News & Discussion: Outer Harbor & Inner Harbor

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#31 Post by fabricator » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:47 pm

Ok so what goes
Whiiiiiinnne Kaboom Whiiiiiinnne Whiiiiiinnne Whiiiiiinnne Told you so ?
Answers in Tomorrows Advertdespiser
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 874 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#32 Post by Ho Really » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:58 pm

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

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

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#33 Post by mattblack » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:08 am

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

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

Cheers

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

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#34 Post by AtD » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:20 am

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

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

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2938
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#35 Post by rhino » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:24 am

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

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 874 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#36 Post by Ho Really » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:51 pm

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

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

Cheers
Are you saying that the desal plant is short sighted :?: . Isnt it there to improve water security and reduce reliance on the Murray into the future and committed to when we were in the middle of a drought that highlighted our vunerability? Whether you agree it was the right move or not you cannot call it short sighted.
You misundertsood me. I'm not against a desal plant, it's where it has been located at Port Stanvac. That's where they have been shortsighted. A desal plant should have been built where the currents take the brine away from the coast or from sensitive areas. My suggestion would have been Cape Jervis where the currents are stronger and go both ways. They could have also tapped into the wind farm at Starfish Hill for some electricity (this only a hunch). Port Stanvac should have been kept solely for expansion of fuel purposes like in this proposal. I might be wrong and Port Stanvac could still have plenty of room to be used for this porposal as AtD points out. Rhino is also asking the right questions.

Cheers

PS. Got a run time error on that link Atd so couldn't see the image, but I believe you.
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#37 Post by AtD » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:34 pm

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

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#38 Post by mattblack » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:08 am

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

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

Cheers
Are you saying that the desal plant is short sighted :?: . Isnt it there to improve water security and reduce reliance on the Murray into the future and committed to when we were in the middle of a drought that highlighted our vunerability? Whether you agree it was the right move or not you cannot call it short sighted.
You misundertsood me. I'm not against a desal plant, it's where it has been located at Port Stanvac. That's where they have been shortsighted. A desal plant should have been built where the currents take the brine away from the coast or from sensitive areas. My suggestion would have been Cape Jervis where the currents are stronger and go both ways. They could have also tapped into the wind farm at Starfish Hill for some electricity (this only a hunch). Port Stanvac should have been kept solely for expansion of fuel purposes like in this proposal. I might be wrong and Port Stanvac could still have plenty of room to be used for this porposal as AtD points out. Rhino is also asking the right questions.

Cheers

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

Fair enough :)

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2938
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#39 Post by rhino » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:50 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will create 20 to 30 jobs during construction.

A rail gantry will also be built within the terminal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 874 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#40 Post by Ho Really » Tue May 17, 2011 10:47 am

rhino wrote:Not Outer Harbor, but close by and a similar facility. They mention the mining boom and the need for more deisel, and they're putting in rail sidings - I wonder if this means that there will be rail to the mine at Olympic Dam, or does it mean that the fuel will be arriving at Largs North by rail? The Outer Harbor facility is being enlarged to be able to take a whole shipload of fuel - can fuel be offloaded by ship at Largs North too?
Yes, fuel can be offloaded by ship, it's already taking place at Port Adelaide. Are they looking at larger ships with deeper draughts? If that's the case they'd need to go to Port Stanvac or they could look at an area around Pelican Point on the eastern side of the power station. Port Stanvac is going a little off track and would mean freight travelling through more suburban areas. As for Pelican Point I'm not sure about the environmental issues and whether they'd have enough space or if that area is earmarked for something else. Also they would need to dredge the channel further from the grain terminal onwards. All speculation... :)

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

richo
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:24 am

Re: Outer Harbor Bulk Fuel Facility

#41 Post by richo » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:14 am

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

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

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

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

Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: News & Discussion: Outer Harbor & Inner Harbor

#42 Post by Bob » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:45 am

Channel Widening Project - dredging works now complete

26TH SEPTEMBER 2019
Channel Widening Project - dredging works now complete
Although some final navigation aid relocation works are still required, Flinders Ports have advised that their dredging of the channel and swing basin to widen the Outer Harbour Shipping Channel is now complete.

The channel at Port Adelaide has successfully been widened by 40 metres to accommodate the larger Port Panamax size vessels which will ensure that South Australian imports and exports remain competitive.

The channel design width of 170 metres is anticipated to remain sufficient and appropriate due to the constraints of the recently upgraded Panama Canal and its influence on global shipping design.

Some key facts about the dredging include:

Dredging completed on 18 September 2019
514 trips to the Dredge Material Placement Area
Turbidity reached the HOLD limit 4 times (caused by a combination of prolonged poor weather conditions and dredging). On each occasion dredging ceased, and only recommenced under specific conditions approved by EPA or when turbidity fell below HOLD levels.
0 marine mammal incidents
239 marine mammal sightings
Several larger vessel booking applications are being processed
Dredging period undertaken within anticipated timeframe, completing dredging in the cooler winter months when water temperature is below 18 degrees as per dredging licence conditions
All EPA audits satisfied (2 in total)
All dredged material placed only within the approved area
Proactive measures taken to reduce marine pest and biosecurity risks, such as thorough cleaning and inspection of dredging equipment and a Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome Management Plan
Once completed, the Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project will satisfy forecasted requirements for larger vessels well into the future.

The final works to reinstall the navigation aids will be completed in November.

http://www.safreightcouncil.com.au/news ... 4#sub_1064

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests