News & Discussion: Outer Harbor & Inner Harbor

[fabricator]

Ok so what goes
Whiiiiiinnne Kaboom Whiiiiiinnne Whiiiiiinnne Whiiiiiinnne Told you so ?
Answers in Tomorrows Advertdespiser

[Ho Really]

If they hadn't gone ahead with the desal plant at the old Port Stanvac refinery, this location would have been perfect for storage and mooring of large oil tankers. This is what you get for short sightedness. That's my opinion.

As I haven't followed the news I can only assume the fuel berth they are planning is at berth 9 or 10 at Outer Harbour (near Pelican Point and west of the power station). This would be just up the road from the new grain silos. I would rather see these berths used for something less dangerous than fuel, etc. I am also wondering whether they'll need to dredge the two berths to be the same depth alongside as those at the container and bulk terminals ( berths 6, 7 and 8 ).

Cheers

[mattblack]

If they hadn't gone ahead with the desal plant at the old Port Stanvac refinery, this location would have been perfect for storage and mooring of large oil tankers. This is what you get for short sightedness. That's my opinion.

As I haven't followed the news I can only assume the fuel berth they are planning is at berth 9 or 10 at Outer Harbour (near Pelican Point and west of the power station). This would be just up the road from the new grain silos. I would rather see these berths used for something less dangerous than fuel, etc. I am also wondering whether they'll need to dredge the two berths to be the same depth alongside as those at the container and bulk terminals ( berths 6, 7 and 8 ).

Cheers

Are you saying that the desal plant is short sighted . Isnt it there to improve water security and reduce reliance on the Murray into the future and committed to when we were in the middle of a drought that highlighted our vunerability? Whether you agree it was the right move or not you cannot call it short sighted.

[AtD]

Most of the refinery, tanks and moorings are still there. The Desal plant is to the north.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.101302,1 ... d=20110103

[rhino]

What is the condition of the refinery, tanks, and moorings? If they are servicable, why is a new facility being built? Is it cheaper to build from scratch than upgrade the existing facility to today's standards?

[Ho Really]

If they hadn't gone ahead with the desal plant at the old Port Stanvac refinery, this location would have been perfect for storage and mooring of large oil tankers. This is what you get for short sightedness. That's my opinion.

As I haven't followed the news I can only assume the fuel berth they are planning is at berth 9 or 10 at Outer Harbour (near Pelican Point and west of the power station). This would be just up the road from the new grain silos. I would rather see these berths used for something less dangerous than fuel, etc. I am also wondering whether they'll need to dredge the two berths to be the same depth alongside as those at the container and bulk terminals ( berths 6, 7 and 8 ).

Cheers

Are you saying that the desal plant is short sighted . Isnt it there to improve water security and reduce reliance on the Murray into the future and committed to when we were in the middle of a drought that highlighted our vunerability? Whether you agree it was the right move or not you cannot call it short sighted.

You misundertsood me. I'm not against a desal plant, it's where it has been located at Port Stanvac. That's where they have been shortsighted. A desal plant should have been built where the currents take the brine away from the coast or from sensitive areas. My suggestion would have been Cape Jervis where the currents are stronger and go both ways. They could have also tapped into the wind farm at Starfish Hill for some electricity (this only a hunch). Port Stanvac should have been kept solely for expansion of fuel purposes like in this proposal. I might be wrong and Port Stanvac could still have plenty of room to be used for this porposal as AtD points out. Rhino is also asking the right questions.

Cheers

PS. Got a run time error on that link Atd so couldn't see the image, but I believe you.

[AtD]

Remember this is a private sector project. No taxpayers funds and no compulsory acquisitions.

[mattblack]

If they hadn't gone ahead with the desal plant at the old Port Stanvac refinery, this location would have been perfect for storage and mooring of large oil tankers. This is what you get for short sightedness. That's my opinion.

As I haven't followed the news I can only assume the fuel berth they are planning is at berth 9 or 10 at Outer Harbour (near Pelican Point and west of the power station). This would be just up the road from the new grain silos. I would rather see these berths used for something less dangerous than fuel, etc. I am also wondering whether they'll need to dredge the two berths to be the same depth alongside as those at the container and bulk terminals ( berths 6, 7 and 8 ).

Cheers

Are you saying that the desal plant is short sighted . Isnt it there to improve water security and reduce reliance on the Murray into the future and committed to when we were in the middle of a drought that highlighted our vunerability? Whether you agree it was the right move or not you cannot call it short sighted.

You misundertsood me. I'm not against a desal plant, it's where it has been located at Port Stanvac. That's where they have been shortsighted. A desal plant should have been built where the currents take the brine away from the coast or from sensitive areas. My suggestion would have been Cape Jervis where the currents are stronger and go both ways. They could have also tapped into the wind farm at Starfish Hill for some electricity (this only a hunch). Port Stanvac should have been kept solely for expansion of fuel purposes like in this proposal. I might be wrong and Port Stanvac could still have plenty of room to be used for this porposal as AtD points out. Rhino is also asking the right questions.

