Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain
Hastings
March 9th 2023
Westernport Group expresses outrage at Hydrogen Export Announcement.
Community group Westernport Peninsula Protection Council Inc, now in its 52nd year, was outraged at the announcement of the Hydrogen Export plan for Hastings. ‘We are outraged that this project is said to be going ahead despite the risk it poses to Westernport from dredging and marine pests, its colossal inefficiency, use of too much water, as well as being a new fossil fuel plan. It is hard to overstate how stupid this project is. Victoria shouldn’t allow oil companies - (political doners) and foreign countries to force us into such a project. The Latrobe Valley deserved better, longer term jobs for the government expenditure.’
WPPC secretary Karri Giles said.
Hastings is a shallow bay most of it being less than 5 metres deep. It has a narrow channel that currently accommodates small ships. Hastings was rejected by Infrastructure Victoria for a container port because it found that the necessary dredging would be of an absolutely massive scale that would totally ruin Westernport:
‘This means the total dredge volume for the Hastings concept is about 47 million cubic metres, made up of 24 million cubic metres for the channels and port area, 5 million cubic metres for the reclamation footprint and 18 million cubic metres for the sand dredged from Bass Strait to build the reclamation. these dredging volumes are to accommodate an 18500 TEU ship. About 45 million cubic metres of dredging would be required to accommodate a 14,000 TEU ship.’
Reference Infrastructure Victoria Advice on Securing Victoria’s Port Capacity.
The PR work by the Port of Hastings Development Authority has spun the myth that Hastings is a ‘natural deep-water port’, This is untrue. Japan made a small hydrogen ship for their trial presumably so they would fit up as far as The BlueScope Jetty.
Hydrogen is 20 times as explosive as petrol, makes metal brittle, and is difficult to transport. The trial used a top-heavy ship that sailed through the tropics in cyclone season. It had to keep its hydrogen under -253 degrees Celsius, pressurised to a far greater degree than LNP. How much fuel did they use in the month-long journey to keep the hydrogen cool and power the ship? How much would a huge ship take to power it for a month? There was an incident with a flaming at a valve on board too at Hastings. Not unsurprisingly it only completed one of the three planned trial journeys.
‘We are asking the government to learn lessons from the past. It is widely recognised that Japanese woodchip ships brought in Northern Pacific Seastar and Japanese kelp in the 1980s into Port Phillip Bay and Tasmania.’ Karri said ‘Our waters are a similar temperature to Japan, and we lack the natural enemies of these pests, so we are asking The Government to back away from instituting a stream of ships up into Westernport from Japan, in order to protect Westernport from being carpeted by these pests and to protect our fish stocks.’
The Westernport Site Management Plan (2017) lists marine pest infestation as fourth among 17 of its top priority threats to the Westernport Ramsar site.
https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/66270/Western-Port-Ramsar-Site-Management-Plan_revised.pdf
In 2019 WPPC and Save Westernport successfully applied through the Commonwealth Stronger Communities Environmental Grant program, and the local Member for Flinders, Mr Greg Hunt MP, for funding to allow underwater surveys for invasive Marine pest species to be carried out under BlueScope pier because we were concerned that Kawasaki was due to begin its pilot exporting hydrogen in Westernport Bay, without addressing the risk of introducing invasive marine pests.
WPPC initiated a letter to Kawasaki Heavy Industries, endorsed by eight local environmental groups, requesting the urgent monitoring for marine pests at the project site at BlueScope Hastings pier. https://drive.google.com/file/d/12knec8EN4-v8xrMycrgrUU7m1TIsZ0cM/view?usp=drivesdk
Because early detection and removal are the only effective means of preventing infestations, when Kawasaki declined our request, we decided to develop our own project.
Several years ago, BlueScope stopped sending Marine scientist Jan Watson under their pier to monitor for toxicity, she kept a look out for other species. The Port of Hastings Development Authority does not require or carry out its own regular assessment of marine pests from commercial shipping.
When BlueScope refused access to our professional divers from Fathom Pacific, we had to change our project location.
Westernport’s Stony Point jetty and Yaringa Harbour were assessed for invasive species Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis) and Japanese Kelp (Undaria pinnatifida) by our professional divers and remote cameras. Professor Adrian Flynn from Fathom Pacific produced a report of their findings.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qqbdp9DHQadZK5h90gX1lM2c-kdmXkYQ/view?usp=drivesdk
Recent government surveys found no signs of the species at San Remo and Hastings Marina, and during their EES surveys, AGL recorded neither species at Crib Point jetty, nor a large area in lower North Arm. Parks Vic have worked on both The Cowes Jetty and Flinders Jetty recently with neither of these species found.
This suggests that Westernport’s marine environment remains free from the two most damaging invasive pest species.
After writing to Kawasaki and meeting with them, and answering questions about our project, in 2021 we welcomed news from Kawasaki confirming their decision to assess the BlueScope jetty for signs of marine species before, during and after the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain pilot, or shipping trial.
Letter from Kawasaki
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fSnLi0cV1zbFyAhsaVX0aINfIuPhEEFz/view?usp=drivesdk
This was carried out in 2022. ‘The marine-pest survey The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain conducted under BlueScope pier was next to useless because it omitted one of the two key species: northern pacific seastar.’ Karri said. ‘We want to know if marine pests came in with the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Pilot Vessel Suiso Frontier, so they can be cleaned up. San Remo, Cowes, Yaringa, Hastings, Crib Pt, Stony Pt and some of Flinders pier have been surveyed lately and these two key species were not present. Are they under BlueScope? Why did their survey and leave out Northern Pacific Seastar? If These species are not present, we demand an environmental bond be paid by Japan before this project proceeds. The cost of monitoring and cleaning-up inevitable infestations should not be met by the Australian public. Better yet scrap this project.’
Ships coming in from the Temperate waters of the Japanese area hold a special risk because the larvae and spores finds themselves in water of a suitable temperature and can take hold. The infestations in Tasmania and Port Phillip Bay have shocked marine users and scientists with the speed of their spread and the disappearance of native flora and fauna, including fish.
WPPC suspect some of the 80 million dollars given to the Port of Hastings Development Authority during the Baillieu/ Napthine Governments was spent on public relations firms to aid in the suppression of studies, such as the link between fish stocks and northern Pacific seastar.
