The EVERYTHING bubble…..

21 05 2017

I’m no financial guru.  Since studying Nicole Foss’ and Chris Martenson’s work, I have a reasonable understanding of how the economy works, enough to know it’s completely unsustainable and will eventually crash. I’m only interested in when it crashes because I worry it will all turn to dust before our new house is finished, and that could make my life difficult…. so I have to rely on proper gurus. I’d never heard of Mike Maloney until I heard him interviewed by Chris Martenson in a podcast, and my gut feeling is that he knows what he’s talking about.

We don’t have stocks and shares or gold and silver, because I believe that the real investment needed is farm land, and a shelter that doesn’t need to be connected to the rest of a collapsing world, which is why I don’t really follow all this stuff. But this turned up in my newsfeed, and it’s rattled me a bit……  so glad I’ve started building! it might even be time to pull money out of the bank and stash it under the mattress….

This is lifted from, and I hope it’s useful to someone following this humble blog……


The U.S. economy and markets are now the BIGGEST BUBBLES in history.  In 2000, we experienced  the Tech Bubble.  In 2008, we suffered both a Stock Market and Housing Bubble.  However, today… we are in the “EVERYTHING BUBBLE.”

This is an excellent video presentation by Mike Maloney at  Mike puts together some of the best quality videos in the precious metals industry.  This one is a MUST SEE.  If you are frustrated with the performance of gold and silver since 2012, this video shows just how insane the markets have become.

In the video, Mike provides charts showing how the economic and market indicators are peaking, even much higher than what took place in 2008.  For example, Mike shows a chart on “Margin debt” in the stock market and how it is the highest ever:

The indicators and charts in Mike’s video presentation provides evidence that the market is now one GIANT BUBBLE ready to POP.  While the insanity could continue a bit longer, the indicators are now a BLINKING RED LIGHT that something is seriously wrong.

I highly recommend my readers to watch this video and please feel free to share it with others who are still gambling in the broader markets.  Maybe it might WAKE THEM UP before it’s too late.

You can also find this video presentation here: THE EVERYTHING BUBBLE: Code Red

Is eating no meat actually doing more harm than good?

18 05 2017

I spend more time on the internet arguing wih vegetarians/vegans than any other group of people……  I so wish they would get off their high horses and start supporting farmers who do the right thing…. and that goes for all you meat eaters out there who buy meat from supermarkets….  STOP IT!!

This opinion piece was originally published by Farmdrop on 4th May 2017.

The younger generation are positively redefining the way we see ourselves in relation to food and the environment.

I grew up in the late 1960s and so I consider myself a bit of a hippy. That decade marked a fundamental mind-set shift in the way people saw themselves in relation to the world. At the time, it was difficult to pinpoint where these ideas came from; many of them simply seemed to come through intuition.

I mention this because, for the first time since the late 1960s, I feel like another shift in consciousness is occurring among the younger generation, particularly amongst so called ‘millennials’.

There is a new field of scientific study called epigenetics which shows that all living organisms constantly interact with their external environment and that these influences can prompt changes in gene expression which can be passed down through the generations. Plants, for example, have epigenetic responses to the environment they grow in, as a result of which a plant may have a subtle difference in its genotype from its parents. Even more interestingly, certain epigenetic traits can stay dormant for several generations, only to find full expression at a later time.

So I suspect that the changing shift in consciousness towards food production and sustainability may actually be partly epigenetic. Perhaps the radical energy of the 1960s is now finding expression among millennials, albeit in a slightly different way.

For these reasons, as an organic farmer of almost 45 years, I have never been more optimistic about the future of farming. However, I am growing increasingly concerned about the large number of people turning to diets that may not necessarily be either healthy or sustainable.

If we are to move to a genuinely sustainable food system, then I think we all need to become much better informed about the sustainability or otherwise of different food systems. Only then we will be better placed to challenge the huge amounts of misinformation on so-called sustainable diets which are encouraging people to avoid all meats and animal products, despite the reality that in many (if not most climates and regions) it is difficult to farm in a truly sustainable way without livestock.

