5 ms·

> The dam was designed by a Swiss firm of consultants and built by a German-Italian consortium in 1984. Water began seeping through in 1986, when it became appa

by atdt 11y ago

> The dam was designed by a Swiss firm of consultants and built by a German-Italian consortium in 1984. Water began seeping through in 1986, when it became apparent that the geological issues were worse than the consultants had predicted. I doubt that this was an innocent failure on their part. There was a huge financial incentive for these firms to find some way to validate this project. Successive foreign consultants warned about the risk of building this dam on water-soluble bedrock. The risk was not subtle. The planning documents for this dam should be scrutinized very closely for evidence of omission or manipulation of data, and the firms involved should be investigated. And if they are found culpable, they should participate in the costs of shoring up the dam. They have played a part in this mess.

germanier 11y ago
After more than 30 years the statutes of limitations would hinder such investigations.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  Really? Details please.
justsaysmthng 11y ago
Yes. Maybe there is evidence of manipulation of data , but who will bring the Italian/Swiss/German companies to justice ? Iraq ? US? EU? This happened 30 years ago, some people might not even be alive..
- tudorw 11y ago
  30 years is nothing in infrastructure terms, if the companies still have money in the bank, and they are guilty of something then of course they should pay, that's the business they chose to be in!
  - tudorw 11y ago
    Bhopal, event happened in 1984, some guilty verdicts delivered and sentences passed in 2010.
thomasz 11y ago
I just don't understand why you assume that the risks were not disclosed to the government. In my eyes, it's way more likely that the government decided to go ahead anyway. This was one of Saddam Hussein's prestige projects - telling him that it couldn't be done could've been fatal.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  If those firms knew if the extreme risks then they should have decided not to accept the work! I think it's pretty much a given that Sadaam Hussein, even back then, was a dictator who wouldn't necessarily put the safety of his people first.
  - yiyus 11y ago
    I do not think that because he was a dictator he would not care at all. Probably, he did not want to destroy Mosul and all its people. And even if this did not worry him, taking into account that he was doing this for publicity (either internal or international), he would not have wanted the dam to fail and kill thousands of people.
    - ansible 11y ago
      Yes, if he wanted to kill all the people of Mosul, I'm sure there would have been a lot things that could have been done for much cheaper than building a dam, and maintaining it for 30 years. Bad does not equal stupid.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Iraq was relatively friendly with the US up until its invasion of Kuwait. We liked Saddam back when his main thing was fighting the Ayatollah.
- metafunctor 11y ago
  Isn't that a very good reason for not telling the truth to government?
dan1234 11y ago
Judging by the Wikipedia entry[0], engineers did warn of it and propose a solution, but it would have slowed construction. > Because the dam was constructed on a foundation of soluble gypsum, the engineers recommended the implementation of a grout curtain within the foundation before the superstructure was built. Instead, to speed construction of the dam, engineers installed a grouting gallery that would allow continuous grouting of the dam's foundation in order to promote stability. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Instability_and_remediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Instability_and_reme...
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  And of course the backup solution has worked for 30 years, it is only failing now because the war has made the availability of workers and cement scarce. As I read through some of the pages on the this it seems like the "grouting gallery" would eventually have created the seal necessary. So I get that it was not the choice one would use in hindsight, I can also see how people at the time weren't thinking "Well what happens if the government is overthrown and we're in civil war and can't do the grouting?" No, doubt if that came up someone said "Well if that happens we'll have worse problems than keeping this dam fixed! har har har." (as you can tell I really dislike it when people use that as an excuse for allowing technical debt to be created)
  - meric 11y ago
    Also, back then, Saddam Hussein was an effective leader who kept his people in control, and Iraq was one of U.S.'s staunchest allies, it would have been hard to imagine U.S. would be the invaders that would create the power vacuum for rebels launch a civil war. "Well what happens if we get invaded?" "Not going to happen while we're U.S.'s best buddies." "What about a rebellion?" "With Saddam Hussein? Impossible. Iraq is a stable country."
    - kahirsch 11y ago
      > Iraq was one of U.S.'s staunches That's quite an exaggeration. Iraq and the United States didn't even have diplomatic relations from 1967 to 1983. The U.S. did help Iraq when it looked like it was going to lose the war it started with Iran, but it was mostly intelligence aid since Congress refused to lift the arms embargo against Iraq.
Retric 11y ago
It's not necessarily a faulty design. It simply requires maintenance that's not happening just like you car engine needs oil and you need to keep swapping that oil out after a while. ex: A spent fuel pool is actually really simple and 'safe' just add water and keep cool. That does not mean you can walk away and not touch one for a year and expect everything to be ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
- mckoss 11y ago
  Yes, but it's not "fail-safe". Building a massive dam above a million person flood plain, that requires continuous aggressive maintenance seems short sighted at best.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Dictatorships are not known for wise decisions.
carsongross 11y ago
This is one reason why "skin in the game" (to use Taleb's phrase) and social solidarity (to use mine) is so important in economic matters. During my libertarian days, I used to mock the folks that suggested tariffs and favoring local companies in infrastructure projects were good ideas. I now regret giving so little thought to their arguments.
- swehner 11y ago
  Wouldn't this apply to most dams around the world? Designed, constructed by foreigners?
samstave 11y ago
>atdt Now there's a name I haven't heard in a very long time...

by atdt 11y ago

germanier 11y ago

After more than 30 years the statutes of limitations would hinder such investigations.

kwhitefoot 11y ago
Really? Details please.

justsaysmthng 11y ago

Yes. Maybe there is evidence of manipulation of data , but who will bring the Italian/Swiss/German companies to justice ? Iraq ? US? EU? This happened 30 years ago, some people might not even be alive..

tudorw 11y ago
30 years is nothing in infrastructure terms, if the companies still have money in the bank, and they are guilty of something then of course they should pay, that's the business they chose to be in!
- tudorw 11y ago
  Bhopal, event happened in 1984, some guilty verdicts delivered and sentences passed in 2010.

thomasz 11y ago

I just don't understand why you assume that the risks were not disclosed to the government. In my eyes, it's way more likely that the government decided to go ahead anyway. This was one of Saddam Hussein's prestige projects - telling him that it couldn't be done could've been fatal.

chris_wot 11y ago
If those firms knew if the extreme risks then they should have decided not to accept the work! I think it's pretty much a given that Sadaam Hussein, even back then, was a dictator who wouldn't necessarily put the safety of his people first.
- yiyus 11y ago
  I do not think that because he was a dictator he would not care at all. Probably, he did not want to destroy Mosul and all its people. And even if this did not worry him, taking into account that he was doing this for publicity (either internal or international), he would not have wanted the dam to fail and kill thousands of people.
  - ansible 11y ago
    Yes, if he wanted to kill all the people of Mosul, I'm sure there would have been a lot things that could have been done for much cheaper than building a dam, and maintaining it for 30 years. Bad does not equal stupid.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Iraq was relatively friendly with the US up until its invasion of Kuwait. We liked Saddam back when his main thing was fighting the Ayatollah.
metafunctor 11y ago
Isn't that a very good reason for not telling the truth to government?

dan1234 11y ago

Judging by the Wikipedia entry[0], engineers did warn of it and propose a solution, but it would have slowed construction. > Because the dam was constructed on a foundation of soluble gypsum, the engineers recommended the implementation of a grout curtain within the foundation before the superstructure was built. Instead, to speed construction of the dam, engineers installed a grouting gallery that would allow continuous grouting of the dam's foundation in order to promote stability. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Instability_and_remediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Instability_and_reme...

ChuckMcM 11y ago
And of course the backup solution has worked for 30 years, it is only failing now because the war has made the availability of workers and cement scarce. As I read through some of the pages on the this it seems like the "grouting gallery" would eventually have created the seal necessary. So I get that it was not the choice one would use in hindsight, I can also see how people at the time weren't thinking "Well what happens if the government is overthrown and we're in civil war and can't do the grouting?" No, doubt if that came up someone said "Well if that happens we'll have worse problems than keeping this dam fixed! har har har." (as you can tell I really dislike it when people use that as an excuse for allowing technical debt to be created)
- meric 11y ago
  Also, back then, Saddam Hussein was an effective leader who kept his people in control, and Iraq was one of U.S.'s staunchest allies, it would have been hard to imagine U.S. would be the invaders that would create the power vacuum for rebels launch a civil war. "Well what happens if we get invaded?" "Not going to happen while we're U.S.'s best buddies." "What about a rebellion?" "With Saddam Hussein? Impossible. Iraq is a stable country."
  - kahirsch 11y ago
    > Iraq was one of U.S.'s staunches That's quite an exaggeration. Iraq and the United States didn't even have diplomatic relations from 1967 to 1983. The U.S. did help Iraq when it looked like it was going to lose the war it started with Iran, but it was mostly intelligence aid since Congress refused to lift the arms embargo against Iraq.

Retric 11y ago

It's not necessarily a faulty design. It simply requires maintenance that's not happening just like you car engine needs oil and you need to keep swapping that oil out after a while. ex: A spent fuel pool is actually really simple and 'safe' just add water and keep cool. That does not mean you can walk away and not touch one for a year and expect everything to be ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool

mckoss 11y ago
Yes, but it's not "fail-safe". Building a massive dam above a million person flood plain, that requires continuous aggressive maintenance seems short sighted at best.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Dictatorships are not known for wise decisions.

carsongross 11y ago

This is one reason why "skin in the game" (to use Taleb's phrase) and social solidarity (to use mine) is so important in economic matters. During my libertarian days, I used to mock the folks that suggested tariffs and favoring local companies in infrastructure projects were good ideas. I now regret giving so little thought to their arguments.

swehner 11y ago
Wouldn't this apply to most dams around the world? Designed, constructed by foreigners?

samstave 11y ago

>atdt Now there's a name I haven't heard in a very long time...