the EIA

You can comment anonymously. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cayman News Service