Abbot Point Expansion The Challenges

Transcription

1 Abbot Point Expansion The Challenges Jeff Stewart-Harris North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation March 2014

2 Port of Abbot Point Throughput 17.7 mt 201 bulk carriers

3 Abbot Point Facts Closest community is Bowen situated 25 km from Port Abbot Point is ideally situated to be Australia s next emerging port. Since 2006 the terminal has been undergoing constant expansion. Capacity growth Mtpa to 50 Mtpa in 2013 Plans for Regional Growth with State Development Area Current export capacity is 50 Mtpa, plans for capacity of Mtpa Potential for import and export growth of other products Dredging at Abbot Point - Port built in early 80 s and first maintenance dredging campaign undertaken in 2008 (~ 300,000 m 3 ). Abbot Point has very low maintenance dredging requirements

4 Proposed Port Expansions Abbot Point T0 - Adani proposes a 70 Mtpa expansion of the existing terminal (T1), along with an additional two offshore berths (approval referral lodged with SEWPaC). The T0 project is in the pre-feasibility phase T2 No current proponent but will be developed as part of the Galilee Basin Development Strategy T3 - GVK Hancock planning to export 60 Mtpa through the terminal. Includes a 500 km rail line from the mine to the port. Currently in negotiations with Aurizon regarding development option of T3 and rail. AP-X a process through Queensland Government for the incremental development of terminal expansion. Requires interested parties to show sufficient demand and capability.

5

6 Proposed Dredging Campaign 3 million cubic metres over 5 years (sand, clay and silt) Largest campaign will not exceed 1.3 cubic meters in one year. Large sandy substrates available for safe return of material to the marine environment. Void of coral reef or anything of ecological significance 40 kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef We have an excellent track record for dredging (22 campaigns across our ports since 2002) Hay Point was 8.6 million cubic metres in 2006 in one calendar year and no long term impacts. There are 10 ports adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Dredging of those ports and disposal of dredge material has been happening within the Great Barrier Reef for over 50 years with no adverse consequences.

7 The Accusations Accusation 1 - Because of Port Developments UNESCO will place GBR on endangered list and we will loose the World Heritage Status Accusation 2 - The dredging plume will travel further than the NQBP s science studies indicate. Accusation 3 - Fishing and fisheries will be adversely impacted. Accusation 4 - Tourism will suffer because of impacts to the Great Barrier Reef. Accusation 5 - Abbot Point will have the same problems as the Port of Gladstone. Accusation 6 - The scientists commissioned were not objective as they were paid by NQBP and the proponents. Accusation 7 - Trestle extension would be the best solution. Accusation 8 - THE REEF WILL BE DESTROYED

8 The Campaign

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 Disposal site in relation to the GBR

19 Why this debate UNESCO Reef is in danger from Crown of Thorns, extreme weather events and run off. Climate change and the relationship to coal Development of the Galilee Basin The belief is that the marine park is coral reef after coral reef but the reality that are vast areas that are like a moonscape. Issues at Port of Gladstone with regards to dredging Australia cares deeply for its environment making it a target for ideological campaigns Fundraising opportunities for IMGs

20 Accusation 1 - Ports development threatens the GBR Well documented and peer reviewed research show the biggest threats to GBR are storm damage (48%), crown of thorns starfish (42%), and bleaching (10%). (2013 Scientific Consensus Statement and in the AIMS study on coral reefs) Ports are not considered a threat. All material for ocean disposal is tested under rigorous requirements - the National Australian Guidelines for Dredging (NADG) in accordance with London Protocol. Only material that has been tested and determined suitable for ocean disposal is disposed of at sea. Any toxic or hazardous material cannot be disposed of at sea. GBR is 34.5 million ha in size. There are established shipping channels through the reef and many large expanses which are devoid of coral and significant marine habitats. Port of Abbot Point offshore is 4,420 ha which comprises 0.012% of the area of the entire marine park. Australia has a long and proud history of well-planned development. Neither the GBR nor NQBP s port development are at the expense of one and other.

21 Accusation 2 - The dredging plume will travel further than studies indicate There is no evidence which supports this. Many refer to GBRMPA modelling which is not intended for assessment. GBRMPA s own public admission report has limitations and simplifying assumptions about currents and the suspension of sediments. Modelling does not reflect real conditions.

22 NQBP have undertaken 22 dredge campaigns since 2002 without impacting the GBR. As dredging is being undertaken, real time monitoring occurs to ensure the sediment plume does not extend beyond boundaries set. The belief is that the marine park is coral reef after coral reef but the reality that are vast areas that are like a moonscape. Physical studies have identified that only 25% of the material to be dredged at Abbot Point will comprise clays and fine silts, and are susceptible to resuspension. The extent of fine material is further reduced through the formation of large clay balls during the dredging process that would settle quickly and not re-suspend

23 Impacts Avoided and Minimised

24 Accusations 3 & 4 - Fishing and fisheries and tourism will be impacted There is no evidence to suggest this. NQBP has done extensive fishing studies, have engaged a fisheries expert and are working with the commercial and recreational fishermen to ensure minimal impact. Offsetting any potential impacts will be developed in consultation with fishermen. Dredging is localised and away from any tourist areas and 40km from the Great Barrier Reef. The turbidity is temporary and localised and will settle within weeks. These outcomes have been predicted by our studies and are consistent with what we have observed during previous dredging campaigns. Over the last ten years, the volume of sediment derived from human activities flowing from the Burdekin catchment alone is approximately 50 million cubic metres

25 Other Accusations - Alternate solutions were not fully investigated NQBP explored 5 options for trestle extension all but one required dredging. Trestle extension results in operations further in GBRMP Longer trestles result in higher exposure to extreme weather events and navigational and safety concerns. The trestle option which would remove a dredging requirement would add an additional 1 billion dollar cost tho the project, incur ongoing additional operating and maintenance costs. Longer trestles do not provide a better overall environmental outcome. Onshore disposal creates unacceptable environmental risks which include acid sulphate soils and tail water management and discharge into the bay

26 Real Value of Port Expansion Impeccable environmental management The construction phase will create employment opportunities in the thousands Flow on effects to local business Currently 166 FTE just for the Port who live around Bowen Larger port operations = more full time staff Growth in rail operation and management = more full time staff Increase trade opportunities Development of the Galilee = billions in royalties and taxes = schools, hospitals, regional infrastructure

27 Real cost if ports do not expand No jobs No social infrastructure No investment in the environment Countries consuming coal will source it elsewhere (likely from countries with relaxed environmental standards) No future for families No additional trade opportunities Opposition move to next cause for fundraising and do not invest in environment or community