Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment - YourSAy · PDF filePort Stanvac Marine Facilities...

RenewalSA

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment

Issues Paper

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment-

Final | 4 April 2013

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 228217-00

Arup Level 7, 182 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000 Australia www.arup.com

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup

J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCX

Document Verification

Job title Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment Job number

228217-00

Document title Issues Paper File reference

Document ref Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment-

Revision Date Filename 2013-01-29 Port Stanvac Issues Paper.docx

Draft 1 29 Jan 2013

Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Borvin Kracman Simon Schutz Borvin Kracman

Signature

Draft 2 13 Feb 2013

Filename 2013-02-13 Port Stanvac Issues Paper.docx Description Final Draft



Signature

Draft 3 22 Mar 2013

Filename 2013-03-22 Port Stanvac Issues Paper.docx Description Final Draft 2



Signature

Final 4 Apr 2013

Filename 2013-04-04 Port Stanvac Issues Paper Final.docx Description Issued as Final



Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

RenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities AssessmentIssues Paper

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities AssessmentPort Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup


Contents

Page

1 Executive Summary 1

1 Background to the Assignment 7

2 Statement of Assignment Requirements 8

3 Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Description 9

3.1 Structures 9

3.2 The Groyne 10

3.3 Corrosion Protection 11

3.4 Refinery History 11

3.5 Marine Habitat 12

3.6 Bird Habitat 12

3.7 Monitoring Site 13

3.8 Estimated Costs 13

3.9 Timing 13

4 Potential Alternative Uses of the Facilities 14

4.1 Demolition by Exxon Mobil 14

4.2 Industrial or Commercial Port, Hydrocarbon Uses, Single Operator 14

4.3 Industrial or Commercial Port, Limited Uses, Single Operator15

4.4 Industrial or Commercial Port, Common Users, Single Operator 16

4.5 No Access Marine Reserve 16

4.6 Restricted Access, Recreational Uses, Commercial Eco-tourism 17

4.7 Restricted Access, Public Recreational Uses 18

4.8 Unrestricted Public Access, Recreational Uses including Jetty Deck Access and Fishing 18


Port Stanvac Marine Facilities AssessmentPort Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup


Page 1

1 Executive Summary

The South Australian Government’s relationship with Exxon Mobil in relation to the former Port Stanvac Refinery site, including the existing marine elements is managed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet which has established a cross-Agency Task Force in relation to the site. The marine elements include an oil products transfer jetty and a rock groyne. With respect to these elements, the present position is that Exxon Mobil will demolish and remove its structures and installations unless a third party is prepared to accept responsibility for retaining them.

The government has undertaken to review whether it should accept responsibility for any of the marine elements. To inform this review, Renewal SA, on behalf of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, appointed Arup as a party independent of all the stakeholders to conduct a high level investigation and determine whether there are any reasonable and sustainable future uses for the jetty (primarily for potential future industrial use, but also for commercial or recreational purposes) which would justify the State negotiating a transfer of those assets from ExxonMobil in lieu of their demolition and removal.

The refinery was established in the early 1960s. Oil refining is a global business, the dynamics of which have changed considerably over the last fifty years. It is understood that despite Exxon Mobil’s efforts for its Port Stanvac operations to remain competitive, cost pressures on the refining business drove the decisions by Exxon Mobil in 2003 to mothball the plant and then in 2009 to shut it down and demolish it.

Arup considered the potential alternative uses of the facilities at a high level as well as the key issues and opportunities relevant to those uses. These were assessed against the ‘Base Case” of Exxon Mobil demolishing all marine elements. A summary of the assessment is presented in the Executive Summary Table provide on the following pages. This table presents the main points only and they are elaborated on and provided with context in the main body of the report.

This paper considers only the potential uses of the marine facilities, not the future use of the former refinery land, except in general terms with respect to its potential to generate economic opportunities to use the marine facilities.

It is also acknowledged that the marine facilities belong to Exxon Mobil and ultimately Exxon Mobil will determine the future of the facilities.




Page 2

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment

Executive Summary Table

Potential Uses Issues Opportunities

DEMOLITION BY EXXON MOBIL (“Base Case”)

ExxonMobil to demolish the marine elements.

Potential “lost opportunity” to use the marine elements for the benefit of the local area. Basis for existing exclusion zones no longer relevant but could be retained.

Perception that the facilities do provide a viable opportunity for development with attendant economic development and employment opportunities.

