The industrial site at Bell Bay. Hardly noticeable apart from the stacks but the pulp mill will be built right on the edge of the river.
John Gay: ' The consultants determined that Bell Bay was the preferred site due to wood supply, the area's heavy industrial zoning, the existing wood chip processing facilities and the proximity to two loading docks, a deep water port and essential infrastructure, such as road, rail, power and gas.'
Comment: No mention of environmental impact at all in considering choice of site. No mention of the inversion layer and lack of Bass Strait flushing. No mention of 100,000 inhabitants who live in the Tamar valley or all the tourist ventures and vineyards along the wine route that may be affected by the possible smell. It's cheaper to build and operate at Longreach and that's it.
Proposal: ' The preferred site has been selected to allow the possibilities for rail transport of raw materials and product.'
Comment: Gunns Ltd have not used their rail link for logs to Longreach for the past two years and anyway, Hampshire has a rail link as well.
Proposal: 'The delivered cost of wood to Bell Bay was the critical factor.'
Comment: The Gunns directors are doing what they are paid to do - make the decision that will make the most money for their shareholders. The admission in Gunns Ltd Federal submission that environmental damage to the surroundings is possible has been rejected as a reason to avoid the sensitive Longreach site. Many of the residents are up in arms. One very prominent resident, Rebecca Gibney, has gone public and said she will leave if the mill is built. In the RPDC final scope guidelines Gunns are asked to evaluate how it will alter the way of life of the present residents of the region. That's another part of the IIS that should make interesting reading!
RPDC: ' Selection of a site that minimised the nuisance should be a prime consideration because complete odour elimination from Kraft mills was not possible.'
Comment: It seems that Gunns has ignored this part of the RPDC guidelines or perhaps they think the RPDC is wrong. In the RPDC final scope, Gunns are asked to demonstrate sound strategic planning principles in determining the most appropriate site taking into account proximity to land, water and marine uses, public health and community safety, transport and other considerations. Opponents of the project will argue that the cost of delivering the wood does not outweigh these other factors.
IIS: In the IIS Gunns Ltd explains why the Tamar site was chosen instead of Hampshire. According to the IIS these are the factors that favour Hampshire economically:
* The water supply infrastructure would be considerably less expensive to build as they can use the
reservoir and supply built for the old Burnie pulp mill.
Not mentioned: * The water would not need pumping long distancess
* Gunns would not have to pay the Hydro for the water
* There would be no loss of generating capacity at Trevallyn
* Because of the absence of the topographical restraints at Longreach, the mill could be more efficiently
designed and a long chip conveyor which will be required at Longreach, avoided.
* The land at Hampshire is already owned by Gunns whilst they will have to buy Longreach from Comalco.
* There is a dedicated Log truck route through Burnie and the local roads have all been upgraded to
take log trucks.
These are the factors that favour Longreach economically:
* The alterations to the rail connection would cost $3.5m more than those at Longreach.
* A gas pipeline would need to be installed at a cost of $4.3m.
Not mentioned: * The possibility of combining this with the effluent pipeline construction
* An electricity upgrade would be required - no cost given but perhaps $2m.?
* The effluent pipeline would have to much longer - extra cost $18m.
Not mentioned: * But it would not need pumping as at Longreach - it would use gravity.
* The Longreach mill is next to port infrastructure.
Not mentioned: * Presumably it would cheaper just to upgrade the wharf at Burnie rather than
build a new one at Longreach.
* The landfill site will be the same cost at both places.
* Skilled labour will be more available at Longreach.
* Construction materials and equipment will be easier to access at Longreach.
* Longreach is a more central location for the wood supply that Gunns wish to use - estimated extra
cost $15-20m. a year.