WPPC remain opposed to Kawasaki’s hydrogen export trial. We believe the dangers associated with the project can be neither managed, nor justified. In addition to the terrible threat of marine pests, the project prolongs the use of the most polluting form of lignite brown coal to produce hydrogen for the benefit of the Japanese market, while sustainable Green hydrogen sources abound. ‘We demand that every stage of this project is included in the projected carbon and water use accounting. The pipes or transport to take carbon dioxide from The Latrobe Valley to the Bass Strait oil field would take a ridiculous amount of energy and water. We want all resources used, in every stage of this planned project, calculated and made public. It is only then that its true inefficiency can be seen. The energy industry has labelled it ‘stupid’’’ . Karri
‘We demand that the ruling by past Minister Wynne that it is was an ‘essential project’ for Victoria, exempting it from the scrutiny of an Environment Effects Statement be revoked as it is isn’t good for Victoria. It doesn’t supply us with energy, and it threatens the health of Westernport that is crucial for the economy of the region. It uses an enormous amount of our precious water, and is another dangerous fossil fuel project endangering lives through climate change.’
“Gippsland deserves jobs in a worthwhile 21 century industries such as community power, conversions of petrol to EV/hybrids, upcycling solar panels, a radial- sawing pine mill for construction timber. Regional Development boards have plenty of options for investment.” Said Karri
Powering new jobs in new industries for Gippsland - Regional Development Victoria (rdv.vic.gov.au)-
Westernport Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC),
Website: https://www.wppcinc.org/
Karri Giles 0425 707 448
ID Picture thanks to Pt Phillip Bay Ecocentre:
Some photos supplied by Fathom Pacific
Figure 4 Diver at Stony Pt
Figure 5 Sponges at Stony Pt
A 2019 Article on the threat of Marine Pests in the Bayside News https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PkOjDtObO6mZHw3w_qNVVns6N5vog3yf/view?usp=drivesdk
2021 Article about our project
https://www.mpnews.com.au/2021/12/20/pest-fears-over-hydrogen-exports/
Westernport Group expresses outrage at Hydrogen Export Announcement.
Community group Westernport Peninsula Protection Council Inc, now in its 52nd year, was outraged at the announcement of the Hydrogen Export plan for Hastings. ‘We are outraged that this project is said to be going ahead despite the risk it poses to Westernport from dredging and marine pests, its colossal inefficiency, use of too much water, as well as being a new fossil fuel plan. It is hard to overstate how stupid this project is. Victoria shouldn’t allow oil companies - (political doners) and foreign countries to force us into such a project. The Latrobe Valley deserved better, longer term jobs for the government expenditure.’
WPPC secretary Karri Giles said.
Hastings is a shallow bay most of it being less than 5 metres deep. It has a narrow channel that currently accommodates small ships. Hastings was rejected by Infrastructure Victoria for a container port because it found that the necessary dredging would be of an absolutely massive scale that would totally ruin Westernport:
‘This means the total dredge volume for the Hastings concept is about 47 million cubic metres, made up of 24 million cubic metres for the channels and port area, 5 million cubic metres for the reclamation footprint and 18 million cubic metres for the sand dredged from Bass Strait to build the reclamation. these dredging volumes are to accommodate an 18500 TEU ship. About 45 million cubic metres of dredging would be required to accommodate a 14,000 TEU ship.’
Reference Infrastructure Victoria Advice on Securing Victoria’s Port Capacity.
The PR work by the Port of Hastings Development Authority has spun the myth that Hastings is a ‘natural deep-water port’, This is untrue. Japan made a small hydrogen ship for their trial presumably so they would fit up as far as The BlueScope Jetty.
Hydrogen is 20 times as explosive as petrol, makes metal brittle, and is difficult to transport. The trial used a top-heavy ship that sailed through the tropics in cyclone season. It had to keep its hydrogen under -253 degrees Celsius, pressurised to a far greater degree than LNP. How much fuel did they use in the month-long journey to keep the hydrogen cool and power the ship? How much would a huge ship take to power it for a month? There was an incident with a flaming at a valve on board too at Hastings. Not unsurprisingly it only completed one of the three planned trial journeys.
‘We are asking the government to learn lessons from the past. It is widely recognised that Japanese woodchip ships brought in Northern Pacific Seastar and Japanese kelp in the 1980s into Port Phillip Bay and Tasmania.’ Karri said ‘Our waters are a similar temperature to Japan, and we lack the natural enemies of these pests, so we are asking The Government to back away from instituting a stream of ships up into Westernport from Japan, in order to protect Westernport from being carpeted by these pests and to protect our fish stocks.’
The Westernport Site Management Plan (2017) lists marine pest infestation as fourth among 17 of its top priority threats to the Westernport Ramsar site.
https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/66270/Western-Port-Ramsar-Site-Management-Plan_revised.pdf
In 2019 WPPC and Save Westernport successfully applied through the Commonwealth Stronger Communities Environmental Grant program, and the local Member for Flinders, Mr Greg Hunt MP, for funding to allow underwater surveys for invasive Marine pest species to be carried out under BlueScope pier because we were concerned that Kawasaki was due to begin its pilot exporting hydrogen in Westernport Bay, without addressing the risk of introducing invasive marine pests.
WPPC initiated a letter to Kawasaki Heavy Industries, endorsed by eight local environmental groups, requesting the urgent monitoring for marine pests at the project site at BlueScope Hastings pier. https://drive.google.com/file/d/12knec8EN4-v8xrMycrgrUU7m1TIsZ0cM/view?usp=drivesdk
Because early detection and removal are the only effective means of preventing infestations, when Kawasaki declined our request, we decided to develop our own project.
Several years ago, BlueScope stopped sending Marine scientist Jan Watson under their pier to monitor for toxicity, she kept a look out for other species. The Port of Hastings Development Authority does not require or carry out its own regular assessment of marine pests from commercial shipping.
When BlueScope refused access to our professional divers from Fathom Pacific, we had to change our project location.
Westernport’s Stony Point jetty and Yaringa Harbour were assessed for invasive species Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis) and Japanese Kelp (Undaria pinnatifida) by our professional divers and remote cameras. Professor Adrian Flynn from Fathom Pacific produced a report of their findings.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qqbdp9DHQadZK5h90gX1lM2c-kdmXkYQ/view?usp=drivesdk
Recent government surveys found no signs of the species at San Remo and Hastings Marina, and during their EES surveys, AGL recorded neither species at Crib Point jetty, nor a large area in lower North Arm. Parks Vic have worked on both The Cowes Jetty and Flinders Jetty recently with neither of these species found.
