Jump to content

Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Typo correction - You can help!, Replaced: forecasted → forecast using AWB
Davido321 (talk | contribs)
1,205 edits
→‎Economic benefits: reverted vandalism
Line 182: Line 182:
However, a study commissioned by the [[Australian Conservation Foundation]] (carried out by Melbourne-based firm ''Economists at Large'') raised questions about the economic benefits of the project. The study reported that the basis upon which the economic benefits were originally calculated had drastically changed, with given rising costs and legal proceedings, concluding it was no longer economicallly viable:<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Port_Phillip_Bay_dredging_economic_critique_14-2-08.pdf |title=Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project – an economic critique by Economists at Large and the Australian Conservation Foundation |format=PDF |publisher=Australian Conservation Foundation }}</ref>
However, a study commissioned by the [[Australian Conservation Foundation]] (carried out by Melbourne-based firm ''Economists at Large'') raised questions about the economic benefits of the project. The study reported that the basis upon which the economic benefits were originally calculated had drastically changed, with given rising costs and legal proceedings, concluding it was no longer economicallly viable:<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Port_Phillip_Bay_dredging_economic_critique_14-2-08.pdf |title=Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project – an economic critique by Economists at Large and the Australian Conservation Foundation |format=PDF |publisher=Australian Conservation Foundation }}</ref>


{{quotation|This project is ‘brave’ and far-seeing in its willingness to spend capital on revenues that are so far in the
{{quotation|This project is ‘brave’ and whimsical in its willingness to spend capital on revenues that are so far in the future – there is a high risk it can’t deliver.}}
future – there is a high risk it can’t deliver, though great potential to progress Melbourne's economic lead as a key shipping hub if it can. All progress comes at great cost and risk but we all enjoy the benefits of economic success. Both protest and progress are indicators of a healthy community and both have a place in any new development. It would be foolish, naive and whimsical to believe otherwise.

"If I were required to guess off-hand, and without collusion with higher minds, what is the bottom cause of the amazing material and intellectual advancement of the last fifty years, I should guess that it was the modern-born and previously non-existent disposition on the part of men to believe that a new idea can have value".....Mark Twain}}


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 09:15, 2 August 2008

File:Channel deepening project logo.gif
File:Port of melbourne logo.gif
Goomai and barge Resolution during dredging operations on the Yarra River.

The Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project (CDP) began on 8 February 2008 to deepen Melbourne's shipping channels in Port Phillip to 14 metres (46 ft) draught to allow greater access for container ships. With a budget of AUD$969 million, $150 million of this cost taxpayer funded[1], the dredging project is currently being carried by Dutch company Royal Boskalis Westminster for the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC), a statutory body established by the Victorian Government responsible for the running of the port, at a cost of $500 million and is expected to be completed before 31 December 2009.

Operating almost 24 hours a day, the project will involve the removal of approximately 22.9 million m3 (810 milliion cu ft) of sand, fine river silt (including about around 3 million m3 (110 million cu ft) of contaminated sediment) or approximately 1% of the bay by area, assuming the Bay has only two dimensions.

The project has caused a large wave of controversy among environmental groups, in particular the conservation group Blue Wedges who say the project will be environmentally damaging and is an economically unsound. The project originally began under limited conditions, after Blue Wedges won a reprieve in the Federal Court. The limited conditions were stripped from 28 March 2007 after ensuing legal proceedings saw the Blue Wedges case dismissed.

The project

The Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project is carried out by Dutch dredging company Royal Boskalis Westminster for the Port of Melbourne Corporation. The PoMC is also seeking the assistance of Boskalis Australia Pty Ltd, a daughter company of Royal Boskalis Westminster.

Currently, ships entering the Port of Melbourne are restricted to 11.6 m (38.1 ft) draught (12.1 m (40 ft) at high tide). Larger container ships instead need 14 m (46 ft) to carry full loads. The PoMC estimates that in the 2006-07 financial year, 38.5% of ships visiting the port were already potentially affected by draught limitations because the channel did not allow for the extra depth, with this figure rising to 44.3% in the December quarter of 2007.[2] The key objective of the Channel Deepening Project is to address these draught restrictions.

