Чорні Троянди: Oleg Lukawy - Google+ :: Крымский мост: хроника грядущей трагедии | Crimean Bridge: Chronicle of the Coming Tragedy

Чорні Троянди: Oleg Lukawy - Google+ :: Крымский мост: хроника грядущей трагедии | Crimean Bridge: Chronicle of the Coming Tragedy

Crimean Bridge: Chronicle of the Coming Tragedy

• charter97.org
• View original

The bridge is almost literally built “on sand”.

I began to follow the construction project of the Kerch bridge more than two years ago. This was explained not only by the narrow-minded interest of the person looking through the news, but also by professional goals. For several years I have been doing applied hydrogeology in Israel. Basically, for various construction projects, among which there are very large-scale and very complex, requiring non-standard and complex solutions.

Further, the story goes about my third-party observations of the construction of the Kerch Bridge (CM). I am in no way involved in this project and my thoughts will be purely academic in nature, based on official information. I'll warn you right away that the article will be large, but, in my opinion, interesting. True, at first, it may be boring, but with the gradual disclosure of the topic, it will not be boring anymore.

I had a particular interest in building CM after watching a famous video on Youtube with a recording of an interview given by Yuri Medovar , a famous Russian scientist and senior researcher at the Institute of Water Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In this interview, Yury Anatolyevich described an extremely unfavorable picture and forecast for the construction of this bridge. He mentioned the fact that the project had already once, in the Soviet years (EMNIP, somewhere in the 70s), was turned over by an expert commission, despite the desire of the top party leadership of the USSR to implement this project. The reason for “wrapping up” the project was mainly related to unfavorable geology.

Among the problems of the project, Yuri Medovar listed also multimeter loose silty bottom sediments and so-called. “Quicksand” [note: Fluke refers to a drifting liquefied soil consisting of colloidal particles of sand and clay, which bind larger particles. Formed mass, supersaturated with water, able to spread and move under the influence of interstitial pressure. ] and mud volcanism [This is when the “mud masses” concluded somewhere at a depth between some layers of the soil, as a result of some kind of bedding, is released under enormous pressure and start beating a “volcano”. The phenomenon is quite typical for this area, as there are many documents and even video testimonials on Youtube].

Among the geological difficulties, Yuri in the interview called and the so-called. “Karst voids”, but this phenomenon in the zone of the bridge construction has not been further confirmed. Those. Karst voids are nearby, but they are located, as I understand it, not at the bottom of the sea, but rather on land. In general, this particular thesis voiced was wrong, which was later widely used for numerous criticisms, attempts to discredit and outright trolling, not to say this harassment against Yuri Medovar by opponents of all stripes. But more on that later.

Strictly speaking, the notorious karst attracted my main attention. It happened because I was engaged (and engaged) in one Israeli construction project, where the topic of karst voids in the coastal sea zone repeatedly surfaced and promised major difficulties. I contacted Yuri Medovar and spoke with him in more detail and in detail. Then I realized that, despite the absence of karst voids (information on them was not confirmed upon closer examination), the project for the construction of the Crimean bridge still looks very problematic. But the real extent and depth of the problematic character and danger of this project became clear to me much later, as I went deeper into the details.

I will try to present everything in the most orderly and correct form.

An overview of this project is complicated by the fact that some of the important materials are not publicly available. Therefore, I will only refer to well-known facts, materials and publications. On the Soviet, and then the Russian GOSTs and SNIPs [SNIP - Building Norms And Rules], on the publication of the off-site sites related to the construction of the Kerch / Crimea bridge and on Wikipedia materials (especially when it comes to quite simple things) . I will deliberately try to express things as much as possible in as simple and understandable language as possible and avoid complex or professional terms.

And so, let's start with geology. Since it was she who, in the first place, is the Ahiless heel of this project and the reason why the Soviet examination then wrapped it up. There should be a reservation that in the USSR such projects (to connect the peninsula with the mainland by a bridge or dig some giant strategic channel) were taken at the Politburo level and, to go against the demands of the top leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the experts had to have serious arguments and big enough courage. And the scientific community itself must have a strong authority and ability to say “no”, without fearing for its future and career. But it is in brackets.

In the mid-70s, geo-surveys were carried out and then published, in the course of which geo-engineers drilled several research wells in the area of ​​the planned construction and conducted a laboratory analysis of soil samples to determine their physical properties. The maximum drilling depth reached about 70 meters. The results of the study were published and until recently were available on the link as well in the article on the construction of CM in Wikipedia.