What is the problem with food and farming?

It has become a cliché but it’s true: supermarket food is not cheap and comes at a heavy price. The industrial application of nitrogen fertiliser has contaminated our water systems and atmosphere with dangerous nitrates; the subsidised production of fructose corn syrup has driven an increase in obesity and diabetes; and the excessive use of antibiotics in animals has caused a resistance to these drugs amongst humans.

The real problem is that none of the costs of all this damage is charged to the people who use it and, on the other hand, the positive effects of sustainable farming are not supported.

The current policy framework supports a dishonest economic food pricing system, as a result of which, the best business case is for farmers to grow using industrial methods and for retailers to buy the commodity products from industrial farms, process the hell out of them, package them so the consumer knows nothing about their backstory and then make a profit by turning that around.

So we need new incentives and disincentives, which ensure that the polluter pays and those who farm in a truly sustainable way are better rewarded for the benefits they deliver.

But what are the most sustainable farming methods?

There is no doubt that agriculture and farming is one of the most significant contributor towards climate change. Cutting back on the biggest pollutant (man-made fossil fuels) is very important but to actually reverse climate change – take CO2 out of the atmosphere – then we need to change the way we farm, particularly in relation to the way we look after the soil.

This is because organic matter in the soil is a store of carbon, thereby mitigating harmful emissions in the atmosphere. Britain’s soils store around 10 billion tonnes of carbon, which is more than total annual global emissions of carbon dioxide. Moreover, high levels of organic matter are also the basis for soil fertility, releasing nutrients for healthy plant growth and ultimately food. In other words, the amount of organic matter present in the soil is essential, both for combating climate change and ultimately improving our health.

The problem is that industrial farming methods have depleted organic matter in the soils. In the East of England, around 84% of the land’s carbon rich soil has been lost and continues to disappear at a rate of 1 to 2cm per year. That represents an enormous amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Sustainable food systems are therefore about much more than simply avoiding nasty chemicals and antibiotics, they are about building organic matter in the soil through crop rotation and mixed farming practices.

It is possible for farmers to reduce the emissions from agriculture by re-introducing rotations in the way they use their land – introducing a grass and clover phase that builds soil organic matter, which is then grazed by ruminant animals on rotation, who fertilise the soil further, and results in an ability to grow healthy crops.

According to the International Panel on Climate Change, it is estimated that 89% of all agricultural emissions can be mitigated by improving carbon levels in the soil.

How can you have the most healthy and sustainable diet?

Everyone, at least in principle, wants to eat a healthy and sustainable diet, but we are all very confused about how to do it. If you asked 10 people what the most sustainable and healthy way to eat was then you would probably get 10 different answers. A few might say vegetarian or vegan (the numbers eating a vegan diet has increased by 360% in the last decade) but I think that a large scale switch towards vegetarianism may not necessarily be compatible with sustainability.

In my opinion, many people have been led astray by bad science. The tools used by scientific researchers in the past, and whose published papers have prompted changes in people’s diets, were not based on sound science. It was said that red meat and animal fats should be avoided, both because they are unhealthy and because ruminant animals (cows and sheep) are largely responsible for harmful methane emissions.

But it turns out that neither of those positions are necessarily true.

The study that prompted Governments in Britain and the United States to recommend people to reduce their intake of fats was not based on solid evidence. It is this study that encouraged the food industry to replace fats with added sugars, and we are only now understanding the damage these do to our health.

And the studies that recommended a reduction in red meat consumption on grounds of reducing its environmental impact only look at certain factors in isolation rather than the whole food system. Land-use is often considered as bad in all instances, even though raising livestock is sometimes the only productive land use option available. In roughly two thirds of the UK’s agricultural land area is grass and the only way we can turn that into a good soil that stores carbon and grows healthy crops is to have ruminant animals grazing on a rotation system to fertilise the ground.

