Abbot Point Expansion
The Challenges
Jeff Stewart-Harris
North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation
March 2014
Port of Abbot Point
2012-13 Throughput
17.7 mt
201 bulk carriers
Abbot Point Facts
•
Closest community is Bowen situated 25 km from Port
•
Abbot Point is ideally situated to be Australia’s next emerging port.

Since 2006 the terminal has been undergoing constant expansion.

Capacity growth 2007 15 Mtpa to 50 Mtpa in 2013

Plans for Regional Growth with State Development Area

Current export capacity is 50 Mtpa, plans for capacity of + 120 Mtpa

Potential for import and export growth of other products

Dredging at Abbot Point - Port built in early 80’s and first maintenance dredging
campaign undertaken in 2008 (~ 300,000 m3). Abbot Point has very low maintenance
dredging requirements
Proposed Port Expansions – Abbot Point

T0 - Adani proposes a 70 Mtpa expansion of the existing terminal (T1), along with an
additional two offshore berths (approval referral lodged with SEWPaC). The T0 project
is in the pre-feasibility phase

T2 – No current proponent but will be developed as part of the Galilee Basin
Development Strategy

T3 - GVK Hancock planning to export 60 Mtpa through the terminal. Includes a 500 km
rail line from the mine to the port. Currently in negotiations with Aurizon regarding
development option of T3 and rail.

AP-X a process through Queensland Government for the incremental development of
terminal expansion. Requires interested parties to show sufficient demand and
capability.
Proposed Dredging Campaign
•
3 million cubic metres over 5 years (sand, clay and silt)
•
Largest campaign will not exceed 1.3 cubic meters in one year.
•
Large sandy substrates available for safe return of material to the marine environment.
•
Void of coral reef or anything of ecological significance
•
40 kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef
•
We have an excellent track record for dredging (22 campaigns across our ports since
2002)
•
Hay Point was 8.6 million cubic metres in 2006 in one calendar year and no long term
impacts.
•
There are 10 ports adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Dredging of those ports and
disposal of dredge material has been happening within the Great Barrier Reef for over 50
years with no adverse consequences.
The Accusations
Accusation 1 - Because of Port Developments UNESCO will place GBR on endangered list
and we will loose the World Heritage Status
Accusation 2 - The dredging plume will travel further than the NQBP’s science studies
indicate.
Accusation 3 - Fishing and fisheries will be adversely impacted.
Accusation 4 - Tourism will suffer because of impacts to the Great Barrier Reef.
Accusation 5 - Abbot Point will have the same problems as the Port of Gladstone.
Accusation 6 - The scientists commissioned were not objective as they were paid by NQBP
and the proponents.
Accusation 7 - Trestle extension would be the best solution.
Accusation 8 - THE REEF WILL BE DESTROYED
The Campaign
Disposal site in
relation to the GBR
Why this debate
•
UNESCO
•
Reef is in danger from Crown of Thorns, extreme weather events and run off.
•
Climate change and the relationship to coal
•
Development of the Galilee Basin
•
The belief is that the marine park is coral reef after coral reef but the reality that are vast
areas that are like a moonscape.
•
Issues at Port of Gladstone with regards to dredging
•
Australia cares deeply for its environment making it a target for ideological campaigns
•
Fundraising opportunities for IMGs
Accusation 1 - Ports development threatens the GBR
• Well documented and peer reviewed research show the biggest threats to GBR are storm
damage (48%), crown of thorns starfish (42%), and bleaching (10%). (2013 Scientific
Consensus Statement and in the AIMS study on coral reefs)
• Ports are not considered a threat.
• All material for ocean disposal is tested under rigorous requirements - the National
Australian Guidelines for Dredging (NADG) in accordance with London Protocol.
• Only material that has been tested and determined suitable for ocean disposal is disposed
of at sea.
• Any ’toxic’ or hazardous material cannot be disposed of at sea.
• GBR is 34.5 million ha in size. There are established shipping channels through the reef
and many large expanses which are devoid of coral and significant marine habitats.
• Port of Abbot Point offshore is 4,420 ha which comprises 0.012% of the area of the entire
marine park.
• Australia has a long and proud history of well-planned development. Neither the GBR nor
NQBP’s port development are at the expense of one and other.
Accusation 2 - The dredging plume will travel further than
studies indicate
• There is no evidence which supports this.
• Many refer to GBRMPA modelling which is not intended for assessment.
• GBRMPA’s own public admission report has limitations and simplifying assumptions about
currents and the suspension of sediments. Modelling “does not reflect real conditions.”
• NQBP have undertaken 22 dredge campaigns since 2002 without impacting the GBR.
• As dredging is being undertaken, real time monitoring occurs to ensure the sediment
plume does not extend beyond boundaries set.
• The belief is that the marine park is coral reef after coral reef but the reality that are vast
areas that are like a moonscape.
• Physical studies have identified that only 25% of the material to be dredged at Abbot
Point will comprise clays and fine silts, and are susceptible to resuspension.
• The extent of fine material is further reduced through the formation of large ‘clay balls’
during the dredging process that would settle quickly and not re-suspend
Impacts Avoided and Minimised
Accusations 3 & 4 - Fishing and fisheries and tourism
will be impacted







There is no evidence to suggest this.
NQBP has done extensive fishing studies, have engaged a fisheries expert and are
working with the commercial and recreational fishermen to ensure minimal impact.
Offsetting any potential impacts will be developed in consultation with fishermen.
Dredging is localised and away from any tourist areas – and 40km from the Great
Barrier Reef.
The turbidity is temporary and localised and will settle within weeks.
These outcomes have been predicted by our studies and are consistent with what we
have observed during previous dredging campaigns.
Over the last ten years, the volume of sediment derived from human activities flowing
from the Burdekin catchment alone is approximately 50 million cubic metres
Other Accusations - Alternate solutions were not fully
investigated






NQBP explored 5 options for trestle extension – all but one required dredging.
Trestle extension results in operations further in GBRMP
Longer trestles result in higher exposure to extreme weather events and navigational
and safety concerns.
The trestle option which would remove a dredging requirement would add an additional
1 billion dollar cost tho the project, incur ongoing additional operating and maintenance
costs.
Longer trestles do not provide a better overall environmental outcome.
Onshore disposal creates unacceptable environmental risks which include acid sulphate
soils and tail water management and discharge into the bay
Real Value of Port Expansion

Impeccable environmental management

The construction phase will create employment opportunities in the thousands

Flow on effects to local business

Currently 166 FTE just for the Port who live around Bowen

Larger port operations = more full time staff

Growth in rail operation and management = more full time staff

Increase trade opportunities

Development of the Galilee = billions in royalties and taxes = schools, hospitals,
regional infrastructure
Real cost if ports do not expand

No jobs

No social infrastructure

No investment in the environment

Countries consuming coal will source it elsewhere (likely from countries with relaxed
environmental standards)

No future for families

No additional trade opportunities

Opposition move to next “cause” for fundraising and do not invest in environment or
community