RENEWALSA PORT STANVAC MARINE FACILITIES ASSESSMENT ISSUES PAPER - YOURSAY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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
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 Description First draft
2013
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Borvin Kracman Simon Schutz Borvin Kracman
Signature
Draft 2 13 Feb Filename 2013-02-13 Port Stanvac Issues Paper.docx
2013 Description Final Draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Borvin Kracman Simon Schutz Borvin Kracman
Signature
Draft 3 22 Mar Filename 2013-03-22 Port Stanvac Issues Paper.docx
2013 Description Final Draft 2
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Borvin Kracman Simon Schutz Borvin Kracman
Signature
Final 4 Apr Filename 2013-04-04 Port Stanvac Issues Paper Final.docx
2013 Description Issued as Final
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Borvin Kracman Simon Schutz Borvin Kracman
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document
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
RenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCX
RenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities AssessmentPort Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Page 1
Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Executive Summary Table
Potential Uses Issues Opportunities
DEMOLITION BY Potential “lost opportunity” to use The full cost of demolition and
EXXON MOBIL the marine elements for the benefit removal will be covered by
(“Base Case”) of the local area. Exxon Mobil
ExxonMobil to demolish Basis for existing exclusion zones Potential return of that segment
the marine elements. no longer relevant but could be of the coastline and inshore
retained. waters to similar conditions that
existed prior to establishment of
the refinery.
Perception that the facilities do
provide a viable opportunity for
development with attendant Potential linear public access
economic development and including beach and water
employment opportunities. linking with geological,
archaeological and heritage
sites, extending from Christies
Concern that fishing interests have
Beach to Hallett Cove
not been accommodated.
Conservation Park.
Concern that diving interests have
Access to a potential dive site
not been accommodated.
(deep water close to the coast)
within the Adelaide
Destruction of significant habitat metropolitan area where access
and associated ecosystem. has previously been limited.
Potential once-off source of
sand for beach replenishment.
INDUSTRIAL OR Jetty location and structure purpose All reasonable indicators
COMMERCIAL PORT built for oil refinery liquids transfer. suggest there is no plausible
– Hydrocarbon Uses, opportunity for such a use.
Single Operator.
Vessel size limited to 40,000 dead
weight tonnes (dwt).
A new entrant into the
market to provide bulk
Exxon Mobil is demolishing all
fuel storage and/or
crude oil and refined products
refining to the South
related infrastructure on both the
Australian market.
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 2
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
Potential Uses Issues Opportunities
INDUSTRIAL OR Jetty location and structure purpose All reasonable indicators
COMMERCIAL PORT built for oil refinery liquids transfer. suggest there is no plausible
– Limited Uses or opportunity for such uses.
Common Users, Single
Not a good commercial port
Operator.
location due to weather and tide
conditions.
Shipping operated to
support Southern Region
Jetty not suitable for containerised
or adjacent industries
freight or cruise ships and not
including tourism in the
considered economically viable to
form of cruise ships.
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.
NO ACCESS MARINE Existing marine biodiversity has not Possible use would be
RESERVE been subjected to significant human consistent with shipwrecks and
interference over 50 years. deliberately scuttled vessels
which provide habitat.
Retain part or all of the
facilities including The site was not included in the
exclusion zones to Encounter Marine Park. Amending Potential linear public access
preserve habitat and boundaries on existing Marine including beach and water
allow progressive Parks may have broader linking with geological,
deterioration of marine implications. archaeological and heritage
elements. sites, extending from Christies
Beach to Hallett Cove
Asset will deteriorate over an
Conservation Park but safe
extended period. Impact of asset
landside access to the site is
deterioration, consequential
likely to be constrained for
changes in habitat and visual
some time (possibly 2020 or
amenity.
beyond) due to landside
demolition and rehabilitation
Policing of access arrangements works at the former refinery
including ensuring that potential site.
public safety issues are addressed.
Opportunity to reinstate Bureau
Asset ownership (including of Meteorology (BOM)
maintenance and management) instrumentation for short to
risks residing with future owner. medium term data collection.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 3
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
Potential Uses Issues Opportunities
RESTRICTED ACCESS Existing marine biodiversity has not Private sector run eco-tourism
RECREATIONAL been subjected to significant human business subject to safety and
USES – Commercial interference over 50 years. habitat preservation controls
Eco-tourism (low- and run on a commercial basis
impact) including payment of fees to
Policing access arrangements.
asset owner.