These flawed assumptions have had significant consequences for the way people eat. Beef production has halved since the 1980s and the consumption of lamb, arguably the most sustainable grass-fed meat for the land, has plummeted. While new evidence is now showing that animals fats are good for our health and cattle grazed in the right way can actually reduce carbon emissions by creating fertile soils.

Where do we go from here?

My message is simple: a healthy diet should work backwards from the most sustainable way to farm, and that ideally means eating the foods produced by mixed farms using crop rotations which include a fertility building phase, usually of grass and clover grazed by cows and sheep, but also pastured pigs and poultry.

Industrial farming has been an extractive industry. We have dined out on the natural capital of the soil that previous generations have laid down for us. We need to fix that because the environment in which a plant or animal is produced goes a long way to determine its nutrient value when consumed by humans.

How Do You Degrow an Economy, Without Causing Chaos?

16 05 2017

An article written by a Facebook friend of mine, Jonathan Rutherford, who is Coordinator of the New International Bookshop and a ‘Simpler Way’ activist. Originally published at the Resillience website.  The real challenge for those in charge is not ‘jobs and growth’, it is how to best manage the looming contraction……

‘Houston, we have a problem’. On the one hand, there is growing acceptance among environmentally conscious people that rich nations and affluent regions of the global economy must dramatically reduce overall resource and energy consumption levels – that is, undergo a process of ‘degrowth’ – if humanity is to bring about a sustainable world order. On the other hand, we have a growth economy that cannot go two steps in this direction without causing huge economic and social problems.

If you doubt the first part of this statement (i.e. the need for ‘degrowth’), consider just one metric – the material footprint (MF) indicator. This measures consumption of all natural resources (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and minerals) extracted from the environment. Humanity’s current MF is about 70 billion tonnes – a figure that has more than trebled since the 1970s. As we know, already this rate of consumption is generating waste, pollution and land-use change that are driving environmental problems such as global warming and species extinction. But now consider the fact that the per capita rich nation (i.e OECD) MF is about 30 tonnes. If the 9+ billion humans expected to be living on earth by 2050 rose to this level, we would need 270 billion tonnes per annum – that is, four times the present rate, which is unsustainable. Using similar figures in the 1990s Friedrich Schmidt Bleek estimated that rich nations need to make ‘factor 10’ reductions in overall resource use (renewable and non-renewable), if we are to move down to a globally fair share and at sustainable levels. And that estimate, it should be noted, does not factor in the likely increase in MF that, recent history suggests, will inevitably result from the continuous pursuit of economic growth by all nations, included the wealthiest.

Many people hope that we can make ‘factor 10’ reductions via technological advance and efficiency gains alone, without having to make cut overall rates of production, consumption (i.e. GDP). But, as argued in a recent peer reviewed article by Giorgos Kallis there are strong reasons to think that this will not be viable. Few want to admit it, but the kind of radical reductions we need to make will require GDP contraction i.e. de-growth.

But if we in the rich world need to degrow the economy, as it appears we do, how is that done without causing utter social chaos and breakdown?  The problem was recently illustrated in a series of articles run by the ABC. The first article highlighted the trend among some young Australians to adopt relatively frugal lifestyles of reduced income expenditure and increased savings. A follow up article, however, asked: what would happen to the economy if everyone did this? The answers were revealing, and implicitly revealed fundamental flaws in our existing economic system.

The article cited data which suggest every year Australians spend $955 billion on all forms of consumption. Of this about $416 billion (44%) is made up items such as ‘food, clothing, housing, utilities, health, transport, insurance’ which the article defined as ‘necessities’ (note: one, of course, may question whether i.e. all clothes consumption are truly ‘necessities’!). The other $523 billion was made up what the article defined as discretionary items. Economist, Saul Eslake pointed out that, even if we exclude from this discretionary figure the $100+ billion worth of imported goods & services, if  all Australian households ceased all the remaining discretionary spending, GDP would be immediately reduced by 25 per cent. But, as Eslake pointed out, the impact on the economy would eventually be far greater than this, due to knock-on effects. The reduced spending, for example, would result in firm bankruptcy and thus laid off workers which, in turn, would further reduce aggregate demand in a cycle of downward depression familiar to students of economic history.