Cheers

PS. Got a run time error on that link Atd so couldn't see the image, but I believe you.

Fair enough

[rhino]

Not Outer Harbor, but close by and a similar facility. They mention the mining boom and the need for more deisel, and they're putting in rail sidings - I wonder if this means that there will be rail to the mine at Olympic Dam, or does it mean that the fuel will be arriving at Largs North by rail? The Outer Harbor facility is being enlarged to be able to take a whole shipload of fuel - can fuel be offloaded by ship at Largs North too?

BP outlines $20m expansion project of its Largs North fuel terminal
Chief business reporter Cameron England From: The Advertiser April 15, 2011 12:00AM

BP will spend $20 million expanding its Largs North fuel terminal.

And the construction is set to start in the second half of this year.

The expansion is on top of a potential $110 million diesel storage and refinery being considered for Port Bonython, north of Whyalla, and a separate $110 million bulk fuel facility proposed for Outer Harbor, which would extend the state's fuel stocks from six days to an estimated two weeks.

Diesel use in South Australia is expected to increase markedly in the next few years, as mining projects such as BHP Billiton's proposed Olympic Dam mine expansion and several other projects start production.

Work has begun on the design of the BP facility, for the construction of two additional 30 million litre storage tanks, to increase diesel storage capacity from 75 to 135 million litres.

It will create 20 to 30 jobs during construction.

A rail gantry will also be built within the terminal.

"As the South Australia mining and transport markets continue to grow, rail movement of fuel offers a reduction in the number of truck movements and an improvement in the efficiency and safety of transporting large volumes of fuel around the state," the company said.

"BP's Largs North terminal is already the largest storage facility in the region, and when complete the new tanks will double its diesel storage capacity."

BP Australasia president Paul Waterman said the additional storage would increase supply security for South Australian customers.

"This announcement follows the recent award of four exploration blocks offshore South Australia which will see BP investing $1.4 billion in seismic and drilling activity over the next six years," he said.

The new tanks are expected to be operational late next year.

The Port Bonython project, which is being considered by Senex Energy, was approved by the State Government in January last year, and if backed for funding by the company, would initially involve a $60 million storage facility, with a capacity of 100 million litres.

The second stage would involve building a refinery, which would process oil from the Cooper Basin into diesel, and an expansion of storage capacity.

The Development Assessment Commission is considering the other Outer Harbour project, with 10 above-ground tanks.

[Ho Really]

Not Outer Harbor, but close by and a similar facility. They mention the mining boom and the need for more deisel, and they're putting in rail sidings - I wonder if this means that there will be rail to the mine at Olympic Dam, or does it mean that the fuel will be arriving at Largs North by rail? The Outer Harbor facility is being enlarged to be able to take a whole shipload of fuel - can fuel be offloaded by ship at Largs North too?

Yes, fuel can be offloaded by ship, it's already taking place at Port Adelaide. Are they looking at larger ships with deeper draughts? If that's the case they'd need to go to Port Stanvac or they could look at an area around Pelican Point on the eastern side of the power station. Port Stanvac is going a little off track and would mean freight travelling through more suburban areas. As for Pelican Point I'm not sure about the environmental issues and whether they'd have enough space or if that area is earmarked for something else. Also they would need to dredge the channel further from the grain terminal onwards. All speculation...

Cheers

[richo]

The one thing that concerns me, being a long time North Haven resident, is the potential for petroleum odours coming from the proposed fuel storage facility. Now before anyone tries to tell me that there will be no such odour, I do know for a fact that these odours are emitted from such facilities currently located along Victoria road at Largs North and Birkenhead. I've lived on the Lefevre Peninsula most of my life and have experienced these many times whilst in the vicinity of those locations. Not very pleasant, as this is also the main reason myself and my young family moved to the end of the peninsula, away from existing industry.

My understanding was that the precinct surrounding Pelican Point road was to be utilised only to the extent of container, general warehousing and wine storage, in addition to the existing power station and grain storage. Now I find out that there are plans for bulk fuel storage to within only 650 metres of the nearest homes?!

Yeah, great for state storage capacity, but what about air quality for existing residents in the surrounding area, not to forget to mention increase in explosion / fire hazard risk. At risk of sounding a bit nimby (not in my back yard), is this considered unreasonable to have such a concern, given that existing residents decided to live here (North Haven), because such industry wasn't co-located in the same area. No objections to power station, warehousing or naval shipbuilding, as they have no such impact on air quality or environment in general, also they are located at reasonable distance from residential areas.

Anyway, the Message for the Hon. John Rau MP is to please take into consideration these concerns when making his decision on this proposal.