This file is posted on the official source in PDF format, available for download and increase. Separate enlarged fragmatni I will post here for readability.

What you should pay attention to: Usually, serious engineering structures, such as railway bridges, where serious loads are assumed, are usually based on solid ground bases. To do this, drill or hammer in special piles, which are based on these hardest soils. If we base a massive structure on an insufficiently solid base, its individual parts or the whole structure may completely subside unevenly, deform and, eventually, collapse.

Hard rock is best suited for piling. But they are not always available. Under certain conditions, it is possible to use sand instead of rocky soil. This is less preferable. Spice and loam is also not very well suited, but if you drill into them very deep piles, then, in principle, they can carry a certain load. Undesirable reason for structures with large loads, as a rule, are clays. This is due to a number of unique properties of clay, including long-lasting and uneven in time subsidence of piles in clay. Now I will not go deep into the maze of engineering geology, especially since this is not my profile, I’ll just note that I also had to face the unpleasant “surprises” of clay in my work several times. These surprises were connected not so much with subsidence of supports (in Israel, In the projects in which I participated, geo-engineers in especially massive structures almost always pierced clay and tried to drill to the rocky ground, since geology most often allows for the ability of the clay to transmit the deformation over long distances. Thus, the overpressure of groundwater, as a result of certain works, on one section of clay at a depth of 15 meters gave deformation and a crack in the same layer of clay at a distance of more than two hundred meters away from the point of impact. When we got into the literature, in order to understand at what distance the clay is able to “transmit the deformation”, it turned out that there were cases when the deformations were transmitted almost 2 km to the side. In general, geo-engineers in this sense do not like clay. Although for small constructions it is not relevant. And for large structures, with a great desire, you can rely on clay. True piles will have to drill a huge depth. Example: Lakhta Center in St. Petersburg. Piles to a depth of 65 meters and a huge diameter - 2 meters. Truth and clay there, according to geologists, is special, very hard, Vendian, Precambrian with a formation of about 630 million years and its unique physical properties are almost as good as hard rock.

For visual comparison, imagine a dental implant (this topic, at least superficially, is familiar to many readers). Any decent dentist, before attaching the implant, takes a picture to make sure of the carrying capacity and strength of the “ground”. If the bone is not strong enough or dense, the implant can not be fixed. In some cases, carry out the compaction of the "soil". But you can not mount a tooth on a loose weak bone. More precisely, technically, if the doctor is dishonest, he can do it, but it will end sadly.

In the case of a railway bridge, unacceptable subsidence or deformation may lead to disaster after a while. And, even if by luck, people do not die, we will talk about huge economic losses.

Be that as it may, the Soviet, and then the Russian guests, forbade the use of such constructions on anything other than a solid rock foundation. I specifically emphasize this point. Not even on the sand. And not on clay. But, as we can see from the above geo-surveys, at a depth in which, according to construction plans, CMs must rest on piles (up to 58 meters in depth) no rock base was found (see the bottom line of the table highlighted in red). Moreover, not even sand was found there. But this is not enough - even clay was not found there.

The upper layers - Il - loose and porous, then sands and sandy loams of varying degrees of density, several clay inclusions, and the lower layer, on which, actually, the piles of the bridge rest - semi-solid clay.

What are semi-solid clays and how do they differ from solid? In general terms, even the name itself speaks about it. It is clear that the degree of their semi-hardness or semi-liquid is different. It is determined by a whole series of coefficients, the most obvious for a simple man in the street will be the density (in grams per cubic meter) and porosity - highlighted in red in the table above. For comparison, I selected the top layer - silt - characteristic low density, about 1.6 g / cm and high porosity, also about 1.6

(coefficient of porosity is determined by the formula er = (ρ s - ρ d) / ρ d, where:

ρ s - density of soil particles, g / cm3

ρ d - density of dry soil, g / cm3)

What is loose sludge knows everyone who swam in a heavily silted body of water and tried to become feet on the bottom. Unpleasant and eerie sensation, when the legs gradually and smoothly fall down, like in a swamp, I, for example, remember from childhood. So, if you compare the density and porosity of this same sludge (geological index mQIVnch) in the table with the density and porosity of lower semi-solid clay (geological index N1Sb), you will notice that they are almost comparable. To make it even clearer, I will clarify that the density of water is 1 g / cm, and the density of water-saturated sand (and our soil is under water, the sea is above it) 3 - 3.2 g / cm. As you can see, the density of semisolid clay is 1.6 g / cm. - it's not even halfway between water and sand.