Project areas

The PoMC has specified four project 'areas' of the bay to be completed progressively.

Project No. and Area Shipping channel(s) Location Status Start Finish Dredging volumes/Type of material dredged
1. Yarra River and Hobsons Bay Yarra River & Williamstown Channels In progress 24 April, 2008 5.38 million m3 of clay and silt, approximately 2.07 million m3 of this contaminated
2. North of Bay Port Melbourne Channel [1] In progress February 29 2008 2.40 million m3 of mainly clay, approximately 43,000 m3 of this contaminated
3. South of Bay South Channel [2] In progress 8 February, 2008 14.59 million m3 of mainly sound
4. The Entrance The Great Ship Channel In progress 5 April, 2008 0.55 million m3 of limestone/sandstone

Yarra River and Hobsons Bay

North of Bay

The second area to be dredged, dredging in was expected to begin in this area but was delayed after a court injunction, with dredging instead beginning in the south of the bay.

South of bay

The first area to be dredged under limited conditions specified in a court injunction.

The Entrance

The Entrance is perhaps one of the most controversial areas of Port Phillip to be dredged given a rockfall incident that occurred their during trial dredging in 2005.

Disposal of dredged material

Dredged material from the Yarra River being deposited by a grab dredge on to a barge.

Materials dredged in Port Phillip are to be disposed of in two areas.[2]

Uncontaminated dredged material from the Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Yarra River channels is to be disposed of in the existing Port of Melbourne Dredge Material Ground (DMG), which covers an area of about 9.36 km2 (3.61 sq mi) (or approximately 0.48% of the total bay area). The site is expected to be extended to the south by an area of 2.7 km2 (1.0 sq mi) (or approximately 0.14% of the bay) to accommodate the dredged material volumes as a result of the dredging project as well as to accommodate dredged material volumes from future maintenance dredging.

Uncontaminated dredged material from the South Channel and the Great Ship Channel is to be disposed of in a dredged material ground yet to be built in the south east part of the bay, expected to cover an area of 7.68 km2 (2.97 sq mi) (or approximately 0.39% of the bay area).

Those materials which are contaminated are to be stored in an underwater clay containment area known as a ‘bund’ at the existing Port of Melbourne DMG, and capped with clean dredged sand.

Environmental management

Various environmental monitoring must be carried out by the PoMC as stipulated in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

  • Turbidity monitoring

A new, risk-based approach to setting limits on turbidity so as to protect seagrasses in the southern regions of the Bay was developed by Environmetrics Australia. Companion monitoring tools using a combination of 6-hourly Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) control charts and 2-week moving average control charts were also developed by Environmetrics Australia. These tools provide, respectively, an early warning capability and an assessment of the likelihood that minimum light requirements for seagrasses will be maintained.

  • Office of the Environmental Monitor

In 2007, the Office of the Environmental Monitor, an independent government body, was established to scrutinize the environmental proceedings of the project, in particular to make sure that the project conforms to the EMP. The objectives of the independnent body are to "Be accessible to all stakeholders and the community;Scrutinise, report and advise on the Project’s environmental performance in an independent and transparent way; Communicate all available information on the Project’s environmental performance in a timely manner to stakeholders and the community."

  • Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria

Project approval

Cooperating with the Environment Effects Act 1978[3], the PoMC released its Environmental Effects Statement (EES), a report on the environmental, economic and social impacts of the channel deepening project, on 5 July 2004[4]. The EES was available for public viewing until 16 August 2004 and an independent panel sat from 21 September to 17 December 2004 to hear submissions and consider the environmental effects and issues raised in the EES. In February 2005, the independent panel released their report on the EES, presenting 137 key aspects of the EES which needed building on. These included further examination of channel deepening designs; investigation of dredging technology; investigation of best methods of sediment disposal, and examination of turbidity.[5][6] The panel's recommendations led to the Trial Dredge Program (TDP) that took place from 6 August 2005.