This suggests that Westernport’s marine environment remains free from the two most damaging invasive pest species.
After writing to Kawasaki and meeting with them, and answering questions about our project, in 2021 we welcomed news from Kawasaki confirming their decision to assess the BlueScope jetty for signs of marine species before, during and after the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain pilot, or shipping trial.
Letter from Kawasaki
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fSnLi0cV1zbFyAhsaVX0aINfIuPhEEFz/view?usp=drivesdk
This was carried out in 2022. ‘The marine-pest survey The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain conducted under BlueScope pier was next to useless because it omitted one of the two key species: northern pacific seastar.’ Karri said. ‘We want to know if marine pests came in with the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Pilot Vessel Suiso Frontier, so they can be cleaned up. San Remo, Cowes, Yaringa, Hastings, Crib Pt, Stony Pt and some of Flinders pier have been surveyed lately and these two key species were not present. Are they under BlueScope? Why did their survey and leave out Northern Pacific Seastar? If These species are not present, we demand an environmental bond be paid by Japan before this project proceeds. The cost of monitoring and cleaning-up inevitable infestations should not be met by the Australian public. Better yet scrap this project.’
Ships coming in from the Temperate waters of the Japanese area hold a special risk because the larvae and spores finds themselves in water of a suitable temperature and can take hold. The infestations in Tasmania and Port Phillip Bay have shocked marine users and scientists with the speed of their spread and the disappearance of native flora and fauna, including fish.
WPPC suspect some of the 80 million dollars given to the Port of Hastings Development Authority during the Baillieu/ Napthine Governments was spent on public relations firms to aid in the suppression of studies, such as the link between fish stocks and northern Pacific seastar.
WPPC remain opposed to Kawasaki’s hydrogen export trial. We believe the dangers associated with the project can be neither managed, nor justified. In addition to the terrible threat of marine pests, the project prolongs the use of the most polluting form of lignite brown coal to produce hydrogen for the benefit of the Japanese market, while sustainable Green hydrogen sources abound. ‘We demand that every stage of this project is included in the projected carbon and water use accounting. The pipes or transport to take carbon dioxide from The Latrobe Valley to the Bass Strait oil field would take a ridiculous amount of energy and water. We want all resources used, in every stage of this planned project, calculated and made public. It is only then that its true inefficiency can be seen. The energy industry has labelled it ‘stupid’’’ . Karri
‘We demand that the ruling by past Minister Wynne that it is was an ‘essential project’ for Victoria, exempting it from the scrutiny of an Environment Effects Statement be revoked as it is isn’t good for Victoria. It doesn’t supply us with energy, and it threatens the health of Westernport that is crucial for the economy of the region. It uses an enormous amount of our precious water, and is another dangerous fossil fuel project endangering lives through climate change.’
“Gippsland deserves jobs in a worthwhile 21 century industries such as community power, conversions of petrol to EV/hybrids, upcycling solar panels, a radial- sawing pine mill for construction timber. Regional Development boards have plenty of options for investment.” Said Karri
Powering new jobs in new industries for Gippsland - Regional Development Victoria (rdv.vic.gov.au)-
Westernport Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC),
Website: https://www.wppcinc.org/
Karri Giles 0425 707 448
ID Picture thanks to Pt Phillip Bay Ecocentre:
Some photos supplied by Fathom Pacific
Figure 4 Diver at Stony Pt
Figure 5 Sponges at Stony Pt
A 2019 Article on the threat of Marine Pests in the Bayside News https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PkOjDtObO6mZHw3w_qNVVns6N5vog3yf/view?usp=drivesdk
2021 Article about our project
https://www.mpnews.com.au/2021/12/20/pest-fears-over-hydrogen-exports/
Fathom Pacific surveying for Marine Pests under Stony Point Pier for WPPC and Save Westernport. Funded by The Commonwealth Communities Environment Grant Oct 2021
WPPC and Save Westernport Announce Their Marine Pest Survey is completed
WPPC and Save Westernport are thrilled to launce their marine pest survey results for Westernport They were awarded a grant through Greg Hunt MP's Office for marine pest surveying under BlueScope pier. This was deemed a good idea as the small ships from Japan to be used in the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain trial bring a threat of marine pests with them. Ships from Japan exporting our woodchips brought these pests to other nearby ports.
BlueScope denied us access, so the grant location was changed to Yaringa Marina and Stony Point Pier. These were thought to compliment other recent surveys completed under Dr Richard Stafford-Bell's Team in the Marine Pest section of Agriculture Victoria at San Remo and Westernport Marina at Hastings.
The Good News is that no Northern Pacific Seastar or Japanese Kelp have been found. Pacific oysters were the most significant pests found.
Flynn. A. Fathom Pacific 2021 Western Port Marine Pest Survey Oct 2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TVN51O3cLj6c_0RyhUXFNsrU-odnJxe_/view?usp=drivesdk
BlueScope denied us access, so the grant location was changed to Yaringa Marina and Stony Point Pier. These were thought to compliment other recent surveys completed under Dr Richard Stafford-Bell's Team in the Marine Pest section of Agriculture Victoria at San Remo and Westernport Marina at Hastings.
The Good News is that no Northern Pacific Seastar or Japanese Kelp have been found. Pacific oysters were the most significant pests found.
Flynn. A. Fathom Pacific 2021 Western Port Marine Pest Survey Oct 2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TVN51O3cLj6c_0RyhUXFNsrU-odnJxe_/view?usp=drivesdk
Good news! Kawasaki have announced that they will do marine pest monitoring pre-and-post hydrogen trial. This is a response to a letter of request initiated by WPPC and jointly signed by 8 environment groups and our follow up work including the grant awarded to us and Save Westernport applied for by Julia, Karri and Chris Chandler. This grant was from Greg Hunt's Office.