Now you can understand why the Soviet expertise rested horn, not wanting to put their signatures on this project? After all, the one who approves the project and signs an expert opinion, in which case it will be in the dock. And there were precedents.

Now imagine that this is not just about a nearly twenty-kilometer railway bridge, with huge loads and huge windage (storms, waves, side wind, trains), and this is also about a seismically dangerous zone, where tremors of various forces occur regularly. The designers of the new bridge insist that it is enough to drive piles of 58 meters and everything will be fine, but is this semi-solid clay suitable as a base for the supports?

In an article on Wikipedia (which is constantly being edited and rewritten) there was such a description of the construction of a pile foundation, I quote:

“Tubular piles are immersed by a vibratory pile driver through the use of the thixotropy effect, i.e., the loam’s fluidity from vibration, so the pipe very quickly (about 40 minutes) sinks into the loam tens of meters almost like a viscous fluid just under its own weight. light clays at a depth of about 50 meters; they are submerged to the full depth with blows of a hydraulic hammer [49] "

“Trash!” - you say? But this is not a thrash. The most trash ahead. I checked, in the current version of the Wikipedia article, this colorful description is no longer. Removed away from sin. But in the history of edits you can find it.

Here again, in parentheses, I want to note that on the Internet, I have been discussing this topic for a long time and have been voicing the theses voiced hereinafter, repeatedly in different places, at odds with each other. Sometimes it seemed to me that it would be worthwhile to voice some problematic moment with reference to an article on Wikipedia, how, after a while, a problematic piece of text from Wikipedia disappeared or changed. Maybe a coincidence. But some kind of straightforward coincidence. Anyway, I saved important materials on my computer. And, I foresee that after the publication of this article, Wikipedia will once again rule the most violent pace. But we will continue in order.

And so, the piles are supported in these semi-solid / semi-fluid clays, not even in sand, and the SNIP requires only the presence of a rock base:

SNIP SP 14.13330.2011 Construction in seismic areas.

Updated version of SNiP II-7-81 * Section 7 Subsection 7.4 7.4 Bridges "7.4.3 Arched bridges may be used only if there is a rocky foundation. The heels of the arches and arches should be supported on massive supports and placed as low as possible. pass-through. "

Anyone can google this SNIP by its code number. It would seem that there is an end to the dispute! What turns out - by the order of V.V. Putin they are building a giant state project with a flagrant violation of state building norms and rules? But it was not there. Remember the joke?

- Machine gun, fire!

- No bullets, Comrade Commissioner!

- But you are a communist!

The gun was stuck again.

As it turned out, the SNIP 2017 is almost backdated. Date of entry into force, attention! - from June 17 (!) 2017

We look at point 8, which concerns the construction of bridges.

The prohibition to support the bridge supports (generally somewhere) is absent. There was a ban with a very unambiguous phrase “only when there is a rocky foundation” and suddenly it was gone. It was not replaced with something less solid or something less rocky, it was simply removed. As you want - just understand. What do you want - on that and lean the railway arch bridge? Instead, they made some kind of vague definition:

8.1.7 Bridge piers should not be located in areas where underwater flows of loose marine sediments move and near mud volcanoes. If it is impossible to avoid building piers of the bridge on an underwater slope covered with loose silt and sand, it is necessary to count on the hydrodynamic pressure of the water-sand flow.

Like this. No ban. He carried out calculations and supports, even in loose sludge, even in floats, even in semi-liquid clays.

It turns out that for the sake of the decision of V.V. Putin rewrote SNIP. Moreover, at the time of entry into force (from June 17, 2017), construction was already in full swing and the piles, for the most part, had already been beaten. Those. if I understand correctly, the construction was legalized in an afterthought? In general, you see, it all looks very bad. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is impossible to do this. This is not just not fair, it is also just elementary dangerous. After all, we are talking about the construction of the largest facility. At stake is human life, after all.

Remember, at the beginning of the article I specifically highlighted the history of the Soviet expertise. After all, they did not begin to rewrite the GOSTs, for the sake of power. And now, it turns out, steel.

But this SNIP concerns not only the situation with the CM (although it was clearly written under it). This SNIP is now valid on all bridges of the Russian Federation. Will this have any consequences? It is hard to say. It seems to me quite probable that there will be unpleasant consequences.

By the way, as you understand, being in Israel, I do not follow the Russian SNIPs. And I learned about this stinking story by accident, in a curious way. In one endless and, I must admit, stupid dispute with another violent Russian patriot, they began to accuse me of not knowing the Russian SNIPs. Which is certainly absolutely true. But to know the SNIPs of a particular country is not at all necessary to understand the absurdity of supporting the huge railway bridge on semi-solid, saturated clay of low density and high porosity (see the table with the coefficients above again). There is enough basic knowledge and common sense. To show that such nonsense in SNIPs can not be, I got into Google. Opponent also climbed. And then it turned out that we quote the opposite rules in their essence. Thus, I learned about the entry into force on June 17, 2017 of the new, “Putin's” version of SNIP. “Putin’s” in the sense that he adjusts retroactively to his decision to build this bridge.

I discussed this circumstance with Yury Anatolyevich Medovar. He commented on this with rather harsh words to the authors of innovations in SNIPs and even tried to draw public attention to this topic. But public attention, as I understand it, is not particularly willing to delve into such nuances.

Moreover, for every word spoken by Yuri Medovar, crowds of patriotically sharpened, trained Internet trolls jump in, endless complaints and denunciations of work are written to him, and even on Facebook he practically does not get out of the bans, where he is sent regularly by mass complaints.

So, to summarize: as the basis for the piers of the Kerch / Crimea bridge, there is a very problematic ground, namely, semi-solid, water-saturated clay of high porosity and low density. The Soviet and Russian GOSTs and SNIPs categorically did not allow the bearing of railway bridges to such a foundation. Then there is a sudden disappearance of such a ban in SNIPs from June 17, 2017.

Well, well, in the USSR, geology was a serious science and we have no reason to disbelieve the geo-surveys of the 70s. But still, before the start of construction of such a serious project, additional geo-surveys should have been carried out. Moreover, the results of the Soviet geo-surveys are so disappointing. Logic and common sense suggest that, if the project management is ready to take such a risk, they should have drilled a lot of additional research wells, drilled them deeper than in Soviet times and explored in more detail. Where are these new results? Where are these new additional data? Where are the refined coefficients? If the Soviet results cause such serious concerns, wouldn't it be right to dispel them just as publicly?

But for some reason, no one has published anything new. With this annoying perplexity, I also turned to Yuri Medovar - did he come across these new updated tables? Here it should be confessed that the answer of Yuri Anatolyevich caused in me a distrust of his words. He expressed the assumption that the new bridge builders did not do any serious geo-searches, they say, they received the order of Putin and began to sculpt a frank hack.

Knowing some tendency of Yuri Medovar to straightness and some sharpness in expressions, I certainly didn’t believe in that. Well, simply because this could not be! It is impossible to treat such a huge state project as carelessly as it came out of his words. But the reality was worse than any, even the most daring assumptions.

Since I have no direct access to the project materials, information about additional geological surveys became known to me from the media with some delay. By the way, the appearance of this information was accompanied by some scandal, but for some reason it seems to me that very few people understood and appreciated the scale of the scandal that surfaced.

And so, in December 2017, an article appeared in Kommersant “It’s impossible to approach the Crimean Bridge. The project of the railway approach will have to be corrected because of the soil ”

The article raises a number of unpleasant topics, but let's pay special attention to a few points. Further quotes: “As the sources told“ Kommersant ”, during the implementation of the project of construction of railway approaches to the Kerch bridge from the Crimea, there were problems with the soil used for the construction of the subgrade. The project was developed by the St. Petersburg Lenpromtransproekt at the request of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Krymskaya Railway (CR), which was directly subordinate to the region, but, one of the Kommersant interlocutors emphasizes, the document turned out to be “poorly prepared”. As a result, Roszheldor turned to the general contractor Stroygazmontazh (SGM) with a proposal to make an adjustment.

The maximum cost of work to solve this problem is 2.9 billion rubles, the real amount and sources of financing "will be known later." In the Ministry of Transport, “Kommersant” confirmed that the need for re-engineering surveys was caused by poor-quality work done by Lenpromtransproekt JSC, in connection with which Roszheldor sent an appeal to the prosecutor's office. Repeated surveys, added by the Ministry of Transport, will be conducted by Stroygazmontazh. ”

And so, KZD ordered engineering surveys from Lenpromtransproekt (the very ones that Soviet geoengineers had already done sometime in the 70s and which should be supplemented and clarified). Lenpromtransproekt did the work from the very bad, poor quality. And so much so that the case was transferred to the prosecutor's office.