Concern that fishing interests have not been accommodated.

Concern that diving interests have not been accommodated.

Destruction of significant habitat and associated ecosystem.

The full cost of demolition and removal will be covered by Exxon Mobil Potential return of that segment of the coastline and inshore waters to similar conditions that existed prior to establishment of the refinery. Potential linear public access including beach and water linking with geological, archaeological and heritage sites, extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park.

Access to a potential dive site (deep water close to the coast) within the Adelaide metropolitan area where access has previously been limited.

Potential once-off source of sand for beach replenishment.

INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PORT – Hydrocarbon Uses, Single Operator.

A new entrant into the market to provide bulk fuel storage and/or refining to the South Australian market.

Jetty location and structure purpose built for oil refinery liquids transfer.

Vessel size limited to 40,000 dead weight tonnes (dwt).

Exxon Mobil is demolishing all crude oil and refined products related infrastructure on both the sea and land side.

Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site.

Perception that the facilities do provide a viable opportunity for hydrocarbon storage or refining with attendant economic development and employment opportunities.

All reasonable indicators suggest there is no plausible opportunity for such a use.




Page 3


INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PORT – Limited Uses or Common Users, Single Operator.

Shipping operated to support Southern Region or adjacent industries including tourism in the form of cruise ships.

Jetty location and structure purpose built for oil refinery liquids transfer.

Not a good commercial port location due to weather and tide conditions. Jetty not suitable for containerised freight or cruise ships and not considered economically viable to upgrade. Also, lack of supporting land side infrastructure without very large investment.

The Port of Adelaide is South Australia’s key general maritime logistics facility and passenger terminal. It has capacity and a capital investment program integrated with road and rail transport infrastructure. Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site. Perception that the facilities do provide a viable commercial shipping opportunity.

All reasonable indicators suggest there is no plausible opportunity for such uses.

NO ACCESS MARINE RESERVE

Retain part or all of the facilities including exclusion zones to preserve habitat and allow progressive deterioration of marine elements.

Existing marine biodiversity has not been subjected to significant human interference over 50 years.

The site was not included in the Encounter Marine Park. Amending boundaries on existing Marine Parks may have broader implications.

Asset will deteriorate over an extended period. Impact of asset deterioration, consequential changes in habitat and visual amenity.

Policing of access arrangements including ensuring that potential public safety issues are addressed. Asset ownership (including maintenance and management) risks residing with future owner.

Possible use would be consistent with shipwrecks and deliberately scuttled vessels which provide habitat. Potential linear public access including beach and water linking with geological, archaeological and heritage sites, extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park but safe landside access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site. Opportunity to reinstate Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) instrumentation for short to medium term data collection.




Page 4


RESTRICTED ACCESS RECREATIONAL USES – Commercial Eco-tourism (low-impact)

Commercially operated diving tours and associated marine recreation, interpretative, education, training and research activities operated on a pay for use basis.

Existing marine biodiversity has not been subjected to significant human interference over 50 years. Policing access arrangements.

Security issues due to the isolation of the site.

The provision of public facilities (access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to support use. Without maintenance, the structures will progressively deteriorate and use of the area would need to adjust to suit the conditions.

Impact of asset deterioration, consequential changes in habitat and visual amenity. Demand and the business case for such a venture are not presently known.

Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site. Future ownership to be identified. Asset ownership (including maintenance and management) risks residing with future owner.

Public safety related to asset condition and in general.

Limited use still results in potential degradation of habitat.

Public concern regarding pay for use access.

Private sector run eco-tourism business subject to safety and habitat preservation controls and run on a commercial basis including payment of fees to asset owner. A potential dive site within the Adelaide metropolitan area where access has previously been limited.

Potential for development of a marine interpretive, education and dive training and supplies facility.

Potential for a dive and eco-tourism destination linking with geological, archaeological and heritage sites extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park.

Access arrangements for the jetty could provide a mechanism to manage potential public safety issues.

Use could be achieved with partial rather than total retention of marine elements.

Opportunity to reinstate BOM instrumentation for short to medium term data collection.




Page 5


RESTRICTED ACCESS PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USES

Access to beach, groyne and marine environment EXCLUDING jetty deck for the purposes of diving, passive activities and recreational fishing.


The provision of public facilities (access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to support use. Without maintenance, the structure will progressively deteriorate and create safety issues.

Potential degradation of habitat, depending on the nature of uses/behaviour of users.

Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site. Future ownership to be identified.

