Yamba Mega Port: nothing to see here, move along

This is the ‘back of the envelope’ mapping done by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd for its proposed plan to construct an industrial port on 27.2 per cent of the entire Clarence River Estuary. Neat, tidy and full of unnaturally straight lines.

When asked about impacts on the environment the proposed industrialisation of the Port of Yamba would cause, the spokespeople for Australian Infrastructure Developments usually only have two things to say.

Firstly they point out that the initial environmental advice (which no-one outside the company appears to have sighted) gives the all clear – especially with regard to seagrass beds which supposedly do not exist in the channels to be dredged under this plan.

Secondly they say the Environmental Impact Statement which will have to be produced before they can move forward will be the company’s guideline for development.

In recent weeks there has been a third claim and that is that the company will cut another “entrance” on the north side of the river mouth so that Dirragun reef can lie undisturbed.

We are told there’s nothing for Lower Clarence communities to worry about at all.

But what do people actually living in the Clarence Estuary know about their river?

Well, firstly locals know that there are sea grass beds along the route the large cargo vessels will take back and forth from the four proposed terminals and, that the seagrass beds from the western end of Goodwood Island down the channel leading to the container terminal will in all likelihood be destroyed by the company’s deep channel dredging. 

They are also aware of the degree of mangrove loss likely to occur and, the saltmarsh that will be eliminated during construction along with roosting & feeding habitat of migratory birds protected under the internationally recognised Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), Australia-China Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

These three agreements oblige the governments concerned; to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of listed migratory species, including the establishment of sanctuaries.

Living as they do in a richly biodiverse region, locals are well aware that the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also provides for protection of migratory species as a matter of National Environmental Significance.

[Clarence River County Council, Clarence Estuary Management Plan, 2006]

Click on images to enlarge

In fact locals know full well that Des Euen and his backers would have to play merry hell with estuarine and intertidal areas of a wetlands system that eight years ago the NSW Department of Environment was recommending should be placed on the National Reserve System [Clarence Lowlands Wetland Conservation Assessment, December 2008].

Secondly, locals are aware that any genuine Environmental Impact Statement would point to all these risks and more.

Thirdly, there is the puzzling matter of the proposed new harbour entrance which has surfaced.

As anyone can see on the snapshot of part of the NSW Roads and Maritime Services coastal boating map (below), the north side of the harbour mouth is already listed as the safe route for shipping to enter the estuary – the approach leads are clearly marked.

Click on image to enlarge

So where is this new entrance to be cut? Some or all of the 1,280m north breakwater wall built between 1952-1968 under the Clarence Harbour Works Act would have to be removed – and therein lies the rub.

Prior to construction of the entrance works floods caused significant changes to the shape of the river entrance and the location of navigable channels (Soros Longworth & McKenzie 1978) and the partial or complete removal of one or both of these walls is likely to see sand build up in the river between Iluka and Hickey Island as it did in the mid-1800s and/or further inside the smooth water limit of the main channel. Maintenance dredging may have to be an annual event, rather than a probable bi-annual event to keep the proposed new port navigable.

I won’t even go near the loss of a measure of protection in heavy seas and storms for all boats seeking harbour – the evidence of our own eyes during this year’s east coast lows are enough to give most of the population of Yamba and Iluka a fair idea of what to expect.

Just because it is beautiful......(12)

Green Sea Turtle, Kona Coast, Hawaii

President of the Casino Chamber of Commerce, Luke Bodley, lends his support to proposed environmental vandalism on a large scale

Des Euen and ‘friend’ on the Iluka side of the Clarence River mouth at an unspecified date

There is obviously one born every minute somewhere in the world and on 26 May 2016 it was the turn of the National Party's Luke Bodley of Realo Group Pty Ltd to step into the limelight and be recognised .

Here he is on Facebook promoting a proposal to destroy existing environmental, cultural, social and economic values in the Clarence River estuary:

And who is he doing this promotion for? Why for a $1 shelf company, with no apparent business address (instead using the address of the Minter Group), no listed business phone number and, most importantly,  no local, state or federal government support.

A phantom-like company which states it has had international development funding approved for five inter-related projects est. to cost $42.7 billion in total.

Projects which appear to still be mere sketches on the back of envelopes if this plan for a large industrial port is any indication:

Figure 1 shows a port precinct which covers an est. 27.2 % of the entire Clarence River estuary, 
www.aid-australia.com.au/project-1/

According to Mr. Euen the indicative timeline will see Stage 1 of this approx. 36 sq km super-port operational sometime in 2018 - even though not one of the required in-depth reports has been generated to date by AID Australia, no planning application has been submitted yet and no comprehensive surveying undertaken. He laughably states the entire proposed port infrastructure will be completed in around twelve years.

I wonder if Mr. Bodley has ever puzzled over the fact that there is no roar of support emanating from the Clarence Valley for these personal projects of former Queensland truck driver Desmond John Thomas Euen?

Has he thought about why an infrastructure 'plan' that has been hawked around the country for at least the last four to five years has been unable to gain official support in all that time from either local, state or federal governments?

Or wondered why Euen isn't holding his "summit" in the area covered by the lynch-pin in his grandiose plan, the Lower Clarence?

Perhaps this Google Earth snapshot of what the lowest section of the Clarence River estuary looks like today might give him a hint:

What this image shows is a river from the mouth to Harwood which has been held under Native Title since 2015 and an approach to the river partially blocked by a culturally & spiritually significant coffee rock reef which is the indigenous ancestor Dirrangun.

It shows the base for the largest commercial river & offshore fishery in NSW (generating in excess of an est. $92M output and $15.4M annual income) which supports a fleet moored on both the Iluka and Yamba sides of the river and as far up as Maclean.

There are also oyster leases and aquaculture ponds within the estuary.

This snapshot covers part of the range of one of only two river-dwelling dolphin pods on the east coast of Australia and one which successfully co-exists with the tourism-reliant small towns of Yamba, Iluka and Maclean, as well as with the many domestic and international yachts and other pleasure boats which use the lower river.

The green is this image predominately comprises cane farms, extensive national parks, dedicated foreshore nature reserves and one of this country’s few World Heritage areas, a 136 ha remnant of the ancient Gondwanna subtropical rainforests proclaimed by the United Nations in 1986.

In 2006-07 the people of the Clarence Valley successfully fought off a Howard Government proposal to dam and divert water from the Clarence River catchment for the benefit of mining, agricultural irrigation and land development interests in the Murray Darling Basin and southern Queensland.

That fight was part of the reason why Australia’s federal government changed in 2007.

As late as 30 May 2016 Nationals MP for Clarence and Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast, Chris Gulapatis, has this to say in response to Euen's scheming:

While even Des Euen himself recently told The Daily Examiner that it is NSW Government policy to direct import-export sea freight to the major ports of Port Jackson, Port Botany, Port Kembla and the Port of Newcastle.

UPDATE

North Coast Voices received this email today:

North Coast Voices Blog - Correction of information required

From: redacted [mailto:redacted@gnfrealestate.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 1:59 PM
To: northcoastvoices@gmail.com
Cc: Darren Perkins
Subject: North Coast Voices Blog - Correction of information required

Good afternoon,

With regard to the below blog link for North Coast Voices, Luke Bodley ceased employment with GNF Real Estate Pty Ltd on the 28^th April 2016. We request that the mention of George & Fuhrmann Real Estate be removed from the article.

http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/president-of-casino-chamber-of-commerce.html

Regards

Darren Perkins

Managing Director

George & Fuhrmann

However Luke Bodley was still listed as part of this real estate company's Casino staff as at 2.28PM on 8 June 2016:

When there is public evidence online that Mr. Bodley is no longer associated with this company the mention will be removed from the body of the post, but the correspondence and comment will remain.

Queensland infrastructure fantasist to hold "summit" on turning the Clarence River estuary into a coal & bauxite loading port

On 2 June 2016 Desmond John Thomas Euen will be holding a “summit” at the Returned Servicemen's Memorial Club in Casino NSW.

This A “Key” Nation Building Infrastructure Plan Summit holds the promise of containing more spin than the federal election campaign.

Readers may recall Mr. Euen (seen left) as that almost compulsive creator of shelf companies - Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd (created 31.08.12), Y.P.R (AUST) Pty Ltd (created 13.03.14), A.I.D (HK) LTD (possibly created in 2015), and N.S.W. Export Logistics Pty Ltd (created 17.03.16) – and the man who wants to turn NSW Far North Coast fishing port and popular holiday destination, Yamba, into a coal port.

Euen appears to have sent out many invitations to attend and has listed the following invitees on various websites:

Local Yagel & Bundjalung Land Council Representatives

Supply Nation (Indigenous Business Development)

Mr Lester Rogers (General Manager of Moree Shire Plains Council)

Tamworth Mayor Mr Col Murray

Mayor Richie Williamson (Clarence Valley Council)

Regional Development Australia RDANI

Regional Development Australia (Mid North Coast NSW)

Liverpool Council South Western Sydney

Australian Rail Association

Australian Industry Group

Riverina Inland Rail Alliance Group.

He has also listed a changing kaleidoscope of presenters/keynote speakers.

Starting with:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pihba-eW1hwJ:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/announcement-create-new-policy-government-des-euen+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au, accessed 21 May 2016]

Which changed to this:

[http://www.aid-australia.com.au/?s=summit, accessed 21 May 2016]

Des Euen’s grand plans get little media coverage in the Northern Rivers and what it does must give this Queensland fantasist little comfort.

This is an example of the Clarence Valley’s enthusiasm for a coal loading facility in the Clarence River estuary, published on the front page of The Daily Examiner on 27 May 2014:

GRAND PLAN OR HOT AIR Businessman's Yamba port plans met with scepticism: Port transport proposal met with scepticism

The idea of establishing the Port of Yamba as the centre of a massive transport hub on the northern NSW coast has surfaced again.

The proposal, labelled the YPR Project, is the brainchild of Desmond John Thomas Euen, the managing director of the $1, one share company Australian Infrastructure Developments.

It aims to create a transport network linking the coalfields in the north-west of the state to an international port in Yamba, all funded by private equity.

The YPR website claims it will be ready to make a big announcement next month.

"YPR (AUST) Pty Ltd is currently in dialog with the relevant departments of both the NSW and Federal Government."

"THE company expects to be in position to submit development plans and financial endorsements by June 2014," it read.

The news has sparked alarm in the conservation movement, with Lock the Gate activists promising to fight any attempts to set up infrastructure for a massive port in the Clarence River estuary.

But an expert in the field believes the "common sense test" rules it out.

Harwood Marine managing director Ross Roberts said he had been following Mr Euen's plans but had spotted some major flaws.

"Anyone can come up with big ideas and put them forward," he said. "But when they do, they have to pass the common sense test.

"The first thing you ask is: who is going to pay for it and then why would you want to do it?"

Mr Roberts said the current economy was contracting, so finding people willing to stump up the amount of money required would be hard.

"The other question is why?" he said. "In 1990 there were 22 ships operating out of the port, now there are none. That has to tell you something."

Mr Roberts, who does marine industry business around the world, said the Clarence estuary contained 100 islands and nowhere on the planet had he seen an attempt to create a huge port in such an area.

"Dealing with floods would be the first worry," he said. "Do they build up all the islands by a metre? Then where does that water go in flood?"

Mr Euen claims to be in talks with Federal and NSW government departments, but these claims seem exaggerated.

Last year Mr Euen met with a senior policy adviser from the office of Duncan Gay, the NSW Minister for Roads and Ports.

