|
Basslink Progress:
A win for TFIC, but it gets very murky… By Ralph Mitchell
As most TFIC members and many in the wider community are aware, we at TFIC have put a great deal of time and energy into investigating the potential negative impacts that the proposed Basslink under-sea power cable across Bass Strait may cause to both the marine environment and to some of our TFIC members local to the area.
We are very fortunate to have had the generous assistance of Ms Dagmar Nordberg, the recipient of Sweden’s most prestigious (ICU) environmental award in 2000, who gave unstintingly of her significant expertise and background knowledge throughout the entire process that we went through. Her guidance and help is very much appreciated.
With Ms Nordberg's assistance, we identified and questioned a number of substantial concerns about the Basslink proposal that could potentially have a measurable negative effect. These concerns were put to the Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) in both a written submission and with a presentation at the public hearings held late last year.
It would be fair to say that the TFIC submission was not only one of the most thoroughly researched, but one of the most powerful submissions (of over five hundred in total) that addressed these perceived potential threats to the marine environment.
Our submission was endorsed by a number of other community groups. These included the Tasmanian Marine Recreational Fishing Council, the Tasmanian Greens, the Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association, various Victorian groups/bodies and Federal Government departments such as Environment Australia, AFMA, and AFFA, all of whom worked in closely with TFIC on this issue and put in submissions of their own.
Much of the information gathered in our research was shared with other interested parties via the forum we hosted (and other methods of dissemination), with the information being invaluable to Duke Energy who are installing a natural gas pipeline near the proposed route of the Basslink cable.
With our information, our strong submission and significant pressure from both Duke Energy and Esso, there has been a notable effect upon the Basslink proposal.
Basslink Prohibitive Cost Claims
Throughout the hearings, Basslink insisted that the cost of the better technology that TFIC was demanding was prohibitive. They claimed that a monopole metallic return cable system with no sea electrodes would cost between AUD$65 and $100 million extra on top of the original AUD$500 million cost of their proposal.
They insisted that the suggestion to lay two cables together in the same trench would be prohibitively expensive. It was stated that the cable laying vessel would need to return to the cable manufacturer in the Northern Hemisphere several times to reload with cable, then return to Bass Strait to the laid cable, pick it up, join the cables and continue with the laying operation.
They claimed that the world’s best technology (bipolar with no sea electrodes) that TFIC has insisted on from the start is either too expensive or inappropriate.
Basslink insisted on maintaining this claim despite their own expert witness Norwegian Mr Jan Erik Skog suggesting that in fact it was not only feasible but the best way to spend the money. The JAP quoted him saying this in their recommendations.
Now Basslink claim that he ‘didn’t understand’. This is hardly the way an internationally respected expert witness should have his statements qualified.
Precautionary Principle
The JAP decided that two of the issues that we at TFIC raised were not clearly addressed by Basslink. One of two issues we raised was the potential damage from toxic emissions that would be emitted from the proposed electrode station that would have been placed near Tasmania’s northern coastline at Stony Head.
The JAP commissioned their own independent evaluative study that found Basslink’s estimate of the poisonous emissions was underestimated by a factor of 2.66. When discussing chemical emissions into the marine environment, that is a very significant error.
The other issue we raised was the potential for electrolytic corrosion caused by stray currents that would affect long metallic structures such as water and gas pipelines, oil rig infrastructure etc.
Because the Basslink claims had significant doubt cast on them, the JAP decided that it would recommend that the Precautionary Principle be invoked on those two threats to the environment that represented scientific uncertainty. This was a distinct win for TFIC.
Basslink Changes
Because Basslink is driven solely by shortsighted economic factors, not long-term sustainable economic/environmental factors, they reconsidered their proposal. They could not get any agreement about corrosion mitigation from Duke Energy and other infrastructure stakeholders. Because it would delay the approval process to argue any longer, they suddenly decided (halfway through the final period for public consultation) to adopt the next cheapest technology, the metallic return cable system. Instead of sea electrodes and the seawater/ground being used for the return current, a second cable is laid to close and insulate the system.
Astonishingly, they are now able to lay not two, but three cables (fibre optic cable, power cable and metallic return cable) ‘bundled’ together! They propose to tie the cables together with polypropylene rope and can apparently do it all with a minimum of return trips to the cable supplier.
Even more astonishing is the fact that they claim the cost is now only AUD$20 million, a reduction of 80% on what they were claiming at the hearings only four months previously! One must hope that the other economic calculations for this project display a higher degree of competence than this example demonstrates.
Without supplying any more useable information within the public consultation period, they claim that there is now no impact apart from constructional impacts, and therefore no need to do any further environmental impact assessment.
This is patently wrong, as this is a new technology and a new proposal.
Questions that arise
A suite of questions is immediately apparent, with a few examples such as:
|