But while all this is entirely correct, reducing societal consumption – degrowing the economy – need not necessarily result in chaotic economic breakdown, as the ABC article implicitly assumed. This is indeed an inevitable outcome within our present economic system, but possibly not others.

Our present system – both in Australia and now most of the world – is, of course, the capitalist market economy. This 500-year-old system has certain defining features that mark it out as unique compared to other economic systems humans have devised.  It is a system in which a) most (if not all) the major means of production are privately (these days corporately) owned by a small minority of the population; and b) where the fundamental economic problems (what, how, and for whom to produce) are solved “automatically”, through the price mechanism, rather than through conscious social decisions.

Importantly, for this discussion, the system is characterised by a growth compulsion. Due to competition, all firms – particularly large shareholder firms – are under constant pressure to invest in new techniques, methods of production and products, to improve competitiveness and their sales figures. If they fail to do this, they not only risk profits margins but also eventually being taken-over by other firms, or made bankrupt. Since no firm wants to perish, and since all must expand if they want to continue to exist, a general growth compulsion arises, not just for individual firms, but for the macro economy as whole. So, while almost everyone wants growth, it is also true that the system needs growth for its basic functioning.

In fact, the system cannot possibly tolerate even a slow-down in the rate of growth, let alone a contraction. Richard Smith points out that even when capitalism approaches a ‘steady state’ of zero GDP growth, such as what happened in the USA in the wake of the GFC, the outcome for society at large is ugly. The situation is characterised by “capital destruction, mass unemployment, devastated communities, growing poverty, foreclosures, homelessness and environmental considerations shunted aside in the all-out effort to restore growth.” Obviously, nobody wants this, including advocates of degrowth.

What then would be required to contract the economy, in an orderly and fair way? The influential ‘Steady-State’ theorist Herman Daly argues that we can do so, while retaining a basically capitalist system, on the condition that the state steps in to play a far more active regulatory role than at present. Among other policy suggestions, Daly proposes that the state impose escalating resource depletion quotes, that can be traded in a market, while retaining private enterprise and the market system.

An emerging school of eco-socialists argue, however, that this will not work. Saral Sarkar points out three flaws with Daly’s plan.

“1) The contraction of the economies of the world must occur in an orderly way. Otherwise there will be unbearable breakdowns of whole societies. An orderly contraction can only take place in a planned economy, not in a capitalist market economy. 2) Only a socialist political order can achieve, by means of egalitarian distribution of the costs and benefits, a broad acceptance of the necessary contraction, 3) Only in a planned socialist economy can the problem of unemployment be solved, which would otherwise become more and more acute in a contracting economy. To this end, a planned economy can consciously use labor-intensive technologies and methods, which, in addition, result in less use of resources.” (Sarkar, 2012, 325)

Let me just briefly elaborate on the first reason given by Sarkar (for greater detail see Sarkar 1999) – the idea that contracting the economy within a capitalist market system would result in chaotic breakdown. Sarkar points out that the famed ‘efficiency’ of the market system only works well (if at all) when there is a buyers’ market, leading to strong competition between suppliers to meet customer demand. But in a contractionary scenario, most markets would be ‘suppliers’ markets, as there would be, in general, a shortage of supply relative to demand. This would mean even poorly run, high cost firms would be able to survive. And, as with any market economy, you would still have a situation where increasingly scarce resources were tended to be allocated to meeting the money backed demands of the already wealthy, rather than to meeting the vital needs for all – a recipe for social chaos in a context of heightened scarcity.

For these reasons, and as unfashionable as it is today, Sarkar argues that a socialist economic framework will be necessary if we are to contract the economy in an orderly, peaceful and socially just way. This would involve a process in which the state nationalises and/or shuts down most large-scale firms in the economy and actively plans the process of contraction via mechanisms such as quantitative controls, price controls, a quota system etc. But what about smaller firms and co-ops, operating at the local level? Here, it is plausible that a quasi-market economy – albeit operating within a very different no-growth culture and firmly under social control –  would be viable. Another eco-socialist Richard Smith elaborates:

“In arguing for large-scale industrial planning, I’m not saying that we should nationalize family farms, farmers’ markets, artisans, groceries, bakeries, local restaurants, repair shops, workers’ cooperatives, and so on. Small producers aren’t destroying the world. But large-scale corporations are. If we want to save the planet, the corporations would have to be nationalized, socialized, and completely reorganized. Many will need to be closed down, others scaled back, others repurposed. But I don’t see any reason why small-scale, local, independent producers cannot carry on more or less as they are, within the framework of a larger planned economy.”

Eventually the goal will be to move to a situation in which most (if not all) people live and work within highly localised economies, using local resources to meet local needs. As Ted Trainer argues, this is not optional if we want to reduce our ecological footprint to sustainable one planet levels that all can share. Gladly, there is a case that the quality of life could be very high within such communities.

But herein lies a problem for the eco-socialist, and wider degrowth movement. Trainer points out that these new local communities will not work well unless they are based on the active participation and cooperation of most, if not all, ordinary citizens in the locality. This will be necessary to ensure that all are provided for and the economy works within local eco-system limits. Active and inclusive participation by all (or at least most), Trainer argues, is ‘the crucial prerequisite… that will be needed if ordinary citizens are to eventually run highly self-sufficient local communities well.’ Widespread civic participation and cooperation simply cannot be imposed ‘top-down’ via states, even if they wanted to. In any case, Trainer argues, only if movements for localism and simpler living emerge first, is there any chance of building the eventual political will that will make a process of societal degrowth at the national and global levels possible.

For this reason, we ‘Simpler Way’ advocates tend to see the eco-socialist state directed process described above as ‘only’ a final, albeit necessary, step in a long multi phased transition towards sustainability. The first (and hardest) phase of the revolution happens when ordinary citizens, not states or corporations, take it upon themselves to start building today, even in small ways, the new self-reliant economies in the towns and suburbs where they live.

Having said that, the above sets a parallel challenge for participants within existing localist movements such as Transition Towns, eco-village, permaculture, simpler living etc. For it is equally true that we will not make a successful transition to sustainability – and the new local communities and economies will not function well – unless participants within these movements become aware of, and begin advocating for, the eventual need for an orderly process of ‘de-growth’ – a process that, for reasons mentioned briefly above, is only likely to go well within an eco-socialist framework. Ultimately, unless both these local and national-global processors occur, will not make a successful transition to a sustainable society.

Of course, today, across the world we are miles away from the necessary political and cultural awareness needed for such a transition. It is likely that the coming oil crunch and global financial contraction will aid our cause and encourage more people to see the sense in localism and de-growth – but, until then, activists must doggedly go on raising awareness wherever they can. Even if it does not feel like it, every conversation counts!


Saral Sarkar, Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? – A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices. London: Zed Books. 1999.

Playing with gloop

14 05 2017

I’m often asked – and I often ask myself – why do I own three utes?  Well dear reader, I just worked it out! At very short notice, I got a text message from Matt next door that Steve could start cutting the trenches that have to be the foundations for our house’s slab on Friday afternoon, and Saturday norning if necessary to finish the job. Typically for Tasmania, the weather forecast went from fine weather to calamitous……. thunderstorms and minor flooding for the North of the island was predicted, and this fortunately did not eventuate, but as luck would have it, we in the South ended up copping some.


Ready for action

Because the trenches are too far from the embankment where I want the earth moved to, it would all need to be moved with a vehicle, so I hunted around for a small tip truck, and found one, but as usual, the locals let me down again. I sometimes wonder how they stay in business…..


So I set up all three utes like a train, and lined Caleb to come back, hopefully with a mate, to do all the hard yakka. The mate could not make it on the day, so the pair of us worked our arses off, shoveling and 20170512_135641shoving and shuttling utes around trying to keep up with the digger. Which we largely managed to achieve…… but as luck would have it, as soon as the first ute (the 4WD one) was loaded and ready for moving, it refused to start. Luckily it has a very strong battery, and I actually managed to reverse it, with a ton of mud on the back, with the starter motor, to get it out of the way and reverse another ute in its place…. not a great start.

20170513_083021Amazingly – and very fortunately it eventually turned out – the 4WD started first kick a couple of hours later, just as the rain started….. I say fortunately, because 2WD utes don’t do gloop…!

Eventually, having finished the main trench down the front wall, we called it a day. Overnight, we got just over 6mm of rain, and in the morning, the site was really starting to look like quagmire, and the clay was getting heavier and stickier, making it largely impossible to shovel by hand. With only one ute able to get up the hill with a load (yes, it started again!), slip sliding all the way to the unloading site, it was decided that it would be more efficient, and certainly easier on us with the shovels, for Steve to move the excavator up the hill and scrape all the clay with the mud bucket off the tray….  Aah, the power of fossil fuels!20170513_091727

It was eventually all done, though where the lateral trenches came out through the edge of the main one, so sticky was the clay that a lot of earth came off the corners. The odd rock didn’t help either, and everywhere excess dirt is removed, more concrete will have to replace it, costing both me and the environment. Some things just can’t be helped, one has to deal with the situation at hand….20170513_100748

Caleb and I even had to stand in the trench to lift, mostly by hand, large clumps of sticky clay into Steve’s bucket so it could be lifted on the back of the ute and moved uphill. Let me tell you, I really look forward to the day this stage is over!

To put into perspective how bloody sticky the gloop was, I’ll leave you with a shot of the 4WD’s foot well that I will have fun cleaning up one day…. I even found the rubber pad off the brake pedal in the grass later, where it had obviously been so stuck to my boot, I pulled it off the metal pedal to get out the car! Pure luck it came off my boot right where I stepped off……20170513_110907


Blindspots and Superheroes

14 05 2017

I haven’t heard much from Nate Hagens in recent times, but when he does come out of the woodwork, his communications skills certainly come through….. We who follow the collapse of the world as we know it probably know most of what’s in this admirable presentation, but it is absolutely captivating, and you will learn something new, or see it in a different perspective. It’s an hour and twenty minutes long (I actually drove down town to use the library’s free wi-fi to download it, my mobile phone data allowance won’t stretch to a quarter Gig for one video!), so make yourself a cup of your favourite poison, and enjoy the show……

Nathan John Hagens is a former Wall Street analyst, turned college professor and systems-science advocate. Nate has an MBA with Honors from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Natural Resources/Energy from the University of Vermont. He is on the Boards of Post Carbon Institute, Institute for Integrated Economic Research, and Institute for the Study of Energy and our Future. He teaches a class at the University of Minnesota called “Reality 101 – A Survey of the Human Predicament”.

Nate, partnering with environmental strategist DJ White, has created the “Bottleneck Foundation”, a nonprofit initiative designed to help steer towards better human and ecological futures than would otherwise be attained. The “Bottlenecks” are the cultural, biological, and technological challenges which will arise as energy and terrestrial biomass begin their long fall back toward sustainable-flow baselines this century. The “Foundation” part of the name is a tip of the hat to Asimov’s “Foundation” series of novels, about an organization designed to mitigate the negative effects of societal simplification. BF is dedicated to making “synthesis science” accessible to a new generation of engaged people, through educational materials and projects which demonstrate that reality is a lot different from our culture currently thinks it is.

Electric Cars and Happy Motoring

6 05 2017

KMO reads a question from Eric Boyd about the transition from fossil fuels to a transportation infrastructure built around solar power from suburban rooftops and autonomous electric cars. John Michael Greer, Dmitry Orlov, Chris Martenson, Frank Morris, Kevin Lynn and James Howard Kunstler all give their reasons for dismissing Eric’s vision as wishful thinking……….

House slab update

3 05 2017

Nico has left. Boy, I will miss him…..  Since pouring the footing for the retaining wall, he and I quickly laid out the drainage behind the footing, and not a moment too early, because over the past couple of days, we’ve had 15mm of rain, turning the


Sloping gravel ramp

entire site into a quagmire which will put an end to more work for at least two days. Or however long it takes to dry out. I was hoping to cut the last lot of trenches this coming weekend, but that simply won’t happen now……

The drain has to have a 1 in 100 fall to work effectively, so the first thing we did was, after removing the formwork, mark out this slope on the new concrete…. which was smoother than the proverbial baby’s bum, a testament to the effectiveness of the concrete vibrator. It looked like polished concrete!

The drain being 300mm deep, and the pipe 100mm in diameter, I decided to install the top of the pipe at the pointy end of the back of the building at basically footing level, while having it at the bottom of the drain at the other end, 20m away…. an exact 1:100 slope.

The way the drain works is that as water falls into it, the water level rises up through the gravel until it reaches the perforated pipe, filling it up. The water then follows the path of least resistance, which is down the pipe. The ‘sock’ around the pipe filters out any silt that may dissolve from the clay, stopping it from entering the pipe and clogging it. In theory it works, and I have to say I have seen it work in real life in Cooran where I did something similar, though not as high……


Nico backfilling the drain

The drain was then filled at that slope with 20mm gravel to the marks laid on the concrete every 2.5m, and voila, one accurate slope all made ready for the drain pipes.

The engineer’s drawings call for one pipe, but having seen how much water can come down that slope, I went for two. $200 is cheap insurance, the last thing I want is water in the house!

Once the pipes were laid out, the rest of the trench was backfilled with more gravel – 5 tons of it, all unloaded from the utes by hand -, entirely covering the pipes. More hard work and expense that will totally disappear, never to be seen ever again…. and speaking of utes, they have really been earning their keep lately, with both of them simultaneously loaded with one and a quarter tons of gravel…

Having done this, we then went about on the following day – when the darn rain started – leveling the corner cleanout blocks that will be the formwork for the rear of the slab. This is critical work to ensure the slab turns out dead level. It took us half a day with rain interruptions to lay just six blocks (with waterproofing added to the mortar), but I now have cemented in starter blocks that I can use to string out the rest of them, and that shouldn’t take me more than a day if I can get Caleb back to help me mix mud. The levels were achieved using age old technology in the form of a water level, the design of which I got from Geoff Capper, an old peaknik friend who lives in Northern Tassie. It worked a treat, and even Nico who had never seen one before was impressed.


















At left, Nico leveling what is literally the foundation stone, the highest point on the footing. At right using the water level to ensure that block at the opposite end of the 20170501_143507house is at exactly the same height as the first. The front of the house will be on the visible stringline, and 200mm higher than the footing lifting the whole house about ground level.

We would have laid more blocks, but the rain renders that Dolerite clay into gloop that persistently sticks to your boots making just walking around really unpleasant and even difficult….. in any case, it’s not recommended to either mix or lay mortar in the rain.

We did however spend time between showers cleaning up left over concrete and gravel off the mud in an attempt to alleviate the piercing of the plastic membrane that will be eventually laid down under the slab, weather permitting. And I really want to get this done before the real rainy season starts in the next couple of weeks or so……. I just hope I’m not too late already!

Glenda also wants to rearrange the bathroom layout, and that has to be all finalised so we can pour over the underslab plumbing, which once done cannot be undone!