Asset ownership risks residing with future owner. Asset deterioration. Public safety related to asset condition and in general. Asset ownership (including maintenance and management) risks residing with future owner.

Limited use still results in potential degradation of habitat.

Impact of asset deterioration, consequential changes in habitat and visual amenity.

Provision of a new recreational diving and marine visitation site within the metropolitan area to support existing facilities at Port Noarlunga and Rapid Bay.

Potential for a dive and eco-tourism destination linking with geological, archaeological and heritage sites extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park. Access arrangements for the jetty could provide a mechanism to manage potential public safety issues.

Potential for part of the uses to be accommodated without retention of all marine elements.

Opportunity to reinstate BOM instrumentation for short to medium term data collection.




Page 6


UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL USES

Access to beach, groyne and marine environment including jetty deck for the purposes of diving, passive activities and recreational fishing.


The provision of public facilities (access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to support use. The jetty would require upgrading to provide safe public access. Ongoing maintenance would be required to maintain the facility. It is likely that the habitat would be degraded through use. Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site. A long-term owner of the asset to be identified. Asset deterioration.

Public safety related to asset condition and in general. Future ownership to be identified.

Asset ownership risks residing with future owner.

Asset ownership (including maintenance and management) risks residing with future owner.

Provision of a new recreational diving, marine visitation and recreational fishing site within the metropolitan area to supplement existing facilities at Port Noarlunga and Rapid Bay. Potential for an eco-tourism and recreational fishing destination linking with geological, archaeological and heritage sites extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park.

Access arrangements for the jetty could provide a mechanism to manage potential public safety issues.

Opportunity to reinstate BOM instrumentation for long term data collection.




Page 7

1 Background to the Assignment

The South Australian Government’s relationship with Exxon Mobil in relation to the former Port Stanvac Refinery site, including marine elements is managed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet which has established a cross-Agency Task Force in relation to the site. The Port Stanvac marine structures were constructed pursuant to the Oil Refinery (Hundred of Noarlunga) Indenture Act 1958 (SA), for a specific industrial purpose which Exxon Mobil has deemed no longer required. The marine elements include an oil products transfer jetty and a rock groyne, both of which are the subject of this assignment. With respect to the marine elements, the present position is that Exxon Mobil will demolish and remove its structures and installations unless a third party wishes to retain them, in which case an agreement will need to be reached wherein Exxon Mobil will transfer ownership of and responsibility for the retained assets together with any residual risks and obligations to such party, should such a party be found.




Page 8

2 Statement of Assignment Requirements

Renewal SA, on behalf of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, appointed Arup as a party independent of all the stakeholders to conduct a high level review and determine whether there are any reasonable and sustainable future uses for the jetty (primarily for potential future industrial use, but also for commercial or recreational purposes) which would justify the State negotiating a transfer of those assets from Exxon Mobil in lieu of the demolition and removal of the assets.

As part of its review, Arup was asked to consider third party port and logistics type opportunities as well as the recreational potential and environmental aspects of the marine structures. This was to include the identification of any habitat issues associated with retaining or demolishing the marine structures on the basis that if the State agreed to transfer of the assets, it may be responsible for future demolition of the marine structures.




Page 9

3 Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Description

3.1 Structures The main structures are a rock groyne supporting a 250 metre long causeway from the shore, heading seaward and joining up with a 400 metre long steel piled jetty with concrete decking and terminating with a ‘T-Head’ comprising platforms, caissons and dolphins reportedly designed to accommodate vessels of up to 40,000 dead weight tonnes (dwt) such as small oil tankers and cargo ships.

At Figure 1 below is a photograph of the jetty taken during a site inspection on 17th December 2012.

Figure 1 Port Stanvac Marine Facilities, ©Arup, approved Exxon Mobil

The original jetty was constructed in the early 1960s and following significant storm damage it was re-built in 1996 or thereabouts with a higher deck level as well as a modified end structure. As far as the causeway and jetty are concerned, Exxon Mobil’s currently underway refinery demolition project includes for the removal of all topside accessory structures, pumps, piping , pipe racks and the like, leaving the base structure as the asset being considered by this assignment.

