Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 203, 11 August 1927, Page 5

Harbour Commission

To-day’i Proceedings. THE UNSUPERVISED BORINGS. MR PENGELLY’S EVIDENCE The sitting of the Commission at Napier inquiring ino the affairs <f the Napier Harbour, port, charges, and reclamation, was continued this morning, Mr J. S. Barton. S.M., of Wanganui, presiding. Associated with him were Messrs J. B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin: and A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, of Melbourne. Richard Pengellv driller, employed by the Public Works Department, stated that in February 1925. ne commenced work for the Napier Harbour Board, his instructions, being to bore both the outer and Inner Harbour for the purpose of seeing what tbs' bottom was like at both places. When he arrived first the plant available was not suitable for the job He recommended the Harbour Board that a suitable plant be obtained from the Mines Department. which was done, and the work carried out. The plant used wa. a combination drill that could be used as a diamond or percussion drill. Altogether be was engaged for eight months, making weekly reports to the secretary of the Harbour Board On the completion of the iob all / notes and documents referring to the borings became the property of the people for whom the work was done, being all handed to the Harbour Board Continuing, Mr Pengelly stated that the first plan produced showed the bore sites from the entrance of the Inner Harbour up to the West Quay a further plan showed the bore sites of the Outer Harbour. The diamond drill, said witness, brought up a core, while a percussion drill operated inside a casing, a force pump being used to bring up the material. Samples of each bore were put in glass jars and placed in the Harbour Board’s office. Whgn he first started he had been instructed to take samples of five feet of drilling. After drilling for a few weeks he took a sample of every change of strata. If there had been a man appointed to supervise the drilling at the commencement of the job it would have been all right but after the drilling had been going for about three months a man was appointed as supervisor. Witness regarded it as an attempt to discredit the drillings, and he felt so keenly on the matter that he wrote out his resignation, which was not accented Previous to this incident, witness said that most of the drilling done had been done in the Inner Harbour. He could not say where he was working at the time. Mr Barton: What did vou gather from the incident that an attempt was being made to discredit your drillings ? Witness: From a combination of circumstances Mr Barton: Who was the man appointed? Witness: A Mr Latham. Mr Barton: ■ Was he a qualified man? • Witness: He was a man of pwl repute. A man who vsas not a driller was capable of drilling. Mr McKenzie: How do vou distinguish debris from stone? Witness: By general experience as a driller. ADVISED MORE EORING. i Witness pointed out to Mr McKenzie bore 39 on a plan, which caused him to recommend to the board for their serious consideration the advisability of putting down a few more bores about that spot as owing to indications he strongly suspected a reef of solid rock in the immediate vicinity. All the bores he had taken prior to No. 39 were to the south of that bore and within the Inner Harbour. Mr. McKenzie: What makes you suspect a solid reef?—The indications that I got were the boulders in the bore. I Mr. McKenzie: Were samples of Bore 39 sent to the office —Yes. What were your general instructions regarding boring in the Inner Harbour?—l got my instructions from the office where to bore. My first instructions were to put down a chain of bores a chain distant and parallel with West Quay. To Mr. McKenzie: The next bores were put down the centre of the Inner Harbour. What were vour instructions regarding the entrance?—.To put bores down a chain apart. What were your instructions after bore 39?—1 could not say from man--OIT* 1 could not put bores down where I liked, and 1 received instructions each day from the office. Witness read his report which - M° W ! d ... that bore 39 "as done on March 30 and the report tor the week ending April 8 contained his recommendation regarding a tew more bores being put down. " b « r ® are bores 41, 42, 43. 44—No 41, 42 and 43 bores «re a continuation of a line oi bores north of bore 39. Mr. Barton: Did not the borings taken near bore 39 indicate that there was a reef of solid formation? Yes Mr. McKenzie: In some of the bores to the south of bore 39 shingle is shown, while bores 42, 43, and 44 showed boulders. Was it these that caused you to indicate a solid reetDid you receive instructions to put down further bores?—Yes, bores 51 and 52. Did you put them down after receiving instructions ?—They were put down on July 29 and 30, which was about a week later as far as 1 can remember. What difference did you find tn bores 51 and 52 compared with 39 s — No. 51 shows that at 16 feet to 35 feet I found shingle settled in layers, whilst in 52 from 23 feet to 35’ feet I found cemented shingle- Large boulders were not found ns in 39. What did these indications suggest to you?—39 and 40 indicated about the cap of a solid reef. Your instructions were to bore to 85 feet?—Yes. Do you still consider that there is a reef there?—Y’es. One that would interfere with i dredging to 35ft?—Not necessarily. It may have eroded to helow that depth, ft would lie hard to say if there would he any difficulty in dredging below 35ft. Bore No. 70 shows from 16 to 21ft shingle, and from 21ft to 35ft shingle and boulders, bore 86 from 18 to 35ft shingle and boulders, bore 87 the same.

DREDGING EXPERIENCE. Have you had any experience in dredging ?—Yes, with a bucket dredge tor gold in river Hats consisting ol alluvials with a blue reef bottom. Was it easy or hard dredging?— Easy dredging. How would it compare with that which the bores indicate? —This harbour could be dredged without a great deal of difficulty unless it runs into send formation. Do the bores indicate that it would run into a solid formation?—l never got the solid formation. You could describe all that your bores indicate?—Yes. Could you give any indications of the maximum boulders? —Often when finished we let the boring punt slack out on the anchor line and then stab down to try to ascertain the size of these boulders, but owing to the force of the current bending our tools it was a very difficult thing to do. I should say that there were boulders there up to a ton. Could you’ give an idea of the locality where you might get cheap dredging and also where most costly dredging might be met with, dealing respectively with the Inner Harbour, Breakwater Harbour, inner and outer channels?- -1 should say that outside the entrance to the inner Harbour the dredging would be fairly easy. Coming further in to the channel it would not be so easy on account of iarge boulders with the probability of running into a solid formation at about that point 1 have already indicated. Coming further in you will notice that in some of the bores is reported to be cemented shingle which would also be difficult dredging. Having heard my reports of bores 1 to 36 read 1 would describe the area as covered by them as medium dredging. It would be moi'e difficult about bore 39 than at any other part of the Inner Harbour No. 8 bore is distant about four chains north of bore 39. The dredging there would be medim. consisting of shingle and boulders. Bore 76 is oppsite the end of the eastern mole on the east side of the channel, and from 18 feet to 35 feet was shingle and silt, being easy - material to dredge. Bore 73 was four chains north of No, 39, being on the east row of borings in the channel, and 15 feet to 35 feet, was loose shingle and boulders, being medium dredging. Bore 69 on the east row of borings was almost opnosite the boat-slip, being about two riiains south of bore 39. and from 19ft to 35ft was shingle and boulders, being also medium ‘dredging. Bore 70 was due east of bore 39. from 21 feet to 35 feet, was shingle and boulders, being also medium dredging. From the bores there was not a large area that would be difficult to dredge in the Inner Harbour. Dredging at the Breakwater I regard as a simple matter compared with that in the Inner Harbour, being easy with the exception of a few points of rock Dealing with the bore furthest out in the Inner Harbour Channel, which is south of the end of the eastern mole by about eight chains, the formation from 18ft to 35ft was shingle, being easy dredging. ' Bore 76 was almost opposite the end of the east mole, and from 18ft to 35ft was shingle and silt, being dredging. Why did you recommend on July Ist, 1925. that a line of bores should be taken on shore?—On account of tlie current, to keep our drilling nunt from moving about. Such bores would overcome the difficulty. Was that recommendation carried ont? —No. It was in the track that would have to be widened if tile Inner Harbour Channel was widened Borings at the Breakwater could be carried on when not in the channel to the Inner Harbour because of the current in the channel. At rhe Breakwater there were interruptions on account of the surge. The current at the Inner Harbour, however, caused the greater interruption. Some days when their anchor-would drag in the channel they would clear out and put down a bore there ft would be a difficult matter, indeed, to hold a dredge of auv size in the channel between the moles. Mr McKenzie: Any difficulty at the Breakwater?—No difficulty at all in anchoring. The difficulty would be the rise and fall. INFLUENCE OF TIDE. fn reply to Mr McKnezie. witness said that it would be a difficult matter to hold a dredge out iu the outer channel on account of the influence of the tide that was felt for at least a distance of half a mile out. Mi McKenzie: When moving from the Inner Harbour to the Breakwater, how far out did vou keep?— About 150 yards That would be under the shelter of the Breakwater?—lf the tide was running out the boring punt used to come out with the tide ahead of the motor launch. What experience have vou had with pile-driving?—Practically none. You s&v in places that it would be either hard driving or easy driving? —The ordinary person knows that m easy formation there would be no difficulty in driving. Mr Gray: You seem to think it was a reflection on vour work to have a supervisor?—Yes. Were you aware that Cullen and Keele recommended a supervisor and the board acted upon their advice?— I may have done so. You knew that Cullen and Keele were here while you were boring?— Yes. You knew that Mr Keele recommended a supervisor?—He may have. The position was that I didn’t want the job under such renditions. What had you to be ashamed of?— Nothing. It would have been all right if he was appointed at the start. If he had been you would not have objected ?—No.