The minister's office said a senior staff member met with Mr Euen, who signalled an intention to submit a proposal, but did not receive the ministry's in-principal support.

The Daily Examiner contacted Mr Euen, who said he would be happy to outline the plans at "a mutually convenient time".

A sample of unfavourable comments left under the online article:

Fedup - Junction Hill

NO,NO,NO. In my opinion if this was to go ahead Yamba would be ruined. Maybe Mr Euen should look at why vessels have left the port. It would not have anything to do with siltation would it? Just take a look at what has happened in QLD with their coal loader and the subsequent pollution of the Great Barrier Reef. Who has the money to build this or is he in discussions with the Chinese who are after the CSG and anything else they can get their hands on.

yambaman - Yamba 

Hmm, fantasy indeed, the day this is approved is the day I blow up Oyster Channel bridge!

BigUglyWaz - Waterview Heights

Does anyone really think this is something more than a dream?

Have a look at the YPR website, google a few things and tell me you can see any of this happening, forget the cost involved, and the environmental destruction.

Port of Yamba Depths. "Shipping channel depths are maintained at 4.0 metres"

"..... the deepening of the Suez Canal from 18 m (60ft) to 20 m (66ft) in 2009 permits most capesize vessels to pass through it."

Capesize bulk carriers. "Due to their large dimensions and deep draughts, capesize ships are suitable to serve only large ports with deep water terminals in the world. As a result, they can serve a comparatively small number of ports in the world."

Probably going to need a little dredging to get those to carriers into the Clarence.

Maybe Clive can get onto this, something to spend his billions on after he finishes the Titanic II?

EmmaB – Yamba

Has anyone looked closer at this crazy plan? It can be found at http://www.ypraust.com.au/project-1-p....

Mr. Euen is expecting that ships of Post-Panamax and Capesize will come into his proposed port.

Post-Panamax ships are larger than 294,13 m (965 ft) long, 32,31 m (106 ft) wide and have draughts in excess of 12,04 m (39.5 ft).

Capesize ships are very large and ultra large cargo vessels with a capacity over 150,000 DWT. They are categorised under VLCC,ULCC, VLOC and ULOC and can be as large as 400,000 DWT or even more. They serve regions with largest deepwater terminals in the world and are primarily used for transporting coal and iron ore. Because of their giant size, they are suitable to serve only a small number of ports with deepwater terminals.

See: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/sh...

grippy - Yamba

Just remembered you have the sacred Aboriginal reef at Yambas mouth.
Who will blow that up?

JohnHancocks – Maclean

I won't be parting with any of my savings for such a scheme - nor would I advise anyone else to contribute a cent toward anything connected to it.

Not that Mr. Euen doesn’t have a gift for convincing the gullible, as this excerpt from a Queensland Bauxite Limited 4 March 2016 announcement demonstrates:

[http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160304/pdf/435lqnp45v0yyd.pdf]

I wonder if Queensland Bauxite can hear the laughter coming from south of the QLD-NSW border?

For readers who have never sighted Des Euan's unrealistic and ever expanding grand plan for Goodwood, Chatsworth and Palmers islands, as well as for lands on the Iluka side of the Clarence River estuary and the Mororo district, here it is all neatly laid out:

http://www.aid-australia.com.au/project-1/

UPDATE

Facebook Clarence Forum:

John Hagger 

I am told that the plan includes:

The removal of the existing breakwater to open up the river and

Incorporating Chatsworth, Harwood and Gilbert Islands into the Port complex

The apparent goal is to become the biggest Port in Australia.

The claims include:

25% Australian Infrastructure Development shareholding by 1st Nations groups.

Current guarantee of 51.2 Billion Dollars funding.

The support of Clarence Valley Council and other Councils.

That Clarence Valley Council was represented at a recent joint Council meeting in Namoi and voted in favour of the proposal.

Three (3) letters of support from Mayor Richard on CVC letterhead.

