Port deficit

Press, 27 September 1986, Page 20

Port deficit

Sir, — We were taught in school economics class about the principle of “the application of scarce means to alternative ends” — the problem which confronts us all — and of the importance of making the right decisions. This latter should be the function of bodies such as the Lyttelton Harbour Board. Its first priority should be the removal of the oil tank farm and the tremendous, hazard it presents. One of the oil companies has already announced that it is planning to get right out of Lyttelton, and pump its products directly over the hill to storage at Woolston. Others could do the same. Instead, the board and board members seem quite complacent over the present situation, and we are presented with two costly and unjustifiable schemes — one to fill part of the inner harbour at a cost of $lO million; the other to upgrade the coal-handling systems at a cost $6.4 million. Is it intended to go ahead with both of these wrong priorities? — Yours, etc., B. R. WALKER. September 25, 1986.

Sir, — D. S. Hart (September 23) is obviously unaware that a large proportion of both agricultural and manufactured goods is not shipped out through the Port of Lyttelton. By increasing the flat land adjacent to the container terminal, the port’s effir ■

ciency in handling both container ships and multi-purpose vessels will be improved. This will ensure that a greater proportion of the exports from Canterbury will be shipped through the Port of Lyttelton, thus increasing the revenue. Mr Drayton’s statements are far from being soundly researched. He appears to have examined his alternatives in a very superficial way, without considering either the total cost or their feasibility. The $6.48M loan was taken specifically to improve the handling rate of coal, and will be fully financed by the increased profits which will accrue from that. — Yours, etc., JUDY M. WATERS. September 24, 1986.