There were several discussion, by the board on this motion?—l believe

Did members of the board visit your punt?—Yes. Did a member ask you if it would be possible to deceive an inexperi. enced overseer?—l say it would be. Did you agree to put down one bore?—l made a proposition to the chairman that he could have put down a bore alongside, under super vision, of any bore that I had put down.

Did vou hear anything more about it?—No.

You made vour borings from a moored punt?—Yes. Did you have difficulty in boring straight down?—Y’es. on account oi the current.

What about the material?—That was very hard at times.

Have you had experience at horings in this class of country?—About 13 years.

You reported that there were boulders in some parts of the channel ?—Yes.

And you thought that some of them would be up to a ton in weight — Y'es.

Was it only a guess?—No, I estimated them largely by sounding when the tools dropped upon tliem. In reply to Mr. Gray witness stated that he never succeeded in getting right through a large boulder when in the Inner Harbour channel as once the tide turned the punt would get washed down. Do you think that any of the boulders you struck were washed in from the crib work and the moles?— Some of them may have been. I would consider that they would be distributed fairly evenly. In spite of the strong current you speak of?—Yes. Was it not to satisfy yourself that you wanted tn put down a few extra bores?—No, I only put them down instructed by the secretary of the board.

It was not within tiv scope of your duty to put down a bore where von suspected that any hard formation might exist?—l had no authority i-' choose bore sites. 1 never chose a bore site.

Wasn’t it left to you. being n expert, to put down bores to clear any matter up?—No; every bore I put down was at the secretary’s instructions. The only discretion I had was that whenever I got washed awav from the channel I could go to the Breakwater and continue horings. You reported having put down two bores in the channel. No. 51 and 52, one being above and one below No. 40 bore site and reported finding no reef but consolidated shingle?—Y’es. Is it not a fact that it was only from bore 39 that von ever suspected a hard formation?—Y’es, that and bore 40. The boulders there were larger and it seemed to me that that wns the apex or cap of a solid reef. DEPTHS OF BORINGS. Mr. Gray: Yon didn’t find boulders in bores 51 and 52 that you put down after making a recommendation?— No, solid reefs. In connection witn these bores you didn’t go below 30ft?—I hadn’t time on account of the turn of the tide. Hid you go back the next day?— No. in the ease of bore 40 you didn’t go below 25ft?—No. You don't know what lay beneath the reefs?—Only the supposition of a reef. It is possib'e x to find boulders lying on shingle?- ’They are likely to be found anywhere. Was there anything to suggest that the boulders in the channel were not lying on sb ingle?—l didn’t go right through them, but they were indications of a solid reef. In bore 42 you didn’t go below 27 feet?-No. You don't suggest that bore 42 indicated a reef?—l am speaking from memory. Well, look at your report.—Bore 42 is evidently not far from bore 39. The reason for not going deeper was the same as at other places. You speak of the difficulty owing to the current?—Yes. During your experience of dredging in rivers von didn’t have the s.inie trouble ?—No. (Proceeding).