Des Euen has promised to send copies of the above claims.

He has also promised that the Port would not be used for Coal or Gas.

To date none of the promised papers have arrived.

21 May at 13:31

Letter from Clarence Valley Council Mayor Richie Williamson to John Hagger posted on Clarence Forum 24 May 2016:

“Dear Mr. Hagger,

Thank you for your email regarding the Australian Infrastructure Development (AID) letter of support and whether it was signed by me.

It seems the letter (which was signed by me in 2011) is being used to grossly misrepresent the truth as the letter is about a different proposal all together. I also draw your attention to the top of the letter, dated 11/2/2011, which thanks Mr Euen for presenting his proposal, which was “The Trans Seaport Eastern Integrated Land Proposal” my recall was that this proposal was about transporting containers via the road network to and from the Port of Yamba from Port Kembla and Brisbane, hence the reference to the Pacific Highway upgrade and other road transport businesses that council had worked with in the past. The letter does not support this proposal, but the larger “transport hub” idea that I know you have also supported in the past.

The letter is in no way supporting the current AID proposal around rail from inland NSW to the Port of Yamba. Any claim by AID of my support is strongly rejected by me; in fact, I have been completely opposed to the rail proposal from the first time I heard of it.

Please see the links below as an example;

http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/…/plans-railway-ar…/1294404/

I stress Council has given no written letter of support to the present AID proposal and would be, in my view, highly unlikely to provide such a letter.

I also note the claim that; “I and/or a council officer attended a meeting recently in the Namoi district regarding the current AID proposal” is completely untrue and false.

I hope this clarifies this matter.

Richie"

The original list of invitees to the Euen “summit” posted at Linked in, courtesy of Google Cache on 11 May 2016:

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce MP

The Hon Darren Chester MP the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten MP

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure

 [ this would be an opportune time for both parties to show bipartisan support for private enterprise funded regional and nation building infrastructure development]

Premier of NSW The Hon Mike Baird MP and/or NSW Deputy Premier

NSW Minister for Regional Development and Infrastructure Andrew Constance MP

NSW Trade and Investment

Transport for NSW

INNSW

IA (Infrastructure Australia)

ACTU President Ged Kearney

National Farmers Federation

NSW Farmers Association

Qld Farmers Association

Victorian Farmers Association

Riverina Inland Rail Alliance Group

Namoi Cotton Farmers and other Regional Industry peak bodies as they come to hand.

Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

For the second time in less than a year multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) has not met all environmental assessment criteria according to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA):

BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program proposes to drill four exploration wells in Commonwealth marine waters in the GAB. Exact well locations are yet to be determined for all wells; however they will be drilled within a defined ‘drilling area’. The drilling area is the previously acquired Ceduna 3D seismic survey area, which covers 12,100 km2 across Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 37, EPP 38, EPP 39 and EPP 40. BP and Statoil are the registered titleholders of EPPs 37, 38, 39 and 40, with BP being the Operator. The drilling area has water depths ranging between 1,000 and 2,500 m Lowest Astronomical Tide. At the closest point, the drilling area is located approximately 395 km west of Port Lincoln and 340 km southwest of Ceduna in South Australia (SA). The project is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2016-2017, with each well taking between 45 and 170 days to drill. The wells will be drilled using a dynamically positioned semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). The purpose of the drilling program is to determine whether the target formations have commercially recoverable volumes of hydrocarbons. Additional project details are available on BP’s project website www.bpgabproject.com.au.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, 17 May 2016:

On 16 May 2016, NOPSEMA provided BP an opportunity to modify and resubmit their environment plan for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight. If BP accepts this opportunity, the modified plan is expected to be resubmitted by 15 July, at which time NOPSEMA will recommence the assessment.

An opportunity to modify and resubmit is a normal part of NOPSEMA’s environment plan assessment process. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder (the company proposing the activity) a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit their plan if it doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. NOPSEMA will typically provide two opportunities to modify and resubmit, but is not restricted to providing only two opportunities.