The grant awarded by Federal government to WPPC and Save Westernport will now be used for a snapshot to determine the presence/ absence of marine pets at Stony Point. We'll keep you updated on the progress. Read their response here:
The grant awarded by Federal government to WPPC and Save Westernport will now be used for a snapshot to determine the presence/ absence of marine pets at Stony Point. We'll keep you updated on the progress. Read their response here:
Response From Kawasaki and the HESC Project Partners regarding Marine Pest Monitoring 12th April 2021
| marine_pest_monitoring_community_response_letter[6438].pdf |
Dear Karri,
Thank you for your letter regarding marine pest monitoring. HESC Project Partners take the community’s concern about the threat of marine pests in the Westernport Bay area seriously. We have been and continue to take actions to address this concern. I am writing on behalf of all project partners to address several points raised in your letter. Marine Pest Monitoring Kawasaki Heavy Industry (KHI) will conduct marine pest monitoring at BlueScope Jetty before the arrival of the Suiso Frontier between October 2021 and March 2022. To this end, KHI is assessing the work required for marine pest monitoring in the area and is in preliminary discussions with a CSIRO-recommended marine monitoring company to undertake the work As requested, a scope of work is also being developed with the marine monitoring company for ongoing monitoring for an appropriate period after the last ship departs Western Port Bay. Ballast Water In the pilot phase, as the amount of hydrogen to be loaded onto the ship is small, we do not anticipate that any ballast water will be released. In the case of an emergency, a water treatment facility is installed on the ship to ensure ballast water is treated prior to being released. This treatment neutralises chlorine, which won’t be released into the sea water. This will prevent the spread of foreign marine species to the Port of Hastings. Furthermore, the Suiso Frontier will comply with the Australian Government’s Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (ABWMR). The latest requirements of the ABWMR reflects the implementation of the Ballast Water Convention and includes new national domestic ballast water requirements to reduce the risk of spreading marine pests that have already established in Australian seas. Complying with the ABWMR ensures: • Every vessel carries a valid ballast water management plan • All vessels must carry a valid International Ballast Water management certificate • Vessels with a ballast water management system (BWMS) must carry a Type Approval Certificate specific to the type of Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) installed • All vessels must maintain a complete and accurate record of all ballast water movements. Commercial operation in Hastings There will be no dredging of Westernport Bay for the HESC Pilot. We have not decided a port suitable for a commercial stage HESC Project and a decision to progress to commercialisation will be made after the pilot project is completed. Whichever Port location is considered, HESC will take steps to identify and mitigate local issues, including environmental ones, by listening to local concerns and the voices of experts here and internationally. We recognise that Westernport Bay is a precious marine habitat. We can assure you that if HESC proceeds to commercialisation the regulatory approvals process provides an integrated and transparent assessment of the proposed project and its impacts.We have a vision for a sustainable energy future. HESC believes that as we transition to this future, clean hydrogen produced from Latrobe Valley coal with carbon capture and storage will be able to reduce significant amounts of atmospheric CO2, meet projected hydrogen demand and maintain affordability. The critical infrastructure, sustainable jobs, and in-demand skills HESC creates are all crucial ingredients for renewable hydrogen projects. We hope this information helps to clarify some matters and extend an invite for another virtual briefing session soon.
Kind regards, Yuko Fukuma Senior Staff Officer of Kawasaki Heavy Industries
| joint_8_hastings_marine_pest_hydrogen__monitoring_letter.doc |
Joint 8 Group Marine Pest Monitoring Letter
Yuko Fukuma
Senior Staff Officer
Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Care of GHD
Level 7 180 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne 3000
The Prime Minister
Hon Scott Morrison
Parliament House
Canberra
ACT 2600
Hon Jaala Pulford MP
Minister for Agriculture
15 Main Street Ballarat
Vic 3350
Hon Daniel Andrews
Office of the Premier
1 Treasury place Melbourne
Australia VIC 3002
Dear Sirs and Madam,
RE: Request for Marine Pest Monitoring at Bluescope as part of The Hydrogen Export Trial
We believe the Japanese ships that would arrive in Hastings, as part of the Hydrogen Export Trial, pose a marine pest threat to Westernport Bay. We are writing to request Marine Pest Monitoring at Bluescope as part of the Kawasaki, J Power and Iwatani trial exporting hydrogen gas from Hastings. We would also urge close vigilance from EPA in following ballast water treatment procedures. If there are marine pests found there must be a program to attempt to clear them up.
Westernport Bay currently does not have Northern Pacific Seastar and Undaria pinnatifide, (Japanese kelp). These organisms have devastated the ecology of Port Phillip Bay, Apollo Bay and The Derwent Estuary. The trial threatens to bring in these pests, as gas ships are to come straight from Japan, their native home. Currently there is no underwater monitoring being done at Bluescope Hastings, and there hasn’t been for more than a year. We demand the site is monitored for at least four years for marine pests after the last ship.
We, the groups represented, strongly oppose the project proceeding to commercial stages and trust that it will never proceed because the necessary dredging in Hastings is unconscionable. (Ref: Infrastructure Victoria Container Port Discussion Paper). We question the sense of doing a trial for such a flawed project.
The Federal and State Governments have contributed 50 Million dollars each for this trial and Japan, 400 million. Some money for the trial must be put towards protecting our Ramsar listed environment.
Yours sincerely,
Karri Giles
Secretary Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council Inc On behalf of the groups above and below
RenewEconomy's Giles Parkinson summed up the new venture perfectly:
Yes, that’s right: $500 million to build a pilot plant that will operate for just 12 months and produce a grand total “up to” three tonnes of hydrogen over the whole year. I had to read that ten times and get on the phone twice to check. World-first, perhaps, because it is hard to imagine another country that would think of turning brown coal into hydrogen and at such an outrageous cost — least of all one with such rich wind and solar resources, and which already has some cheaper renewables-fuelled hydrogen projects of its own.
Yes, that’s right: $500 million to build a pilot plant that will operate for just 12 months and produce a grand total “up to” three tonnes of hydrogen over the whole year. I had to read that ten times and get on the phone twice to check. World-first, perhaps, because it is hard to imagine another country that would think of turning brown coal into hydrogen and at such an outrageous cost — least of all one with such rich wind and solar resources, and which already has some cheaper renewables-fuelled hydrogen projects of its own.
No Hydrogen Exports for Westernport Save Our Fish Stocks
13/4/18
Press Release from WPPC Say No to Kawasaki at Hastings“The Federal and State Government’s announcement that hydrogen would be shipped from the Port of Hastings to Japan is unwelcome to Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council.”
