this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
14 points (85.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

31797 readers
1130 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mountain area: 3,500,000 m2

Average height of the mountain: 100 meters

A govt needs some area to build some stuff. I'm trying to figure out if it would be cheaper for them to remove a mountain (this area is owned by govt so its basically free real estate), or paying individual land owners ($15-20/m2).

Point of mountain removal is to make this place suitable for development (industrial area). So probably they don't have to remove the entire mountain

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think he means, is there any value to it? Bc otherwise the cost is colossal and nobody's gonna level a mountain just to develop on the land

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Alternative to removing a mountain is to pay $70M to land owners

**So you're saying cost of removing a mountain in given size would be higher than $70M? **

[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, way, way more. Go look at how big a quarry is, compared to a mountain, and realize that took years and years of work from equipment that probably costs more than that by itself

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

way, way more ? Can you share your napkin math?

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If I read your measurements correctly, you're talking about digging up over 350 million cubic metres of soil and rock, transporting them 15km and dumping them safely. Comparing that to the cost of paying the land owners gives you a budget of approximately $0.20 per cubic metre. Ignoring the digging costs, you'd have to check what your local rates for trucking bulk soil would be over that distance, but I suspect they're more than that on their own.

Then you have the rather signicicant issue of what to do with the literal mountain of soil and rock you need to dispose of. Just dumping it is going to cause pretty serious changes to the local environment, not least of which would be a new mountain.

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks! Please do share any napkin math you can think of. This is really important to me. I could share the location with you in dm if that helps

Cost of oil, machinery should be similar to US. Labor should be 50% cheaper roughly

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm only going to do this very roughly, only for the transport and using US prices (as they're easier to find), because the total cost of mining, transporting and dumping that much material is astronomical compared to the $70m budget. Even the transport cost alone are an order of magnitude higher.

Soil has a density of between 1,200 and 1,700 kilograms or 2,645 and 3,747 pounds per cubic metre.

I couldn't easily find bulk rates for trunking soil, but bulk trucking rates for grain seem to be in the right area from what I can see. A truckload of up to 80,000lb costs somewhat over $6 per mile.

Given the weight limit per truck, and taking a middling estimate of soil density of 3000lb/m^3 (rock would be heavier and so increase the cost), we can transport around 80000/3000=26m^3 per truck, at a cost of at least 615=$90, or $3.46 per m^3. Our budget for the whole operation was 75,000,000/(3,500,000100)=$0.20 per m^3.

From those figures we can see that simply trucking the spoil fron the operation would be more than 15 times the cost of paying the landowners. That ignores all of the other costs. Local rates may be sonewhat cheaper, but probably not enough to make a serious difference, and you'd need to ship over 10 million truckloads of dirt, which would put massive strain on local infrastructure too.

[–] amksenin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

That's wonderful to hear man thank you

Do you have telegram or discord by any chance? I want to ask a few follow up questions if you don't mind