18th December 2006, 01:59 PM
Posted by DrPeterWardle:
It is true to say that some pipline EIA jobs are very thorough. That is not to say that they are effective, though. A lot of the work done in the projects I looked at was wasted, because the pipeline route was changed after the evaluations for non-archaeological reasons, and the work was not (as far as I could find out) re-done on the new route. Also, there were a lot of mitigation recommendations that did not appear to have been implemented.
As part of my research, I compared EIAs done for several different types of development, and the results showed that the overall effectiveness of EIA for pipelines was less than for other types of scheme - even where the work done for it looks like a Rolls-Royce job.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I would say however that the archaeology on pipelines - particularly at the EIA is actually massively over done.This is an issue that I have researched.
It is true to say that some pipline EIA jobs are very thorough. That is not to say that they are effective, though. A lot of the work done in the projects I looked at was wasted, because the pipeline route was changed after the evaluations for non-archaeological reasons, and the work was not (as far as I could find out) re-done on the new route. Also, there were a lot of mitigation recommendations that did not appear to have been implemented.
As part of my research, I compared EIAs done for several different types of development, and the results showed that the overall effectiveness of EIA for pipelines was less than for other types of scheme - even where the work done for it looks like a Rolls-Royce job.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished