As a hi-tech executive and former government official with oceanographic degrees, I volunteered my assessment on the economics of the proposed oceanarium. I concluded it an economic white elephant, a tourist attraction based on very suspect economic projections. In contrast, I further concluded that it could be a facility of lower cost and much higher value, targeting applied marine technology and job growth of sustained economic benefit to the region.

Credible business cases use solid baseline data from which to derive supportable ranges of projections under different possible market scenarios. They include possible obstacles to success -- especially competition -- and a range of possible solutions. The oceanarium's market report did none of these; ergo, I found the report's design faulty and possibly contrived.

The baseline data for determining resident and tourist traffic to the oceanarium cannot be optimized to provide arbitrary numbers from which specific estimates are projected. It is easy to add demographics until a required mass in population is reached. The question is whether or not the critical mass is realistic, and for this I found no justification.

The report does not substantiate any methodology for developing geographic ranges of potential residential visitors, nor for extracting a more arbitrary estimation of visitors. The projected residential market slams into direct competition with two distinguished aquariums in Boston and Mystic, Conn., both with highly established tourism infrastructures. This huge factor was almost completely disregarded in the report.

For nonresidential tourist projections, the report basically omitted anything beyond the number of cars yearly on highways, plus overnight stays. The southeastern region is not a renowned tourist mecca, and using such gross data is inappropriate. The oceanarium would not reinforce existing tourism per design by aquariums in similarly sized cities. It would be the core generator of tourism, with the apparent, "If you build it, they will come" business case mentality.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the consultant, the market report adhered to design constraints mandated by the Oceanarium, and as such, its findings seem preordained to reach a positive result.

Given the support of the oceanarium for uneconomic reasons, I proposed to its leadership major modifications for generating true economic regional growth. The facility could be a focal point for accommodating realistic marine/maritime needs of government, post-secondary education and industry, in addition to general tourism.

A facility for developing an educational-applied marine technology corridor, possible biotech emphasis, in concert with marine research from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, MIT and job training programs with UMass Dartmouth.

A national mediation center to conduct forums toward resolving offshore conflicts for fisheries, oil and gas, alternate energy, shipping, and boundary disputes, in concert with resource conflict programs at URI and Harvard.

An industrial exhibitions/forum in applied marine technology for environmentally responsible economic development of offshore resources.

An exhibitions/futures forum for improving port and marine transportation security in concert with historic port preservation.

Amelioration of severe fishing boat docking constraints by providing dock use on the facility's site as a viewable working exhibit.

A multi-use public facility for a sustained influx of world professionals and students.

Accommodation of major corporate grants, such as large pharmaceutical/energy companies, to fund major modular exhibits and formal political/industrial functions.

Implementing these regional-specific economic objectives would set the oceanarium in New Bedford apart from other aquariums, some of which are struggling financially as tourist attractions.

The Oceanarium's leadership still maintains the tourist/visitor attraction as its major thrust. I was told that my presenting the merits of my recommendations to the state on New Bedford's behalf was considered a possible threat, and that the oceanarium is a political issue not to be judged on any other merit.

The Oceanarium's leadership recently has been admonished in government reports for questionable fiduciary conduct. Its leadership took pride in publicly announcing a personal vindication that those actions were not found illegal.

Such fiduciary practices, however, only serve to damage the public trust, placing the Oceanarium's leadership in question. Said parties also must either divest themselves from any conflict of interest in their ownership of adjacent property, or resign from the Oceanarium in the interest of that public trust.

The supporters of the oceanarium should schedule an immediate public forum on its economics and a realistic true-business case. Gov. Romney has decided that the Regional Economic Development Council must set priorities for the region.

New Bedford is an oceanarium's prime site. However, most of the new economic opportunities proposed hold universal truths applicable to other seaport regions.

Gene Soccolich of Beverly is a private consultant with a master's degree from the University of Rhode Island in Marine Affairs. He worked for the state in the 1970s as assistant director of the Energy Office.

This story appeared on Page A14 of The Standard-Times on December 12, 2003.