08-16-2016, 09:01 PM
It has all boiled down to a permit compliance hearing. The judge either rules the last step was left out, repeat it, or find enough irregularities to require the whole permit process be restarted or find the last step was a formality and approve construction to begin.
If a new permit is required, that is going to take 2 to 3 years. I support TMT but not on Hawaii island, for the sake of science. If TMT Corp had gone ahead with Atacama, they would probably have the foundation poured by now.
The estimate for TMT construction on Hawaii island is 8 years (this is not factoring the Hawaii past history of engineering projects taking 4 times longer than estimated). If a new permit is required, then construction wouldn't start until 2018 or 2019. First light was being talked about 2 years ago as 2024. This would push that out to 2026 at the earliest. The lease expires in 2033, that means 8 years of use.
TMT Corp needs to cut their losses, go to the Baja location, get on with it.
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
If a new permit is required, that is going to take 2 to 3 years. I support TMT but not on Hawaii island, for the sake of science. If TMT Corp had gone ahead with Atacama, they would probably have the foundation poured by now.
The estimate for TMT construction on Hawaii island is 8 years (this is not factoring the Hawaii past history of engineering projects taking 4 times longer than estimated). If a new permit is required, then construction wouldn't start until 2018 or 2019. First light was being talked about 2 years ago as 2024. This would push that out to 2026 at the earliest. The lease expires in 2033, that means 8 years of use.
TMT Corp needs to cut their losses, go to the Baja location, get on with it.
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*