Consequently, on 31 March 2005, the then Minister for Planning Rob Hulls announced that the PoMC would be required to carry out a Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement (EES) to further investigate the environmental impact of the dredging project and address its shortcomings. Hulls said the SEES would "build upon the EES process to date" and would be "based upon the key areas outlined by the panel and allow for further expert analysis".[5] On 21 March 2007[7] the PoMC released its Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) for public viewing until 7 May.

The EES and the SEES culminated in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), a report prepared by the PoMC consisting of "regulatory controls, environmental controls, project delivery standards and environmental monitoring" for the channel deepening project.[8] On 5 February 2008, Environment Minister Peter Garret approved of the EMP.

Timeline

2004

  • July
    • 5 July - The Environmental Effects Statement (EES) is released by the PoMc for public viewing until 16 August.
    • The PoMC enters into alliance with Royal Boskalis Westminster.
  • 21 September - An independent panel sits until 17 December to hear submissions and consider the environmental effects and issues raised in the EES.

2005

  • February - The EES Panel Report presents 137 recommendations regarding the EES.[9]
  • 31 March - Minister for Planning Rob Hulls announces that the PoMC are required to carry out a Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement (SEES).
  • 5 August - A Blue Wedges injunction to stop the trial dredging fails as the objection is dismissed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.[10] [11]
  • 6 August - The $AU32 million nine-week Trial Dredge Program (TDP) carried out by the Queen of the Netherlands begins.
    • A rockfall incident occurs at an area known as the Canyon at The Heads, with the PoMC claiming the rockfall is minor and damage is minimal and temporary.[12]
  • 30 September - Trial dredging ends two weeks ahead of schedule and within budget.[13]

2007

  • 21 March - The Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) is released for public viewing by the PoMC until 7 May.
  • 4 April - Minister for Planning at the time, Justin Madden, announces the members of the panel the independent panel that will consider the SEES for the dredging project. [14]
  • May - Blue Wedges releases its submission to the Supplementary Environment Effects Statement.
    • Days before the Inquiry Panel is due to adjourn PoMC presents documents revealing the rock fall incident of August 2005 is in fact much larger than initially reported with 6,000 m3 (211,888 cu ft), or approximately 9,900 t (9,744 long tons) of rock, cascading down the canyon wall damaging the sponges and corals on the wall with recovery time estimated greater than 30 years.
  • December
    • Victorian Minister for Environment and Climate Change Gavin Jennings gives the project approval under the Coastal Management Act 1995.
    • Federal Minister for Environment Peter Garrett gives the project approval to proceed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
  • 5 December - Blue Wedges wins the right to challenge Environment Minister Peter Garrett's right to sign off on the dredging project, with the plan to take the matter to the Federal Court in January 2008. [15]

2008

  • 15 January - The Federal Court of Australia dismisses the Blue Wedges claim.[16]
  • 17 January - The Black Marlin transport ship enters Port Phillip carrying equipment to assist with dredging.[17]
  • 18 January - The Queen of the Netherlands leaves Singapore on its journey to Melbourne.
  • 29 January
    • The Queen of the Netherlands docks at the South Wharf in Melbourne at 11:00 am after entering the heads. Approximately 25 protest boats trail it as is enters the heads and a smaller group gather on the shore at the mouth of the Yarra River and paddle on kayaks and surfboards as the ship passes under the West Gate Bridge.1
    • Victorian Premier John Brumby confirms the cost of the actual dredging as $500 million (approximately €300 million) after previously refusing to release the figure. This comes after Royal Boksalis Westminster provided the figure to the European stock exchange Euronext.[18]
  • 30 January - Blue Wedges wins a reprieve in the Federal Court with a hearing date of 20 February 2008.[19]
  • 5 February - Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett approves the dredging project after reviewing the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). He announces new conditions, including monitoring of water and tidal currents and contaminated sediment not being able to escape from the dredger.[20][21]
  • 6 February - Negotiations are held between Blue Wedges and the Port of Melbourne Corporation. Limited operations are allowed to commence on 8 February until the hearing date of 20 February. The 'limited' conditions, specified in a court order, state that only one million cubic metres (to a depth of 15.8 m (51.8 ft)) can be dredged in an 8 km (5.0 mi) zone in the southern channel (the PoMC had planned dredging the north of the bay first). The dredged material is to be deposited in a designated area about 3.5 km (2.2 mi) off Mount Martha.[22]
  • 8 February
    • Limited dredging by the Queen of the Netherlands begins in the southern end of the bay off Rye at 8:30 am.
    • The Queen of the Netherlands is trailed by Blue Wedges.
    • At about 8:15 am, ten activists on surfboards and five in kayaks from the protest group Operation Quarrantine breached the 200 m (656 ft) exclusion zone (which states that "bathing, diving and the operation (including anchoring, mooring or allowing a vessel or craft to lie) of vessels and craft, are prohibited within 200 metres of the Queen of the Netherlands whilst that vessel is under way around the Queen of the Netherlands [23]) in an attempt to stop it, with the Dredge coming to a stop only metres from the protesters. Two activists are rescued by police. Channel deepening is delayed by 40 minutes while the protesters are cleared. All were reportedly fined $176.[24]
  • 17 February - About 1,000 protesters congregate near Rosebud Pier to rally against the dredging operation.[25]
  • 21 February - The Federal Court of Australia adjourns Blue Wedges' case against the dredging of Port Phillip until 3 March. Limited dredging is allowed to continue during this time.[26][27]
  • 28 February - The Parliament of Victoria upper house decide to examine the economic case for the dredging project after growing concerns about the project's financial benefit. The motion is put forward by Greens MP Sue Pennicuik. [28]
  • 28 March - The Federal Court of Australia dismisses the Blue Wedges case against Peter Garret approval of the project, with justice Tony North putting forward that Blue Wedges had not established that he failed to act within the law. Justice North maintains that "It is not the function of the court to make a judgement as to whether the channel deepening is a good thing or a bad thing or whether it is harmful to the environment or not", only whether the Garret acted within the bounds of the law.[29][30][31]
  • 5 April
    • Dredging by the Queen of the Netherlands begins at The Entrance.
    • 200 protesters gather on each side of The Entrance (at Point Nepean and Point Lonsdale) and boats, power-skis and surfboards. Police issue seven infringement notices to members of protest group Operation Quarrantine for breaching the exclusion zone around the ship and lighting flares.[32]
  • 24 April - Dredging begins in the Yarra River by the grab dredge Goomai.

Notes

  1. ^ The Queen of the Netherlands sits idle until February 8, costing the Port of Melbourne an estimated $1.75 million ($250,000 a day).

Controversy

Environmental impact

The principal concern of the project lies in its potential for disastrous long-term environmental consequences. On this front, major opposition to the project has come from conservation group Blue Wedges, a coalition of over 65 environmental groups, which has challenged the PoMC and the Victorian Government

Toxic sediments

Contaminated materials, a result of past industrial waste discharges, have sunk to the sea floor. It is believed that dredging the bay will stir up these contaminated materials and redistribute them across the food chain.

Turbidity and sedimentation

Tidal flows

Rockfall incident

During trial dredging in 2005, a rockfall incident occurred in an area of The Heads known as the Canyon, which caused some of the rock in this area to scour and disintegrate. The scouring is presently continuing, with controversy stemming from undocumented instability of the rock formation by the PoMC and shortcomings of further studies to predict its behaviour in the future.

Cardno Lawson Treloar (CLT), a civil enineering consultancy, was hired by the PoMC.

Cost of the project

The forecast cost of the project has been the subject of much controversy.

In 1997, the cost of the project was estimated at $100 million.[33] In 2001, the projected cost was estimated at around $200 million to $230 million and in 2004 it rose from $337 million in June to $498 million in August to $545 million in September.[34] In 2006 In March 2007, the cost of the project was projected at $763 million[33] and in 2008 it rose to $969 million.