Commercially operated
Security issues due to the isolation
diving tours and A potential dive site within the
of the site.
associated marine Adelaide metropolitan area
recreation, interpretative, where access has previously
education, training and The provision of public facilities been limited.
research activities (access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to
operated on a pay for use support use.
Potential for development of a
basis.
marine interpretive, education
Without maintenance, the structures and dive training and supplies
will progressively deteriorate and facility.
use of the area would need to adjust
to suit the conditions.
Potential for a dive and eco-
tourism destination linking with
Impact of asset deterioration, geological, archaeological and
consequential changes in habitat heritage sites extending from
and visual amenity. Christies Beach to Hallett Cove
Conservation Park.
Demand and the business case for
such a venture are not presently Access arrangements for the
known. jetty could provide a
mechanism to manage potential
public safety issues.
Safe access to the site is likely to be
constrained for some time (possibly
2020 or beyond) due to landside Use could be achieved with
demolition and rehabilitation works partial rather than total
at the former refinery site. retention of marine elements.
Future ownership to be identified. Opportunity to reinstate BOM
instrumentation for short to
medium term data collection.
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 4
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
Potential Uses Issues Opportunities
RESTRICTED ACCESS Security issues due to the isolation Provision of a new recreational
PUBLIC of the site. diving and marine visitation site
RECREATIONAL within the metropolitan area to
USES support existing facilities at
The provision of public facilities
Port Noarlunga and Rapid Bay.
(access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to
Access to beach, groyne support use.
and marine environment Potential for a dive and eco-
EXCLUDING jetty deck tourism destination linking with
Without maintenance, the structure
for the purposes of geological, archaeological and
will progressively deteriorate and
diving, passive activities heritage sites extending from
create safety issues.
and recreational fishing. Christies Beach to Hallett Cove
Conservation Park.
Potential degradation of habitat,
depending on the nature of
Access arrangements for the
uses/behaviour of users.
jetty could provide a
mechanism to manage potential
Safe access to the site is likely to be public safety issues.
constrained for some time (possibly
2020 or beyond) due to landside
Potential for part of the uses to
demolition and rehabilitation works
be accommodated without
at the former refinery site.
retention of all marine
elements.
Future ownership to be identified.
Opportunity to reinstate BOM
Asset ownership risks residing with instrumentation for short to
future owner. medium term data collection.
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 5
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
Potential Uses Issues Opportunities
UNRESTRICTED Security issues due to the isolation Provision of a new recreational
PUBLIC ACCESS of the site. diving, marine visitation and
RECREATIONAL recreational fishing site within
USES the metropolitan area to
The provision of public facilities
supplement existing facilities at
(access, toilets, car parking, etc.) to
Port Noarlunga and Rapid Bay.
Access to beach, groyne support use.
and marine environment
including jetty deck for Potential for an eco-tourism and
The jetty would require upgrading
the purposes of diving, recreational fishing destination
to provide safe public access.
passive activities and linking with geological,
recreational fishing. archaeological and heritage
Ongoing maintenance would be sites extending from Christies
required to maintain the facility. Beach to Hallett Cove
Conservation Park.
It is likely that the habitat would be
degraded through use. Access arrangements for the
jetty could provide a
mechanism to manage potential
Safe access to the site is likely to be public safety issues.
constrained for some time (possibly
2020 or beyond) due to landside
demolition and rehabilitation works Opportunity to reinstate BOM
at the former refinery site. instrumentation for long term
data collection.
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 6
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 7
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 8
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 9
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 10
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 11
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 12
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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.
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 13
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 14
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 15
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 16
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 17
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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
Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 18
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXRenewalSA Port Stanvac Marine Facilities Assessment
Issues Paper
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- | Final | 4 April 2013 | Arup Page 19
J:\228000\228217-00 PT STANVAC ASSESSMENT\WORK\INTERNAL\2013-04-04 PORT STANVAC ISSUES PAPER FINAL.DOCXYou can also read