Representative of our group WPPC met last year with a Public Relations woman from GHD representing three Japanese companies: Kawasaki, J Power and Iwatani. She explained that Japan is trying to move to a hydrogen economy. They have proposed to export hydrogen gas from Hastings made from Loy Yang’s brown coal. Loy Lang has recently been sold to a Chinese company. The proposal involves: Partially burning brown coal at Loy Yang, pumping the CO2 produced underground (once a location and method of sequestrating has been determined), trucking of gas to Hastings, converting it to liquid at Hastings in a new plant, building a new port to export it, shipping it to Japan and converting it back to gas in Japan.
“Four industrial processes, two journeys and the wrecking of Westernport Bay by dredging and marine pests makes this hydrogen power source for Japan definitely not green or clean.”
It must be one of the least efficient power sources ever dreamt up, and certainly one of the most expensive. They told us they “are looking for a partnership with the Victorian Government” and sure enough this week our governments have announced a spend of 100 million on the trial alone.
We have 3 main problems with this proposal
2. Marine Pests would kill fish stocks.The fact the ships are empty and require ballast means marine pests i.e. The Japanese Northern Pacific Star Fish. This starfish came into Derwent estuary woodchip port either in the Ballast water or on the hull of Japanese ship in the 1980s. It then was found in Port Phillip Bay in the 1990s. Westernport Bay currently does not have Northern Pacific Sea Star and we do not want to see empty ships from Japan full of Ballast water enter Westernport Bay. While Ballast water is exchanged at sea, if one star fish remains in the ship or on the hull it can produce thousands of larvae.
3. This project has Questionable viability. The amount of emissions involved with four industrial processes, a stream of trucks on our roads with highly explosive gas, long ship journeys and the wrecking of Westernport Bay makes this a very dirty form of energy and a very expensive one. This project is probably unviable. We have seen many projects fail in Westernport because they are unviable in the 47 years of WPPC’s history. It never seems to stop our governments from announcing them or subsidizing them.We join with Environment Victoria as being very worried about another failed project for Latrobe Valley. They deserve a sustainable job creation boost, not one that is likely to be unviable. Australia has migratory bird agreements with Japan and China. Westernport Bay hosts 35 species of migratory wader birds.We started a letter writing campaign on this issue last year and the letter is available on our website. We have had no consultation from the Government but a letter back from the State Trade minister. We have asked to meet the Trade Minister in Early March with no response. We told the GHD rep Libby that members of our group, and other groups concerned about this, are experienced and prepared to lobbying at high levels and blockade.Karri Giles
SecretaryWesternport and Peninsula Protection Council [email protected] 0425 707 448
Press Release from WPPC Say No to Kawasaki at Hastings“The Federal and State Government’s announcement that hydrogen would be shipped from the Port of Hastings to Japan is unwelcome to Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council.”
Representative of our group WPPC met last year with a Public Relations woman from GHD representing three Japanese companies: Kawasaki, J Power and Iwatani. She explained that Japan is trying to move to a hydrogen economy. They have proposed to export hydrogen gas from Hastings made from Loy Yang’s brown coal. Loy Lang has recently been sold to a Chinese company. The proposal involves: Partially burning brown coal at Loy Yang, pumping the CO2 produced underground (once a location and method of sequestrating has been determined), trucking of gas to Hastings, converting it to liquid at Hastings in a new plant, building a new port to export it, shipping it to Japan and converting it back to gas in Japan.
“Four industrial processes, two journeys and the wrecking of Westernport Bay by dredging and marine pests makes this hydrogen power source for Japan definitely not green or clean.”
It must be one of the least efficient power sources ever dreamt up, and certainly one of the most expensive. They told us they “are looking for a partnership with the Victorian Government” and sure enough this week our governments have announced a spend of 100 million on the trial alone.
We have 3 main problems with this proposal
- Dredging would kill fish stocks.
Why would our State Government reject a container port on the basis of the infrastructure Victoria report, and then entertain this proposal? The dredging involved with bringing very large ships into Hastings would be massive. Infrastructure Victoria said it would take 23 million cubic metres inside Westernport (the same amount as the infamous channel deepening in the much larger Port Phillip Bay, Victoria’s biggest infrastructure project yet) and the same 23 cubic metres outside Westernport, to bring in material that is heavy for reclaimation because the existing bottom of Westernport, which is more of an estuary than a Bay, is unsuitably silty.
2. Marine Pests would kill fish stocks.The fact the ships are empty and require ballast means marine pests i.e. The Japanese Northern Pacific Star Fish. This starfish came into Derwent estuary woodchip port either in the Ballast water or on the hull of Japanese ship in the 1980s. It then was found in Port Phillip Bay in the 1990s. Westernport Bay currently does not have Northern Pacific Sea Star and we do not want to see empty ships from Japan full of Ballast water enter Westernport Bay. While Ballast water is exchanged at sea, if one star fish remains in the ship or on the hull it can produce thousands of larvae.
3. This project has Questionable viability. The amount of emissions involved with four industrial processes, a stream of trucks on our roads with highly explosive gas, long ship journeys and the wrecking of Westernport Bay makes this a very dirty form of energy and a very expensive one. This project is probably unviable. We have seen many projects fail in Westernport because they are unviable in the 47 years of WPPC’s history. It never seems to stop our governments from announcing them or subsidizing them.We join with Environment Victoria as being very worried about another failed project for Latrobe Valley. They deserve a sustainable job creation boost, not one that is likely to be unviable. Australia has migratory bird agreements with Japan and China. Westernport Bay hosts 35 species of migratory wader birds.We started a letter writing campaign on this issue last year and the letter is available on our website. We have had no consultation from the Government but a letter back from the State Trade minister. We have asked to meet the Trade Minister in Early March with no response. We told the GHD rep Libby that members of our group, and other groups concerned about this, are experienced and prepared to lobbying at high levels and blockade.Karri Giles
SecretaryWesternport and Peninsula Protection Council [email protected] 0425 707 448
1/3/2018
Dear Hon Phillip Dalidakis MP,
Thank you for your letter to our Treasurer Sheila Ker Ref: CMIN180568R
Re Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Project,
We are disbelieving and incredulous that you are working with the consortia led by Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) to further the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Project. The use of hydrogen in Japan after three industrial processes and shipping out of a new port in Westernport Bay, to Japan does not in any way constitute a low-emission or a green energy source.