A visual condition assessment was undertaken for Exxon Mobil and provided in February 2012. The visually assessed condition of the groyne, causeway and jetty varies significantly. This is to be expected as some parts of the structure are fifty years old whilst others are less than twenty years old. Much of the seaward end of the jetty from where the structure turns half right looking seaward is what was built in about 1996 and was reported to be in reasonably good condition. In the photograph at Figure 2 below the exceptions are the two concrete caissons and the two mooring dolphins. The southern caisson (foreground) and dolphin are shown. The caissons were constructed in 1962, reportedly as a precast reinforced concrete base and cylinder sunk into the seabed, filled with sand and capped with cast in-situ reinforced concrete. They are substantial structures as their likely purpose was to take docking as well as prevailing wave and wind induced shipping side loads. They are reportedly in poor to fair condition.




Page 10

Figure 2 Southern Caisson (foreground) and Dolphin (behind), ©Arup, approved Exxon Mobil

The dolphins were also constructed in 1962, as cast in-situ reinforced concrete pile caps over steel support frames and steel piles. Their likely purpose was to assist with docking, take some side loads and provide mooring points. It is reported that overall, the northern dolphin is in fair to good condition whilst the southern dolphin is in poor condition. A closer view of the southern dolphin is shown at Figure 3 below. Spalled concrete is obvious.

Figure 3 Southern Dolphin, ©Arup, approved Exxon Mobil

3.2 The Groyne At the landward end, the causeway, rock groyne and associated structures have been assessed as being in fair condition, with some damage noted to the south-west corner of the rock groyne. The photograph at Figure 4 shows the groyne and tug berthing structure but most if not all of the rusting steel work is understood to be the target of early removal as part of the existing demolition contract.

The groyne is considered to be of little or no ecological value but the sheltered bay that it creates might be considered to have recreational value to potential future beach users, when and if public access becomes available. During the earlier part of the groynes




Page 11

existence it was considered to be a significant barrier to the natural northern movement of sand along the coast. However, the situation is considered to have stabilised over time. If the groyne were to be removed, it is considered that a large amount of sand would be released quickly and by natural processes transported in a northerly direction with the potential to impact shallow near-shore reefs by covering them and the organisms growing on them with sand, but this would be temporary. After this, the natural incremental northerly movement of sand would continue.

The sand deposits within the Port Stanvac exclusion area are also of interest to DEWNR as a potential once-off source of sand for the replenishment of Adelaide’s beaches. Investigating this further is desired by DEWNR and the Coastal Protection Board.

Figure 4 The Groyne and Tug Berth, ©Arup, approved Exxon Mobil

3.3 Corrosion Protection Anticorrosive coating, plastic wrapping and impressed current cathodic protection have been used to reduce corrosion of the steel piles immersed in sea water. In this application, impressed current cathodic protection is the application of an electrical charge to steel to reverse the small current generated when unprotected steel is exposed to seawater. Reducing the electron flow reduces the speed of corrosion. As part of the current demolition contract, it has been advised that electrical power to the site has been isolated, meaning that cathodic protection, being one of the corrosion reduction measures for the steelwork below sea level is no longer operative. In the long term this will mean that corrosion and deterioration of the steel piles will proceed at a greater rate than in the past.

If it were desired to retain some or all of the structures and protect the undersea steelwork with cathodic protection, the options are to reinstate the power supply at a cost estimated by Exxon Mobil of $500,000 plus annual running costs, or to apply galvanic cathodic protection by the use of sacrificial anodes attached to the steelwork. The overall cost of this option has not been estimated.

3.4 Refinery History The refinery was established in the early 1960s and at that time it presented opportunities in the form of strategic asset in a stable, democratic country with a skilled workforce, distant from external threats with substantial available land, significantly




Page 12

buffered from urbanisation and with deep water close inshore. Whilst the refinery operated successfully for about 40 years, discussions with Exxon Mobil personnel as well as Arup maritime specialists indicate that ship berthing operations were prone to impact by the wind, weather and tides to the extent that shipping often experienced delayed schedules which manifested in demurrage (delay) charges which could be quite significant. Port Stanvac is quite exposed to the prevailing weather, especially in the cooler months with dominant strong winds and swells from the south-west. The advent of larger shipping to lower freight costs increased the issues with berthing during bad weather and the deeper draft of larger ships increased the constraints posed by the tides. In an attempt to overcome these limitations, Exxon Mobil invested in an offshore single point or single buoy mooring (SPM/SBM). Despite these efforts to remain competitive, the global business environment as well as the local environment had changed significantly over forty years and cost pressure on the refining business drove the decision to mothball the plant in 2003.

3.5 Marine Habitat The habitat offered by the structures including the jetty, the dolphin piles and the caissons is reported to support a marine ecosystem which has developed over fifty years with little fishing pressure. This is due to the permanent exclusion zone within 400 metres of the jetty (Exxon Mobil employees were permitted to fish from the jetty after hours when the jetty was not active). Information regarding the marine ecology has been obtained from the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). It is reported that the habitat supports protected species, namely the Leafy Sea Dragon and Weedy Sea Dragon as well as species of conservation concern including the Blue Devilfish and Long-snouted Boarfish. However, the marine habitat was not considered of such significance to be included in the Encounter Marine Park.

The jetty and dolphin piles provide a substrate for reef invertebrates and plants which in turn provide food and refuge for fish and other organisms. If the marine structures were demolished and removed entirely, many of the less motile resident organisms would be removed with the steel piles. More motile resident organisms such as fish would seek to recolonise in a similar environment, possibly amongst one of the shallow reef systems in the area. Transient species including various fishes, squid and cuttlefish are likely to reduce their inhabitation of the area due to the lack of cover or elimination of food sources. Retention of some of the underwater structures, such as piles and caissons would retain elements of the existing habitat and this could be done in a way that did not constitute a boating hazard.

3.6 Bird Habitat The decks and piping of all the jetty structures provide roosting habitat for a large number of cormorants. These birds tend to depart the structure at mid-morning to hunt for food at sea, returning to roost at dusk. They significantly foul the structures and this may constitute a public health risk should access to the jetty deck be permitted. The removal of pipe racks and other topside structures may reduce the birds roosting sites but they will probably find substitute sites on handrails and pile cross beams or any other retained elements that protrude above the waterline.

If the marine structures were demolished and removed, the cormorants would likely relocate to other roosting sites within their range. Discussions with DEWNR personnel indicated that this issue was not a concern from an ecological perspective as the birds




Page 13

would find alternative roosting sites along the coast and breeding does not take place at Port Stanvac.

3.7 Monitoring Site Up until recently, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) used the jetty as a suitable site for the deployment of instrumentation to monitor fluctuations in the tidal cycle and assess changes in sea level. It is reported that about twenty years of data had been collected which is statistically significant and valuable in monitoring the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The instrumentation requires electrical power and this has been shut down recently as part of an overall site power isolation activity to eliminate the risk of electrocution accidents during site demolition. Should some elements of the jetty remain standing, BOM would value the re-installation of its monitoring instruments. If power is not reinstated, local solar power may be viable and would need to be investigated.

3.8 Estimated Costs The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) has inspected the structures and advised that if the jetty were to be retained in reasonable condition an initial capital budget of $2 million -$3million would be required in addition to resolving the most cost effective approach to cathodic protection. DPTI expects that there would be an annual maintenance requirement of $300,000 and that in excess of $5 million would be required for major maintenance in about ten years. It is also expected that to keep the jetty in reasonable condition, greater funding would be required at successive major maintenance intervals as the structures deteriorated over time.

In addition to the above costs and if public access of the varying types canvassed in this report were to materialise, there would be additional capital and recurrent costs associated with construction and maintenance of landside infrastructure such as access, car parking, public toilets, boardwalks and the like as well as provision of site security.

A cost estimate for demolition of the marine structures has not been obtained.

3.9 Timing As mentioned earlier, Exxon Mobil’s refinery demolition project currently underway includes for the removal of all topside accessory structures from the jetty. The present demolition contract which also includes removal of the land based refinery infrastructure is scheduled for completion late in 2013. If the marine facilities are to be demolished and removed, Exxon Mobil wishes to commence procurement and associated actions before completion of the land based works.

It should also be noted that any consideration of public access to the beach or to any elements of the marine facilities that might be agreed, such as the groyne or some of the jetty structure, may not be available for several years. It is likely that Exxon Mobil will wish to avoid any risk associated with public access to the entire site until all required demolition, equipment removal and remediation activities have been completed.




Page 14

4 Potential Alternative Uses of the Facilities

There is significant community interest in the future of the jetty. This is evidenced by various representations to local, state and federal politicians, by media articles, internet sites and through the social media. Public interest in the potential retention of the marine facilities includes possible future commercial uses for berthing cruise ships as well as access for recreational fishing and diving.

Arup has considered reasonable potential uses for the facilities in the context of their constructed purpose, condition, environmental conditions, regional and state-wide economics and ongoing cost implications. Arup’s findings are reported on below against the base case of demolition and removal.

4.1 Demolition by Exxon Mobil In order to provide a basis against which to asses other options, Arup has considered the issues and opportunities associated with comprehensive demolition and removal of the marine facilities. The facilities were designed and built for the transfer of liquid hydrocarbons between ship and shore but Exxon Mobil decided to mothball the refinery in 2003 due to unfavourable economic conditions and in 2009, confirmed its intention to shut down and demolish it. This decision is understood to have been based on the age and small relative scale of the refinery as well as international cost differentials which made this refinery uneconomic on a global basis.

Complete demolition of the refinery infrastructure including the marine facilities could be perceived by some members of the public as a loss of opportunity to use those facilities for the benefit of the local area and the general community. This is likely to be most significant from recreational fishing and diving interests and those with concerns for the habitat created by the facilities and the ecosystem that they support. However, retention of the facilities would come at a significant ongoing cost and a key issue is whether the range of benefits for the future owner would meet or exceed the costs of retention, bearing in mind that if comprehensive demolition and removal proceeds, the full cost would be borne by Exxon Mobil.

Demolition would potentially return that segment of the coastline and inshore waters occupied by the refinery to similar conditions that existed prior to establishment of the refinery. This could provide the opportunity for public access to the beach and water linking geological, archaeological and heritage sites, extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park. The site could also provide dive access to deep water close to the metropolitan coast. The site also contains a potential once-off source of sand for the replenishment of metropolitan beaches and removal of the groyne would reinstate the natural northerly drift of sand along the coast.

4.2 Industrial or Commercial Port, Hydrocarbon Uses, Single Operator

As mentioned above, the facilities were designed and built for the transfer of liquid hydrocarbons between ship and shore. Exxon Mobil’s decision to demolish




Page 15

the refinery and Arup’s understanding of the global energy oil refining industry supports the conclusion that a future use associated with an alternative refinery operator is not considered plausible.

The jetty and its mooring facilities are limited to vessels up to 40,000 dead weight tonnes (dwt). In terms of modern shipping these are quite small vessels. Exxon Mobil is demolishing all crude oil and refined products related infrastructure on both the sea and land side. Safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site.

The marine facilities could be used to transfer refined fuel products from ship to shore and for fuel to be stored at part of the former refinery site. This would require a substantial new operator to enter the market and invest a large amount of capital to provide the necessary new ship to shore, storage and distribution infrastructure. This would complement but also compete with South Australia’s principal point of inbound fuel supply being the Adelaide Terminal at Birkenhead. The Birkenhead terminal is operated by Mobil on behalf of joint owners Mobil and Shell. Mobil's facility at Birkenhead is one of three key fuel distribution terminals operated by it in South-Eastern Australia. Mobil Birkenhead currently handles petrol, diesel and aviation fuels. A new diesel storage tank is presently under construction and will increase the overall storage capacity of the terminal by more than 10 per cent. Mobil Birkenhead has extensive road and rail loading facilities to support the distribution of product throughout Adelaide and surrounds, to farther regions of the State, and into areas of NSW and Central Australia. It is also noted that Terminals Pty Ltd is also concurrently constructing a fuel storage terminal at Outer Harbour off Pelican Point Road. This terminal is understood to be linked directly to the Outer Harbour wharf area.

To this background, Arup concludes that a future use of the Port Stanvac marine facilities associated with the transfer, storage and distribution of fuels is not plausible.

4.3 Industrial or Commercial Port, Limited Uses, Single Operator

The concept of using Port Stanvac for shipping that could support specific local industry or commerce has been considered. The jetty was purpose built for oil refinery liquids transfer. As previously mentioned, safe access to the site is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond) due to landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site.

To convert the jetty to accept containerised freight or cruise ships would require a significant modification and investment. Provision of the necessary land side supporting infrastructure would also be a significant cost. No entity has come forward with such a proposal and this is considered extremely unlikely. The site is not a good commercial port facility because of its exposure to the weather and the influence of tides. The Port of Adelaide including Outer Harbour has the capacity to meet the likely demand for specific maritime uses as evidenced by the passenger terminal, automotive export terminal, container terminal, grain berth, cement berth, soda ash berth, and liquid fuels berth along with other specialist uses. It is noted that in early 2000, prior to construction of the Outer Harbour grain terminal, Port Stanvac was canvassed as a possible site for that facility. This




Page 16

was not pursued further and provides a real-life example where projects of this nature are preferentially located at Port Adelaide, which offers all-weather protected berthing, well integrated road and rail infrastructure and is considered the key logistics hub for Adelaide and South Australia.

Arup therefore concludes that investment by the State in facilities to support such uses at Port Stanvac could not be justified in the context of potential future users and this option is therefore not considered plausible.

4.4 Industrial or Commercial Port, Common Users, Single Operator

Similarly, the concept of using Port Stanvac for general purpose, multi-purpose or common user freight or cruise ships are not considered plausible for similar reasons. A multipurpose facility would require even more modification and expense compared to a limited use facility. The demand for a facility at Port Stanvac is not apparent given there is a comprehensive, well connected facility with capacity at Outer Harbour and Port Adelaide.

4.5 No Access Marine Reserve

All or part of the facility could be retained to preserve the marine habitat that has established as a result of (or been retained despite construction of) the structures and has not been subjected to significant human interference for over 50 years. That said, the site was not included in the Encounter Marine Park when it was delineated and any amendment to park boundaries would likely have broader implications for all of South Australia’s marine parks. The current exclusion zone could be maintained or modified depending on whether the whole or only part of the structure was retained as a habitat, however as noted above, retention of the habitat appears not to have been sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the Encounter Marine Park (which would have been the most logical administrative mechanism for habitat protection). The retained structures could be allowed to progressively deteriorate much the same as with ship wrecks or deliberately scuttled vessels off the coast, e.g. The Ships Graveyard at North Arm, The Barges off Port Stanvac, ex-HMAS Hobart in Yankalilla Bay, and the Zanoni Wreck off Ardrossan.

BOM instrumentation could be re-installed for at least several more years of data collection. The opportunity for public access to the beach is also a possibility, linking geological, archaeological and heritage sites extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park. However, beach access is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond).

Under this scenario, there is likely to be no mechanism to generate revenue in order to offset future required expenditure, and therefore such a use is unlikely to be sustainable. The asset ownership risks and costs including ‘make safe’ works, maintenance and management as the structure inevitably deteriorates would reside with the future owner and the ongoing capacity of the future owner to fund those works would need to be considered. There would be habitat and visual amenity impacts in letting the facilities progressively deteriorate. Future demolition of hazardous structures may be required. Demolition costs have not been estimated but will very likely be millions of dollars, depending on scope. Marine




Page 17

construction or de-construction is generally several times more expensive that the same scope of work on land due to increased risks including safety and weather and also due to the need for specialised equipment and the aggressive environment.

Control of access including ensuring that public safety issues are addressed would be an issue but could, at least in part be managed by legislation such as is currently the case including the Harbours and Navigation Act and the Fisheries Act. Breaches of these Acts can incur penalties including confiscation of boats and equipment, fines and imprisonment.

4.6 Restricted Access, Recreational Uses, Commercial Eco-tourism

The facility and the marine habitat that has colonised the structures over the last 50 years could be used to support low impact commercially operated diving tours and associated marine recreation, interpretive education, training and research activities on a pay for use basis. This scenario could provide access to a deep water dive site within the Adelaide metropolitan area where access has previously been limited. The opportunity for public access to the beach is also a possibility, linking geological, archaeological and heritage sites, extending from Christies Beach to Hallett Cove Conservation Park but beach access is likely to be constrained for some time (possibly 2020 or beyond). The revenue generated from commercial operations is unlikely to approach that required to maintain the jetty in reasonable condition in the longer term and therefore the feasibility and viability of this option is unable to be assessed. The demand for, business case and public acceptance of ‘pay for use’ for such a venture are presently unknown, particularly in the context of existing diving (albeit in more shallow water) available at Port Noarlunga.

The marine biodiversity associated with the jetty structure in a location within the metropolitan area could become a significant attractor to recreational diving, eco-tourism and supporting small business. Controlled eco-tourism based on a licenced operator paying a fee to government for the right to access the site would likely assist in regulating safety and habitat preservation controls. However, as mentioned earlier, such a fee would be very unlikely to generate anything like the revenue required to maintain the facility in reasonable condition.

In order to reduce the probability of unauthorised access to the deck whilst retaining most of the habitat, a partial demolition could be agreed. For example, demolition of the causeway and associated concrete elements in poor condition as well as the first 100 metres of the jetty , but retaining the groyne, boat ramp and the balance of the jetty. BOM instrumentation could also be re-installed for further data collection in the short to medium term. Details with regard to the extent of maintenance that would be essential for this purpose and the cost thereof would need to be estimated to test the viability of this potential use. Security, given the relative isolation of the site would need to be considered, as would provision of public facilities such as access, parking and toilets to support this form of use.

The asset ownership risks and costs including inevitable ‘make safe’ works, maintenance and management of the structure would reside with the future owner




Page 18

and the long term viability and solvency risks with respect to a future owner would need to be mitigated. There would likely be habitat impacts even with restricted access.

A further option that appears plausible is for partial demolition to remove the deck and piles to an agreed distance below the lowest low tide so as to minimise navigational hazards, but retain pile stubs, the caissons and possibly the dolphins for preservation of habitat and the ability to engage in passive observation of the associated marine species. Whether or not the groyne remains would need to be evaluated further in terms of risks and costs versus benefits.

Under this scenario, further discussion would need to take place between the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and DEWNR to determine what if any elements of the structure could be retained. Agreement would need to be reached with ExxonMobil as it will affect its scope of works. Within this option, open public access to the beach and a swimming zone and possibly access to the groyne (if retained) for land based angling could be considered.

4.7 Restricted Access, Public Recreational Uses The facility could be used as proposed above including the variants canvassed but with public access to the beach, groyne and certain remaining marine structures only (e.g. under water piles and caissons) but not to the jetty deck. This option may satisfy community demand for a recreational diving and marine visitation site within the metropolitan area as demonstrated by existing patronage of that type at Port Noarlunga and Rapid Bay.

With public access there is a heightened risk of potential degradation of the ecosystem depending on the extent of patronage and public behaviour which may need to be monitored and reviewed, but local ‘ownership’ is often a powerful means of providing stewardship of the environment. The exclusion of recreational access to the jetty deck may raise objections from the community.

Many of the issues relevant to the previous potential use apply here as well including the timing constraints on safe access to 2020 or beyond, security, provision of public facilities, asset and habitat deterioration and impacts, future ownership risks including management, maintenance, viability and solvency. Similarly, the opportunities presented include an eventual ecotourism linkage between Christies Beach and Hallett Cove Conservation Park and the potential reinstatement of BOM instrumentation, albeit with some possible security and protection challenges given enhances public access.

4.8 Unrestricted Public Access, Recreational Uses including Jetty Deck Access and Fishing

For this level of access, the facility would need to be stripped of all topside accessory structures, pumps, piping, pipe racks and the like (understood to be part of Exxon Mobil’s Stage 1 demolition contract) and upgraded to bring it to a safe public access standard (with an estimated initial expenditure of $2 million to $3 million). The future owner would then be liable for ongoing maintenance and major works in about ten years’ time. To reduce longer term maintenance costs




Page 19

and extend the life of the asset impressed current or sacrificial anode cathodic protection would need to be reinstated or applied at a potential up-front cost of $0.5 million together with ongoing costs.

Under this scenario, Exxon Mobil would not have to fund subsequent stages of demolition or bear the risks that complete demolition entails. Another consideration is that public access to the jetty is likely to be prevented for several years due to the landside demolition and rehabilitation works at the former refinery site and Exxon Mobil’s understandable reluctance to allow such access due to safety concerns.

Such use as described above may satisfy community demand for recreational diving, marine visitation, recreational fishing and associated tourism. Potential conflicts between fishers and divers would need to be managed noting that both uses coexist at Port Noarlunga, Rapid Bay and various jetties, breakwaters, wrecks and wharves around South Australia.

With unrestricted public access including jetty deck access and recreational angling, the present ecosystem would almost certainly be altered as a result of what would be expected to be significant fishing pressure in the short term.

In addition to the above costs and if public access of the varying types canvassed in this report were to materialise, there would be additional capital and recurrent costs associated with construction and maintenance of landside infrastructure such as access, car parking, public toilets, boardwalks and the like as well as provision of site security.

The future ownership risks including management, maintenance, viability and solvency would apply as would potential opportunities including an eventual ecotourism linkage between Christies Beach and Hallett Cove Conservation Park and the potential reinstatement of BOM instrumentation, again with some possible security and protection challenges given potential increased public access.

Under this scenario, there is likely to be no mechanism to generate revenue in order to offset future required expenditure, and therefore such a use is unlikely to be sustainable.

Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment - YourSAy · PDF filePort Stanvac Marine Facilities...

Documents

Transcript of Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment - YourSAy · PDF filePort Stanvac Marine Facilities...