Also, the $500 million cost of the actual dredging work carried out by Royal Boskalis Westminster was claimed to have been kept secret by the Victorian Government and the PoMC, who entered into alliance with Royal Boskalis Westminster in 2004, for at least for 3 years. Under Victorian legislation passed in 2000, all contracts worth more than $10 million must be published - the cost of the dredging was above this at the time, yet details were not released.[35]

Economic benefits

The PoMC estimates that the direct economic benefits as a result of the dredging are $2 billion.[2]

However, a study commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (carried out by Melbourne-based firm Economists at Large) raised questions about the economic benefits of the project. The study reported that the basis upon which the economic benefits were originally calculated had drastically changed, with given rising costs and legal proceedings, concluding it was no longer economicallly viable:[36]

This project is ‘brave’ and whimsical in its willingness to spend capital on revenues that are so far in the future – there is a high risk it can’t deliver.

References

  1. ^ Whinnett, Ellen (2007-12-22). "Taxpayers to dig deep for Port Phillip Bay dredging". Herald Sun. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ a b c "FAQs". Channel Deepening Project. Port of Melbourne Corporation.
  3. ^ "Environment Effects Act 1978", Version No. 023, Victorian Government {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ "Public release of channel deepening EES" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2004-07-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ a b "Channel Deepening Project subject to further investigation" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2005-03-31.
  6. ^ Hulls, Rob (July 2005). "Minister's Statement" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  7. ^ "Channel Deepening Supplementary EES Report Released" (PDF). Victorian Government. 2007-03-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ "Environmental management". Port of Melbourne Corporation.
  9. ^ Fyfe, Melissa (2005-04-01). "Shock of the bay: channel report fails". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ "Trial dredging to proceed as injunction fails" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2005-08-05. Retrieved 2008-04-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ Sinclair, Briar (2005-08-0). "Bid fails to halt dredging". Star News Group. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  12. ^ "Project Update: Trail dredge completed at bay entrance" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2005-09-02. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  13. ^ "Successful trial dredge completed" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2005-09-30. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ Media release - Panel appointed for channel deepening project
  15. ^ Smith, Clay (2007-12-06). "Bay dredge court fight to go ahead". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ Lucas, Clay (2006-01-15). "Bay dredge gets go-ahead". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  17. ^ Higginbottom, Nick (2008-01-17). "Port Phillip Bay dredge ships arriving". News.com. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  18. ^ Perkins, Miki (2008-01-29). "Brumby concedes dredging will cost $500m". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ Lucas, Clay (2008-01-30). "Blue Wedges win delays dredging". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  20. ^ "Environmental Management Plan approved" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2008-02-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  21. ^ "Garrett approves Port Phillip Bay dredging". ABC. 2008-02-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  22. ^ "Limited Port Phillip Bay dredging gets go-ahead". ABC. 2008-02-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  23. ^ Riches, Brian (2008-02-07). "Marine Act 1988, Section 15 Notice" (PDF). Victoria Government Gazette. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  24. ^ Shanahan, Leo (2008-02-8). "Police slam dredging protesters". The Age. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  25. ^ Lucas, Clay (2008-02-18). "Sea of red, but out to sea the dredge scours on". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  26. ^ Gregory, Peter (2008-02-21). "Bid to keep dredging during legal battle". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  27. ^ "Court relaxes Port Phillip Bay dredging restrictions". ABC. 2008-02-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  28. ^ Ker, Peter (2008-02-28). "New review planned for dredging". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  29. ^ "Channel Deepening Project to continue following court decision" (PDF). Port of Melbourne Corporation. 2008-03-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  30. ^ "Anti-dredging protesters lose court bid". The Age. 2008-03-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  31. ^ "Video - Court sinks dredging case". The Age media.
  32. ^ Kent, Melissa (2008-04-06). "Police see red as dredge fight deepens". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  33. ^ a b Murphy, Mathew (2007-11-01). "Cost of dredging the bay still unclear". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  34. ^ "Channel deepening economics come under spotlight". Australian Greens Victoria. 2008-02-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  35. ^ Baker, Richard (2008-02-01). "Contract a secret for three years". The Age. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  36. ^ "Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project – an economic critique by Economists at Large and the Australian Conservation Foundation" (PDF). Australian Conservation Foundation.

Channel Deepening Project Documents

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Port_Phillip_Channel_Deepening_Project&oldid=229379177"