Pipelines

[drpeterwardle]

I have started this thread so the discussion on pipelines van continue.

Unitof 1 is right that there is a difference with SU jobs - not about the "archive" but in fact about the ownership of artefacts which do belong to the landowner.

He also has a point when he says that archaeologists often do not give landowners the respect they deserve.

I would say however that the archaeology on pipelines - particularly at the EIA is actually massively over done. Recently I came across an EIA which offerred to excavate and sample for enviro every hedgeline crossed.

I would also say my experiences of <edit<a utility company>> in particular is far from satisfactory when it comes to the way they treat people affected by their work.

Peter

[BAJR Host]

Good to get some feedback of the BIG thing in archaeology now... but remember folks... names of particular companies are not to be used without checking with me first... thems the Rules...

See the AUP.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

David,

Sorry


"The AUO says You must not post anything that is.... defamatory,

Do Not post content that contains allegations about individuals or
companies"

I thought I was just inside this as I was commenting about how I am currently affected by the work of X.

My reference to X as well as Z and W relates to an on going saga in the village A where I live and was featured on the BBC Watchdog programme last week and has been features in news TV programmes newspapers etc. It also related to none arhaeology matters.

The Archaeology done by M for Z was done to a very high standard by the way.

I have to say I forgot about X treatment of the archaeology and if it has been done correctly. I will be checking with B on Monday and the leader of the LPA to find out why an EIA (according to the project engineer) was not carried out.

And I certainly wont mention the work by N in the area.

It has to be recongnised that there are few players involved in pipelines and so most examples are going to be easily recognisable.

However there is a debate to had about how archaeology and pipelines is undertaken. To my mind pre-permission the amount of work required is excessive.

Thus the debate is going to have to be very generic and not about isolated examples.

Peter

A apologies again if I did break the AUP

[BAJR Host]

Thanks for that Peter... I am just being sensitive just now

I have had phone calls.. and so am erring on the side of caution.

Though you are right... the issue of Pipelines in general needs careful dicussion...

I certainly don't want to stifle the discussion... though I realise it may... be er... difficult.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[1man1desk]

Posted by DrPeterWardle:

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

[Unitof1]

Dr I cant work out what you want?

onedesk have you gone through this nice little earner for authorities staring at their own bellybuttons.

http://www.planarch.org/downloads/librar...report.pdf

I only wonder as I am still not sure what an EIA should do or be....which is kind of important before taking them on

It seems to me that this self appointed EU funded mob came up with EIAs are great so we have nothing to worry about and could be slightly better if the poor authority archaeologist was given more time to liase(this conclusion was achieved by putting things in databases which seems to be the flavour of most of the system funded projects nowadays - HLC) –what I did not like about the exercise is that they concentrated on EIAs which were always going to go to public inquires and this meant that the EIAs were massively improved EIAs so that they could be defended publicly. Not really your run of the mill dodgy EIA that you get on pipelines.

Examples of EIA dodgy doodos “all topsoil stripping will be monitored by an archaeologist”

- Seems like a nice sort but what did they mean by topsoil stripping. Could it mean 300mm no matter what and stripped by seven bulldozers spread over half a kilometre? Then there’s the bog mat mitigation that’s always in there- strip open the site put a bog mat track through it put your pipe in and then when everybody has gone away reinstate the spread –which means that while the subsoil is open rip up the ground with a 1 metre deep iron ripper pulled by a D9 and to make sure do it again when the top soil is down.

We could have a whats not in the EIA section as well like should it be mentioned that the post ex will be put out to tender

[BAJR Host]

The topsoild strip would hopefully - if monitored by experieinced archaeologists (G3/4 - in my mind) then any features / sites would appear.. now you could be right about the subsoil activity... but then again... sites appear..

On the pipelines through my area.. I have targeted monitored strips.. You have good points to make though Unit.

... although - as you feel strongly about these issues... you could make these points without recourse to comments such as;
+ nice little earner for authorities staring at their own bellybuttons
+ self appointed EU funded mob

I do not see them as such... and they are very hardworking people... Just think of life without the useful Hey & Lacey (2001), Evaluation of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and Sampling Strategies.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Unitof1]

Hardworking Great flannel –in this project the problem was that no one would admit their costs (including English heritage?-good old elms farm) so making the whole exercise pointless- so what was the solution-make the figures up, as they say de Novo – was this decided at the design stage a fabulous example of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and Sampling Strategies. And how much did this ............. cost murky waters


Targeted monitored strips you devil- explain- so that the loophole may be exposed? Who do you charge to undertake the monitoring?

[drpeterwardle]

I would like to point out that EIA have there origins in the early 1980s and was introduced as European Law by the European Parliament (who are an elected body). They were not introduced into Britain until about 1988 when there was a greening of the entire political spectrum.

They were always intended only to be prepared on major schemes which the EU funded many across Europe.

By defintion therefore many EIA will be prepared for schemes which end up at Public Inquiry because of in effect their size.

Any document prepared for the planning system can be publically scrutinised and in most are now published on the LPAs web site.

Peter Wardle

[Unitof1]

Yes doctor, democracy must be good+ EIAs are supposed to have more public participation now. One of the cop outs in the nice little earner was that we were waiting for SEAs. Engineering consultant firms are all over this EU money EIA world like a rash with their interesting collection of “archaeologists”. Your local pipeline what flavour was it? Did you ever come across the EIA consent document?