If a titleholder has been given a reasonable opportunity to modify their plan and NOPSEMA determines that it still doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance then NOPSEMA will refuse to accept the plan. Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 4% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

NOPSEMA has updated the status of the assessment on the Great Australian Bight Exploration Drilling Program submission page. Stakeholders are encouraged to subscribe to the page to receive email alerts of any changes.

For more information about the environment plan assessment process see NOPSEMA’s Assessment process and FAQ pages at nopsema.gov.au.

The Wilderness Society re-released this animated graphic on 17 May 2016:

The oil and gas independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has handed down its decision. It has once again knocked back BP’s environment plan. BP has shown it has learnt nothing from its Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP now has the opportunity to resubmit its application to drill in the Great Australian Bight as early as July. However, BP still hasn’t released its oil spill modelling, so we released independent modelling which shows some the far-reaching impacts of a potential spill.

https://youtu.be/B5OnMGtx1cQ

An explanation of NOPSEMA’s environmental approval process can be found here.

BP currently owes the United States of America an est. US$7.1 billion in fines and compensation for the environmental damage caused by it Deepwater rig oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

This multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021. Joining Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd in the race to drill and be damned.

Petroluem exploration leases current in 2016

In November 2013 the Abbott Government ordered a review of certain national marine reserves. In effect by establishing this review it sought to block any increase in level of environmental protection afforded the Great Australian Bight when the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve was extended to cover 45,926 km2 with a depth range of 15 to 6,000 metres as part of a wider extension of national marine reserves by the former Labor federal government.

At the time of writing unpublished review recommendations have been in the hands of the Turnbull Government since December 2015 and to date mining exploration is still allowed within the waters of these south-west marine reserves at the discretion of the government of the day.

Although the current petroleum leases appear to be adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve it is clear from the aforementioned major spill modelling that oil/chemical contamination would reach both this reserve and major commercial fishing grounds within the Bight and Bass Strait.

Before casting your vote on 2 July 2016  you might consider this question: Which major political party is likely to put the brakes on these risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

BP plc BACKGROUND AS A SERIAL OFFENDER

Corporate Research Project, accessed 18 May 2016:

Starting about 2000, BP attempted the difficult feat of depicting itself as an environmentally friendly oil company. Some of its initiatives were merely symbolic—adopting a sunburst logo and claiming that its initials now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”—while others were concrete steps, such as (modest) investments in solar power. BP’s campaign was all the more difficult because of its involvement in controversial Alaskan oil and gas production, and because its environmental compliance record was far from unblemished.

For example, in 1990 BP agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine as part of a settlement of an $11 million suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought against the company in connection with illegal discharges from BP's Marcus Hook refinery into the Delaware River. Several months later the state of California sued the company over a 400,000-gallon spill of crude oil that occurred in February 1990 near Huntington Beach.

In July 1991 BP was one of ten major oil companies the EPA cited for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground sources of drinking water. BP agreed to pay a fine of $74,000, and to clean up the contaminated water sources by the end of 1993.

In 1992 the EPA charged BP Chemicals with violating hazardous waste laws at its plant in Lima, Ohio, and sought almost $600,000 in penalties.

In 2000 a federal judge imposed a $500,000 criminal fine on BP for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope. The company was also ordered to establish a national environmental management system to prevent future violations. The total cost to the company from this and a related civil matter was said to be more than $20 million.

In 2002 BP was fined £1 million by UK authorities for violating safety regulations in connection with several accidents at a refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland (later sold by BP).

In 2003 California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District filed an omnibus complaint against BP, seeking $319 million in penalties for thousands of air pollution violations over an 8-year period at the company’s refinery in Carson. BP acquired that facility through its purchase of Atlantic Richfield in 2000. The agency later filed another suit against BP for $183 million. In 2005 the parties reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $25 million in cash penalties and $6 million in past emissions fees while spending $20 million on environmental improvements at the refinery and $30 million on community programs focused on asthma diagnosis and treatment.

In 2005 BP was accused of trying to cover up deficiencies in the anti-corrosion coating on the 1,000-mile-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. BP is the lead participant in the joint venture that operates the pipeline, the largest shareholder in the consortium that owns it, and the operator of the oil fields that supply it.

In March 2006 more than 250,000 gallons of crude oil spilled at BP’s Prudhoe Bay operations in the Alaskan tundra. Several month later, the company shut down the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field because of additional leakage caused by corrosion in the transit line that carried crude oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There were press reports that BP had been warned of the problem more than two years earlier. In May 2007 the House Energy Committee released documents suggesting that cost-cutting pressures weakened preventive maintenance and other safety practices in the period leading up to the leaks.

In October 2007 BP agreed to pay a total of $60 million in fines to the EPA. The amount included $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act in connection with the 2005 explosion at the Texas City, Texas refinery in which 15 workers were killed. The company also pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the act and was to serve three years of probation. Apart from the fine, BP agreed to spend $265 million for a facility-wide study of its safety valves and a renovation of its flare system to prevent excess emissions.

At the same time, BP agreed to pay the EPA a $12 million fine in connection with the March 2006 oil spill in Alaska, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, and was ordered to serve three years probation on this offense as well. The company was also required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at a cost of $1.56 billion.

Later, in October 2010, BP agreed to pay $15 million in Clean Air Act penalties in connection with violations at the Texas City refinery.

In 2008 BP and several other oil majors agreed to pay $422 million to settle suits that had been brought by public water systems in 20 states and consolidated in federal court relating to the contamination of groundwater supplies by the carcinogenic gasoline additive MTBE.

At its annual meeting in mid-April 2010, BP faced a barrage of criticism over its involvement in controversial tar sands oil production in Canada.

Only days after that meeting, BP had to contend with a much bigger problem: an explosion at its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and opened a massive underwater oil leak. While the disaster continued, government investigators were looking into indications that BP pushed for work on the well to move ahead despite evidence of unsafe conditions……

Read the full post here.

Dutch-owned super trawler Geelong Star 'vacuuming' the seas aroung 12 Mile Reef off Bermagui NSW

Courtesy of Australian Minister for the Environment, Liberal MP Greg Hunt, and an overly compliant NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Nationals MLC Niall Blair,  the Dutch-owned and operated super trawler Geelong Star is once more unsustainably harvesting NSW waters.

As small pelagic fishing grounds extend from the east coast of Tasmania and Victoria all the way up the New South Wales coast and into the waters of southern Queensland, the fact that the Abbott-Turnbull Government allowed this factory ship into Commonwealth waters when the former Labor Government had denied access to such super trawlers is something to consider between now and 2 July 2016.

Narooma News, 15 May 2016:

SPOTTED: Bermagui based commercial fisherman Jason Moyce spotted the Geelong Star working the bait grounds at 12-Mile Reef on the morning of Friday, May 13.

Moves to open more water to the controversial factory trawler Geelong Star don’t appear to have discouraged her from working grounds of Narooma and Bermagui.

The mid-water trawler appears to working off Bermagui right now in direct contravention to promises to keep away from the Canberra Yellowfin Tuna Tournament on this weekend. 

Bermagui-based commercial fisherman Jason Moyce spotted the Geelong Star working the bait grounds at 12-Mile Reef on the morning of Friday, May 13. 

Mr Moyce posted a photo of the trawler on social media commenting: “Doing its fourth lap of the 12... Doing 1-mile shots and then winching up! Smashing it!”.

The vessel is working the productive grounds off Bermagui on the day before the Canberra Yellowfin Tuna Tournament begins, contrary to the Small Pelagic Fishing Industry Association’s promise to keep away from game fishing tournaments.

And the continued focus of the trawler on the bait grounds off Bermagui and Narooma is raising concerns among game fishermen worried about localised depletion of fish stocks and also the economic impact of the vessel on local small towns reliant on game fishing……

The Great Barrier Reef: black letter days

It’s time to ask incumbent federal MPs and senators what they intend to do to when faced with legislative bills or ministerial decisions which have the potential to negatively impact on The Great Barrier Reef and to make it very clear that their answers will decide votes in July 2016.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 April 2016:

Scientists surveying the mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef say only 7 per cent of Australia's environmental icon has been left untouched by the event.

The final results of plane and helicopter surveys by scientists involved in the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce has found that of the 911 reefs they observed, just 68 had escaped any sign of bleaching.

The severity of the bleaching is mixed across the barrier reef, with the northern stretches hit the hardest.

Overall, severe bleaching of between 60 and 100 per cent of coral was recorded on 316 reefs, almost all of them in the northern half of the barrier reef. Reefs in central and southern regions of the 2300 kilometre Great Barrier Reef have experienced more moderate to mild affects.

The mass bleaching event has been driven by significantly higher than average sea temperatures as a result of the current El Nino event, coupled with a long-term warming of the oceans due to climate change.

While the barrier reef has experienced mass coral bleaching events in the past – notably in 1998 and 2002 – Professor Terry Hughes, convenor of the bleaching taskforce, said the current event was by far the biggest.

Sky News, 24 March 2016:

*It could be too late to reverse the effects of coral bleaching in large swathes of the Great Barrier Reef caused by man-made climate change, a leading academic fears.

Professor Justin Marshall, from The University of Queensland's CoralWatch team, has just spent 10 days at the Lizard Island Research Station, north of Cairns, gathering data and images of coral bleaching in the northern part of the reef.

Prof Marshall said almost all of the coral in a 500km stretch of the reef was bleached and about half of that coral was dead because of the bleaching.

He said sometimes coral could recover from bleaching, where it becomes white after losing the symbiotic algae that brings it nutrients, but when there was large-scale coral death like in this situation, it was far less likely.

'The absolute figures are unknown and our research is ongoing to determine that,' Prof Marshall said.

'Over the next few months we'll be able to give you an answer, but to be honest I'm a bit pessimistic.'

Prof Marshall said the coral bleaching in the area was the worst he'd ever seen it.

'I have kids, I love to take them up to the reef, but to be honest, I would have been ashamed to take my children up there this time,' he said.

He said global warming was causing coral bleaching, which wasn't helped by El Nino conditions this year.

'There is an additional natural fluctuation, but that must not deflect our realisation that this is definitely a man-made, carbon-emission event, which is killing the Australian reef,' Prof Marshall said.....

ABC News, 28 March 2016:

An aerial survey of the northern Great Barrier Reef has shown that 95 per cent of the reefs are now severely bleached — far worse than previously thought.

Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert based at James Cook University in Townsville who led the survey team, said the situation is now critical.

"This will change the Great Barrier Reef forever," Professor Hughes told 7.30.

"We're seeing huge levels of bleaching in the northern thousand-kilometre stretch of the Great Barrier Reef."

Of the 520 reefs he surveyed, only four showed no evidence of bleaching.

From Cairns to the Torres Strait, the once colourful ribbons of reef are a ghostly white.

"It's too early to tell precisely how many of the bleached coral will die, but judging from the extreme level even the most robust corals are snow white, I'd expect to see about half of those corals die in the coming month or so," Professor Hughes said.....

Professor Hughes said he is frustrated about the whole climate change debate.

"The government has not been listening to us for the past 20 years," he said.

"It has been inevitable that this bleaching event would happen, and now it has.

"We need to join the global community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"For me, personally, it was devastating to look out of the chopper window and see reef after reef destroyed by bleaching.

"But really the emotion is not so much sadness as anger.

"I'm really angry that the government isn't listening to us, to the evidence we've been providing to them since 1998.".....