And what can Lenpromtransproekt say in its defense? Further quotation:

Lenpromtransproekt clarifies that the fault lies with the subcontractor. Rostislav Shkurko, general director of the company, reminded “Kommersant” that the company received a positive conclusion from Glavgosexpertiza in June 2016, “all the work was done qualitatively, as evidenced by positive conclusions both on the technical and price audit and on the technical and estimated part of the project.” Engineering research on geology on a subcontract was performed by Krymstenergoproekt LLC both on the railway approach and on the road, says a top manager. Based on the drilling materials and laboratory tests obtained, design solutions were developed, the construction time in accordance with the construction organization project was 29.7 months, but the contract with Stroygazmontazh was concluded only in April 2017, notes Mr. Shkurko. At the beginning of construction, he explains, according to the results of the test drilling, it was revealed that the actual properties of the soil differ from the survey materials made by Krymsteenergoproekt LLC and used for the design.

Omitting everything superfluous for a time, we briefly summarize for ourselves the main essence of what happened:

In 2015, conducted geo-surveys. These geo-surveys were approved by the Main State Examination, confirming that all the work was done qualitatively and gave a positive conclusion.

In 2017, when they started the practical part, the builders found a discrepancy: “the actual properties of the soil differ from the survey materials made by Krymssetenergoproekt LLC and used for the design. “

In other words, instead of geo-surveys, I did some kind of mess up. And this crap approved at the highest state level. And when it turned out that it was impossible to work with lazy, the customer of Lazy (CZD) began to blame the contractor (Lenpromtransproekt), and the contractor to blame the subcontractor (Krymstenergoproekt) and snarl, maliciously mentioning Glavgosekspertiza.

And so, we are talking about those new geo-surveys (or about a part of these geo-surveys) that I tried to find so long ago and on the trail of which I finally attacked. The final link in the above chain was Krymssetenergoproekt. The fact that this organization did not try to blame anyone for anything inspired me with optimism and a premonition that I finally found those who did such important geological surveys. And I went to Google.

The results, I must admit, I was a little shocked.

Judging by the name - "Krymsetenergoproekt" - I was expecting to find some solid company, but it turned out that Krymssetenergoproekt is a lime office in the best traditions of Ostap Bender. LLC “Horns & Hooves”. This office was recorded for some two aunts - Leontyeva Antonina Valerievna and Polyakova Maria Azaryevna. The authorized capital of this mega corporation is 10,000 rubles (in words: ten thousand is just over $ 150 at that time). The authorized capital of both owners is divided equally - by 5000 p. on the chairman. I can not believe it, right?

At the same time, I ask you to pay attention that Maria Polyakova is also the general director and (attention!) An employee who has the right to sign. not less capacious and solid name "LLC Krymproektinfrastruktura". With the same share capital of 10 000 rubles and the founder of this sharashkina office is the previous sharashkina office:

Both offices emerged in 2014 (the first in May, the second in September), both are decorated with the same aunts, both have an authorized capital of 10,000 rubles, both are tied to the construction of the Kerch bridge, and both have unique financial reporting Several hundred million rubles (from what I managed to google, at least 311 million rubles), they somehow managed to work exclusively at a loss. For example, here is a chart of financial statements of Krymrog & hoof LLC from the link above:

Once again, I am not a lawyer or an economist. Maybe I don’t understand something, but from the graphs of the official financial statements it’s clear that it’s like a strange LLC with a registered capital of 10,000 rubles, first pumping more than 200,000,000 rubles into a super-profit, and then bankrupt, pumping everything out of it paper clip. If you follow the link to "Krymproektinfrastruktura LLC", you will see a similar graphic picture - first pumping up super-profits, then bankruptcy. Share capital (Wiki: Share capital determines the minimum property of a legal entity guaranteeing the interests of its creditors.) $ 150 is hardly enough to cover multimillion-dollar losses.

An acquaintance of a Russian lawyer, to whom I showed these strange financial statements of the aforementioned LLCs, suggested that we are talking about “ordinary“ companies-launderers / pads ”created for cutting the budget.” Regarding the founders of Leontyeva Antonina Valerievna and Polyakova Maria Azaryevna, he suggested that we are talking about some completely left, dummy aunts, on whom (or even on their passports) someone issued the necessary documents. They say that any Baba Masha or Baba Antonina are not necessarily aware of the fact that they are engaged in geo-surveying for several hundred million.