Infrastructure Victoria found that building a port in Hastings would entail approximately 55million cubic metres of dredging, about twice as much as the infamous Channel Deepening Project. This is unconscionable.
Hydrogen trucks on our roads, government subsidises, and empty ships requiring Ballast from the Northern Pacific Seastar’s natural home of Japan, are all reason enough to abandon this plan.
Because of the use of fossil fuels, Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, and Ramsar status of Westernport Bay we look forward to building alliances to oppose this issue with local, State, National, and International Groups. This could also play as a great script in a Working Dog production such as Utopia.
We request a meeting with you to discuss this matter.
Karri Giles
Secretary - WPPC
[email protected]
| wppc_hydrogen_hastings_press_release.doc |
Major Container Port Proposal -
NO PORT FOR WESTERNPORT BAY
The State Government has published plans to concrete four kilometres of the coast from Hastings through Tyabb, to Yaringa.The Proposed Port of Hastings involves dredging and the removal of mangroves.The associated development of road, rail and container storage makes this plan the biggest infrastructure plan ever for Victoria. This needs to have The Federal Government's approval because Westernport Bay is a Ramsar Site and on The Natural Heritage Estate Register. Increases in shipping would expose Westernport Bay to threats such as oil spill and marine pests. We are opposed to this plan. For more information see Port of Hastings.
WPPC respond to the Draft Port of Hastings Transport Strategy
· The environmental risks of port operation and port development in Westernport are unacceptable have not been addressed in this Consultation Draft, but remain as potential showstoppers.
· Expensive and time consuming studies such as this one have now been carried out several times over a number of years, and they all continue to ignore the warnings of the science ‘on the table’. The science is well known and the dangers it foretells well understood.
· Westernport is shallow, narrow and highly tidal, approximately 40% of its area being inter-tidal mudflats which form the basis of a highly productive and diverse ecosystem. Twice a day the bottom of 40% of the Bay is in contact with the surface making any pollutant on the surface, such as oil, coat the benthic organisms (the plants and animals on the bottom) directly.
· As well as the well known colonies of penguins and Australian fur seals, the bay is host to thousands of marine species, a breeding ground for ocean fish, and the summer feeding ground for about 35 species of migrant wader birds from Siberia, China, Japan and Alaska. Almost the entire area of the bay is listed as a Ramsar wetland, and it is the largest Ramsar site in Victoria. Many of the bird species listed in the JAMBA and CAMBA agreements use the bay. The ecological significance and the sensitivity of Westernport were brought to public attention in the 1970's by a major environmental study [1], and an up to date summary of that study and of subsequent work is contained in the Westernport Bay Strategy 1992[2].
· Dredging If a process of development were to start, deepening the already ‘deep’ channels would be on the agenda. The old chestnut of ‘the natural advantage of natural deep water’ is rubbish. In the Port of Hastings Strategic Land Use and Transport Access Corridor Planning Study- Community Reference Group- Options Briefing Dept of Infrastructure, Port of Hastings and Maunsell. Oct 2005 Deepening of the Channel is mentioned….."Likely Vessel Requirements….Existing Channel depth 14.3metres at lowest tide (zero tide). Tidal assistance will be required at times to allow large vessels access to the port of Hastings- a scheduling constraint. Deepening of Channel [from 14.3m] to 16m would provide greater flexibility’.
· Significant dredging has been proposed just to establish the wharf. Drawings from pg. 10 to 14 show areas of 1.5kms to more than 4kms long, and 600m to 750m wide hatched to depict potential dredging areas. In addition to this there is an 800m basin hatched into seagrass flats for Dry Bulk. Dredging has several ways of affecting the environment. The immediate environment will suffer long-term affects, but probably even worse is the widespread threat to seagrass resulting from suspended sediments.
· Suspended sediments threaten seagrass and other life forms by seriously reducing sunlight, adding nutrients that stimulate algae growth, and reduce oxygen levels threatening eutrophication. [3]
· Seagrass habitat is crucial in driving fisheries production, contributing to %90 of the total nutrition of key fisheries target species.[4]
· The roots of Seagrass and mangroves stabilise the sediments and provide oxygen, and where they have died back at the north of The Bay crabs and shell-fish dig air holes- providing oxygen to the muddy bottom of Westernport Bay. These crabs and shell-fish live off plant matter brought to them on the tides, and plankton.
· The health of the benthos (bottom of The Bay) is crucial for absorbing the nutrients entering the water coloum from Shipping, stormwater or suspended sediments. Nutrients that are in excess create potentially toxic algae blooms and lower oxygen levels threatening eutophication. 3
· Tidal movements mean oil spills, marine pest larvae, and dredge spoil would not stay confined to the proposed port area. Western Port is a massive tidal wetland, about 40 per cent of, which is dry twice a day. Through the middle of the seagrass-covered mudflats runs the shipping channel, which surges with the tidal flows bringing the waters of the port into contact with the sensitive ecosystem. The water moves on each tide a distance of 10 to 20 kilometres and, over weeks, circulates around French Island - a giant washing machine. Based on observations of water movements, in The Shapiro Study, Professor Jon Hinwoodand his colleagues designed a mathematical model that predicted how a polluting material. For example, the cloud of fine particles of silt produced by dredging - would spread around the whole bay within a few weeks. The inevitable polluting effects of port development and port operation - oil spills, introduced marine pest larvae, as well as the ever-necessary dredging - are not therefore confined to the port area: a pollution event anywhere in the bay would in a short time affect the whole bay.
· Marine Pests An increase in shipping means an increase in the threat of marine pests. Westernport Bay had 7 species of marine pest in 1997, none of them major marine pests. Corio Bay in Port Phillip and Derwent River Hobart are two bays that have Dry Bulk facilities used buy Woodchip Ships from Japan where the Northern Pacific Seastars originate. Northern Pacific Sea stars in Port Phillip Bay have been identified as a contributor to the dramatic loss of commercial fish stocks in Port Phillip Bay. In the last ten years or so fish stocks in the middle of the Bay, where these creatures dominate, have fallen by 20%. (conservatively) [5] No sane person would propose a dry bulk facility for Westernport Bay.
· Oil Spills
Mr. P McGrath, Chief Executive of AMSA, stated at Spillcon 94:"other than in exceptional circumstances, current technology does not exist to prevent weather driven oil from an inshore incident coming ashore on the coastline." Westernport consists of narrow, tidal waterways around two islands, so that a ship must always be within 2 to 5 km of a coastline. Much of the time there is "weather", so current technology doesnot exist to save Westernport from a moderate or major spill. A moderate (say 550 tonnes!) or major (10,000 tonnes) spill would be catastrophic, and once deposited more damage would be caused by attempted removal.
"What is the risk of a major oil spill?" [6]. To quote ANAO: "As AMSA says, 'It is only a matter of time'. The remarks made in the second and third paragraphs of this section are all especially relevant to Westernport: …."Oil may be ingested by marine and animal life and the toxic chemicals in oil, and dispersants used to treat the oil, can have a significant ecological impact. This is a particular problem in mangroves, seagrass, and reef areas where it is difficult to remove the oil."….."Spilled oil can have a serious economic impact on coastal activities such as tourism and the fishing industry."
Also relevant to Westernport Bay in the ANAO report is the observation[7] that:…."The National Plan Review identified that swift currents and high tidal velocities severely limit the opportunity for physical response (use of booms and skimmers) throughout Torres Strait and Northern Territory waters." These conditions also apply in Westernport, where tides run at up to 5 knots along the narrow arms of the bay. These conditions render the use of booms largely ineffective. The alternative response tool pointed to in the audit for Torres Strait and Northern Territory, namelydispersant,should also be regarded as generally unacceptable in Westernport, due to it's toxicity. Thus the two principal oil-spill response tools will be generally unavailable in Westernport.
· We demand an Environmental Impact Assessment on the Whole Completed Project.
Since the proclamation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 the Ramsar Convention has become a part of Australian federal law, and any action that has or will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland must be referred to the Federal Minister for the Environment. It is unacceptable, therefore, to refer to an ‘EES’ which is a State process. No justification is given in the document and the verbal explanation given at the CRG briefing meeting that ‘DEH have determined that the EES process will inform both EES and EIS processes’ in unacceptable
This report should state simply that because the site is a Ramsar site, reference of all proposed actions will be mandatory under the EPBC Act, leaving a determination by the Minister to follow based on the full facts of the proposed action.
We are concerned also with the term ‘strategic assessment’ as applying to an ‘EES’. We are not aware of this term being used in the EPBC Act, (nor in the Victorian Environment Effects Act) and it deserves definition.
We believe it is vital that a full and detailed environmental impact assessment be carried out on a completed 3-stage project before any start is made on stage 1
· Alternative Solutions: We believe further that alternative solutions (taking all modes of transport and the national interest into account) be assessed in such a full EIA; and that the full economic cost/benefit case for each alternative be assessed, using 21st century understanding of economics as including environmental costs. The ground breaking cost estimates of Costanza et al (forwarded as an attachment by Mr Len Warfe in his March 2006 submission) puts very high values on wetlands which were seen by the authors as probably very conservative. We do not pretend to prescribe a solution, but simply refer to Candy Broad's conclusion from the Victorian Ports Strategic Study consultations: "The consultations indicated a growing interest in intermodal operations and more integrated transport solutions." The proper next step should be a broad, open nationwide inquiry into the task of transporting goods involving all alternatives.
[1]Westernport Bay Environmental Study 1973-74, Director, Maurice Shapiro, Ministry for Conservation, Victoria, Melbourne, 1975.
[2]Westernport Bay Strategy, Westernport Regional Planning and Coordination Committee, Department of Planning and Development, Melbourne, 1992.
[3] Port Phillip Bay environmental Study. Final Report. CSIRO .1996
[4] Fish and seagrass- determining the links that drive fisheries production in Corner Inlet. Langmore .Andy Department of Primary Industries 30 September 2007
[5] Marine Pests affect on Fish stocks unpublished report from Greg Parry MAFRI Queenscliff.
[6]Audit Report No.9, : "Is Australia ready to respond to a major oil spill?", ANAO ,1994, p. xiii.
[7]ANAO op cit p xxii
· Expensive and time consuming studies such as this one have now been carried out several times over a number of years, and they all continue to ignore the warnings of the science ‘on the table’. The science is well known and the dangers it foretells well understood.
· Westernport is shallow, narrow and highly tidal, approximately 40% of its area being inter-tidal mudflats which form the basis of a highly productive and diverse ecosystem. Twice a day the bottom of 40% of the Bay is in contact with the surface making any pollutant on the surface, such as oil, coat the benthic organisms (the plants and animals on the bottom) directly.
· As well as the well known colonies of penguins and Australian fur seals, the bay is host to thousands of marine species, a breeding ground for ocean fish, and the summer feeding ground for about 35 species of migrant wader birds from Siberia, China, Japan and Alaska. Almost the entire area of the bay is listed as a Ramsar wetland, and it is the largest Ramsar site in Victoria. Many of the bird species listed in the JAMBA and CAMBA agreements use the bay. The ecological significance and the sensitivity of Westernport were brought to public attention in the 1970's by a major environmental study [1], and an up to date summary of that study and of subsequent work is contained in the Westernport Bay Strategy 1992[2].
· Dredging If a process of development were to start, deepening the already ‘deep’ channels would be on the agenda. The old chestnut of ‘the natural advantage of natural deep water’ is rubbish. In the Port of Hastings Strategic Land Use and Transport Access Corridor Planning Study- Community Reference Group- Options Briefing Dept of Infrastructure, Port of Hastings and Maunsell. Oct 2005 Deepening of the Channel is mentioned….."Likely Vessel Requirements….Existing Channel depth 14.3metres at lowest tide (zero tide). Tidal assistance will be required at times to allow large vessels access to the port of Hastings- a scheduling constraint. Deepening of Channel [from 14.3m] to 16m would provide greater flexibility’.
· Significant dredging has been proposed just to establish the wharf. Drawings from pg. 10 to 14 show areas of 1.5kms to more than 4kms long, and 600m to 750m wide hatched to depict potential dredging areas. In addition to this there is an 800m basin hatched into seagrass flats for Dry Bulk. Dredging has several ways of affecting the environment. The immediate environment will suffer long-term affects, but probably even worse is the widespread threat to seagrass resulting from suspended sediments.
· Suspended sediments threaten seagrass and other life forms by seriously reducing sunlight, adding nutrients that stimulate algae growth, and reduce oxygen levels threatening eutrophication. [3]
· Seagrass habitat is crucial in driving fisheries production, contributing to %90 of the total nutrition of key fisheries target species.[4]
· The roots of Seagrass and mangroves stabilise the sediments and provide oxygen, and where they have died back at the north of The Bay crabs and shell-fish dig air holes- providing oxygen to the muddy bottom of Westernport Bay. These crabs and shell-fish live off plant matter brought to them on the tides, and plankton.
· The health of the benthos (bottom of The Bay) is crucial for absorbing the nutrients entering the water coloum from Shipping, stormwater or suspended sediments. Nutrients that are in excess create potentially toxic algae blooms and lower oxygen levels threatening eutophication. 3
· Tidal movements mean oil spills, marine pest larvae, and dredge spoil would not stay confined to the proposed port area. Western Port is a massive tidal wetland, about 40 per cent of, which is dry twice a day. Through the middle of the seagrass-covered mudflats runs the shipping channel, which surges with the tidal flows bringing the waters of the port into contact with the sensitive ecosystem. The water moves on each tide a distance of 10 to 20 kilometres and, over weeks, circulates around French Island - a giant washing machine. Based on observations of water movements, in The Shapiro Study, Professor Jon Hinwoodand his colleagues designed a mathematical model that predicted how a polluting material. For example, the cloud of fine particles of silt produced by dredging - would spread around the whole bay within a few weeks. The inevitable polluting effects of port development and port operation - oil spills, introduced marine pest larvae, as well as the ever-necessary dredging - are not therefore confined to the port area: a pollution event anywhere in the bay would in a short time affect the whole bay.
· Marine Pests An increase in shipping means an increase in the threat of marine pests. Westernport Bay had 7 species of marine pest in 1997, none of them major marine pests. Corio Bay in Port Phillip and Derwent River Hobart are two bays that have Dry Bulk facilities used buy Woodchip Ships from Japan where the Northern Pacific Seastars originate. Northern Pacific Sea stars in Port Phillip Bay have been identified as a contributor to the dramatic loss of commercial fish stocks in Port Phillip Bay. In the last ten years or so fish stocks in the middle of the Bay, where these creatures dominate, have fallen by 20%. (conservatively) [5] No sane person would propose a dry bulk facility for Westernport Bay.
· Oil Spills
Mr. P McGrath, Chief Executive of AMSA, stated at Spillcon 94:"other than in exceptional circumstances, current technology does not exist to prevent weather driven oil from an inshore incident coming ashore on the coastline." Westernport consists of narrow, tidal waterways around two islands, so that a ship must always be within 2 to 5 km of a coastline. Much of the time there is "weather", so current technology doesnot exist to save Westernport from a moderate or major spill. A moderate (say 550 tonnes!) or major (10,000 tonnes) spill would be catastrophic, and once deposited more damage would be caused by attempted removal.
"What is the risk of a major oil spill?" [6]. To quote ANAO: "As AMSA says, 'It is only a matter of time'. The remarks made in the second and third paragraphs of this section are all especially relevant to Westernport: …."Oil may be ingested by marine and animal life and the toxic chemicals in oil, and dispersants used to treat the oil, can have a significant ecological impact. This is a particular problem in mangroves, seagrass, and reef areas where it is difficult to remove the oil."….."Spilled oil can have a serious economic impact on coastal activities such as tourism and the fishing industry."
Also relevant to Westernport Bay in the ANAO report is the observation[7] that:…."The National Plan Review identified that swift currents and high tidal velocities severely limit the opportunity for physical response (use of booms and skimmers) throughout Torres Strait and Northern Territory waters." These conditions also apply in Westernport, where tides run at up to 5 knots along the narrow arms of the bay. These conditions render the use of booms largely ineffective. The alternative response tool pointed to in the audit for Torres Strait and Northern Territory, namelydispersant,should also be regarded as generally unacceptable in Westernport, due to it's toxicity. Thus the two principal oil-spill response tools will be generally unavailable in Westernport.
· We demand an Environmental Impact Assessment on the Whole Completed Project.
Since the proclamation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 the Ramsar Convention has become a part of Australian federal law, and any action that has or will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland must be referred to the Federal Minister for the Environment. It is unacceptable, therefore, to refer to an ‘EES’ which is a State process. No justification is given in the document and the verbal explanation given at the CRG briefing meeting that ‘DEH have determined that the EES process will inform both EES and EIS processes’ in unacceptable
This report should state simply that because the site is a Ramsar site, reference of all proposed actions will be mandatory under the EPBC Act, leaving a determination by the Minister to follow based on the full facts of the proposed action.
We are concerned also with the term ‘strategic assessment’ as applying to an ‘EES’. We are not aware of this term being used in the EPBC Act, (nor in the Victorian Environment Effects Act) and it deserves definition.
We believe it is vital that a full and detailed environmental impact assessment be carried out on a completed 3-stage project before any start is made on stage 1
· Alternative Solutions: We believe further that alternative solutions (taking all modes of transport and the national interest into account) be assessed in such a full EIA; and that the full economic cost/benefit case for each alternative be assessed, using 21st century understanding of economics as including environmental costs. The ground breaking cost estimates of Costanza et al (forwarded as an attachment by Mr Len Warfe in his March 2006 submission) puts very high values on wetlands which were seen by the authors as probably very conservative. We do not pretend to prescribe a solution, but simply refer to Candy Broad's conclusion from the Victorian Ports Strategic Study consultations: "The consultations indicated a growing interest in intermodal operations and more integrated transport solutions." The proper next step should be a broad, open nationwide inquiry into the task of transporting goods involving all alternatives.
[1]Westernport Bay Environmental Study 1973-74, Director, Maurice Shapiro, Ministry for Conservation, Victoria, Melbourne, 1975.
[2]Westernport Bay Strategy, Westernport Regional Planning and Coordination Committee, Department of Planning and Development, Melbourne, 1992.
[3] Port Phillip Bay environmental Study. Final Report. CSIRO .1996
[4] Fish and seagrass- determining the links that drive fisheries production in Corner Inlet. Langmore .Andy Department of Primary Industries 30 September 2007
[5] Marine Pests affect on Fish stocks unpublished report from Greg Parry MAFRI Queenscliff.
[6]Audit Report No.9, : "Is Australia ready to respond to a major oil spill?", ANAO ,1994, p. xiii.
[7]ANAO op cit p xxii