Comment: The IIS has not added up all the different costs so they can be compared so we have tried:
CONSTRUCTION COSTSExtra costs at Hampshire (some of this is guesswork): Rail $3.5 Gas $4.3 Electricity $2m.? Effluent $18m. Materials and equipment cartage $10m.? Infrastructure for workers $5.? Rain delays $1m.? Total say $43m. Extra costs at Longreach (some guesswork): Land purchase $5m. Extra wharf cost $2m. Extra construction costs because of topography $10m. Water supply pipeline $50m. (at least). Total say $67m.RUNNING COSTS
So it rather looks as though it will actually cost more to build at Longreach although there probably is not much in it.
Extra costs at Hampshire: Wood cartage $15-20m. Extra costs at Longreach: Water from hydro $1m. Cost of pumping water and upkeep of pipeline $0.5m.? Cost of pumping sewage $0.5m.? So the amount saved a year by running it at Longreach will be $14-19m. a year.
Note:The cost of the shuttle between Hampshire and Burnie will be the same if the mill is built or not as at present over a million tonnes of woodchips are transported that way.
The IIS then considers the environmental factors and this is where it gets interesting. The IIS does not apply weighting to the topics so the author has (maximum 10). The topics in the IIS are as follows with their preferred site, comment and weighting:
TOPIC Preferred Comment Weighting
H L
Topography/climate Long The main reason for choosing Longreach is that rain
might delay construction. This is not really an
environmental issue at all. 2
Conservation Hamp Longreach is a designated private conservation reserve 5
Flora and Fauna Hamp Hampshire is a plantation monoculture 5
Water values Long Only storm water overflows - not a major issue 2
Marine environment Hamp Burnie already degraded by previous mill 8
Air quality Hamp No inversion at Hampshire and very little population 10
Greenhouse gases Long Because of extra traffic but IIS does not take into
account 1.power lost at Trevallyn 2.Pumping required
for water and effluent. Cannot be much in it. 4
Noise Long You have got to kidding!! There will be much more
noise during construction at Longreach and many more
people will hear it. The traffic noise will affect more
residents at Longreach too. 10
Traffic and access Long There will be more road traffic generated at Hampshire
but the roads there are not so crowded. 10
Indigenous Hamp None at Hampshire, some at Longreach. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIS score:Longreach 5 Hampshire 5 This site's weighted score: Longreach 18 Hampshire 42(+visual 52)
So the IIS says that environmental factors are equal. But they have got the noise wrong, have not include the visual aspect or night time light pollution and they have not weighted the topics at all.
The IIS then considers social factors:
TOPIC Preferred Comment Weighting
H L
Population Long This debateable. Will the extra workers fit in better
at George Town or Burnie? Only a short term problem. 2
Infrastructure Long This is more of an economic topic as infrastructure
for the workers would cost more at Hampshire. 2
Community services Long The IIS admits that they have not been assessed
at Burnie but they're likely to be better than GT
but not as good as Launceston. 4
Existing businesses Long There is more business infrastructure around GT. 8
Visual aspect Hamp This should really be in environmental. 0
Public health Hamp THE most important topic of all. 10
Public safety Long Because of the extra traffic at Hampshire but we
think this is about equal because accidents are more
likely on the already crowded Tamar valley roads. 0
Tourism Hamp Another very important topic. 10
Land owners Hamp There will be more disturbance to private landowners
at Longreach. Only a temporary problem. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIS score: Longreach 5 Hampshire 4 This site's weighted score: Longreach 16 Hampshire 22
SO the IIS says that Longreach is ahead slightly on social issues. We think it's the other way round. Either way there is not much in it. The Beca AMEC review says that Gunns should give a full breakdown of costs at both sites so they can be compared properly.
At the end of November 2006, a huge bush fire threatened the site of the proposed mill. It was the second one in a decade so the site is prone to fires. Is it sensible to build a huge chemical factory on such a site?
9/1/07: MILL IN WORST POSSIBLE LOCATION - RAVERTYVERDICT: The proponents have got this right providing you're a shareholder in Gunns Ltd. The good citizens of the Tamar valley are entitled to feel a bit annoyed as their right not to have their environment polluted and health endangered (however little Gunns Ltd says it will be), their valley visually degraded and tourism industry threatened has received a lower priority than the cost of delivering the wood to the mill.