I don’t know if this is true, I don’t know whether the aforementioned women know what they are doing or not, whether they are alive at all and whether Maria Azaryevna Palyakova understands that putting a signature on a geological survey also carries criminal liability (and not only for financial fraud, but also for the possible death of people in the event of a bridge collapse).

It is very similar to the fact that under the guise of geo-surveys, they simply stole a lot of money. But this, oddly enough, still half-troubles. In order to understand the other half of the trouble, let's summarize again:

1.) We have an extremely complex construction project of a multi-kilometer bridge, across the sea area with extremely complex geology, with unfavorable seismic activity and mud volcanism characteristic of this zone.

2.) Surveys made by Soviet geo-engineers in the 70s did not find any solid foundation at a depth of 70 meters. Over the entire depth of drilling, only semi-solid clays of extremely low density and high porosity were found.

3.) Construction norms and rules (both Soviet and Russian), until recently, categorically forbidden to build such arched bridges anywhere other than a solid rock base. In this project there is not only rock, there is no sand and even solid clay. The basis for the piles in this project is semi-solid, saturated clay of high porosity and low density. According to the testimony of the project participants, “the pile sinks into the ground for tens of meters almost under its own weight.” It is clear that if using piles of very large lengths (50-60) meters, friction will sooner or later be able to hold such a pile. The problem is that such holding can not withstand the test of time and huge loads that will arise during the operation of the railway bridge.

4.) In 2017, new SNIPs entered into action, in which there is no longer a prohibition to rely on piles. This is reminiscent of the rearrangement of laws, rules and regulations for a specific project (construction and drilling of piles began at a time when such arched railway bridges were allowed to rest only on a solid foundation).

5.) The necessary and extremely important geo-surveys for the project (especially in the light of the fact that geological expertise has already rejected an attempt to build in the past) were carried out by fictitious companies and are equally fictitious. It was officially stated in this connection that “the actual properties of the soil differ from the survey materials made by Krymssetenergoproekt LLC and used for the design.”

6.) The Main State Examination covered the outright scam and did not reveal any irregularities in the work of Krymssetenergoproekt LLC, moreover, Glavgosexpertiza gave a positive conclusion and confirmed that the work was done qualitatively. It is unlikely that the power of Baba Masha and Baba Antonina, with a charter capital of $ 150 for two, is so high that it allowed the state structure to be silenced, eyes and ears, and in such a complex, problematic and resonant project that Rotenberg deals with authority of V.Putin. It is unlikely that the managers of the project, allocating hundreds of millions of rubles to companies with an authorized capital of $ 150, did not understand to whom such huge money was being allocated. And if with a simple googling even such a far from project person as I could reveal a frank lime, then the management, managers, accountants, lawyers and other comrades, could not be aware of. As Glavgosekspertiza.

7.) It is unlikely that the scheme of fictitious geo-surveys that I have described so easily, is the only scam in this project. With a high degree of confidence, it can be argued that this is only a small tip of the iceberg and a small part of the criminal scheme.

8.) And finally the main thing: As the previous points showed, there were monstrous, inconceivable, incredible violations in the project. Unfortunately, it is already impossible to believe in any expert conclusions. They completely discredited themselves. But who will be responsible if this railway bridge does not withstand the load and deforms or collapses? Baba Masha? Aunt Antonina?

The purpose of this article is not to incite any political skirmish. I will ask patriotic trolls not to waste their energy on arguing with me. I'm not going to persuade someone and claim the ultimate truth. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps I do not understand something in this story. I do not consider myself a great expert in this matter. For me, as I wrote at the beginning, the topic is of academic interest. I am interested in technical aspects related to geology and engineering hydrogeology. In the article I operate with exclusively open sources and touch only on the obvious facts. Much remains beyond the scope of this article. I still have something to say, but the article was already very voluminous. It so happened that after analyzing a number of publicly available materials, I came to disappointing conclusions. Based on these findings, the project of the Kerch / Crimean bridge seems to me potentially dangerous. I suppose such a thing to be silent and immoral. If I make a mistake somewhere, I will be happy with a professional and evidence-based denial. It will be much worse if, as a result of the exploitation of the bridge, people die, and I will know that I understood that this could happen, but was silent.

Eli Belenson, The Observer

bridge, complex, very, years, construction, began, almost, explained, sand, follow, literally, ago, than, narrow-minded, project, more, only, Kerch