St Helens Fishing Boat TSIC Home Page Current Issues Fishing Today
3rd TSIA 2011 Submissions

Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council 
Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council


 

antara_may_sbmsn_jap_recs.htm  




Back to Basslink Summary
Back to Website Directory
.
Submission on the:
'Response by Basslink Pty Ltd to the

Draft Report of the Basslink Joint Advisory Panel'

(Submission 2 of 3)

Proposed Metallic Return

4 April 2002


Antara May B. Vet. Biol.


Submitted to the Joint Advisory Panel
C/- Department of Infrastructure

Traralgon

23 April 2002




      Back to top
        • Introduction
      The recent technology change to a proposed ‘monopole with metallic return’ for Basslink is a step in the right direction. Two major impacts: electrolysis products and stray currents have been eliminated. However, residual magnetic field impacts remain and these may interfere with cetaceans and other species possessing a magnetic sense. Sharks may still be adversely impacted by induced electrical fields.

      BPL has withheld information on the magnetic fields of the main cable and return cable. Hence, the ‘magnetic field impacts’ section, that would otherwise have been the predominant focus of this submission, is regrettably brief. Without proper magnetic field data it is impossible to scientifically assess the impacts of the ‘monopole with metallic return’ proposal on cetaceans.

      At the outset of the assessment process, BPL was required to provide a "description and assessment of alternative technology" and a justification of the chosen technology (Scope Guidelines, DIIAS Annexures, section 5.2 - 5.3). The proponent’s lack of compliance with their obligations under the ‘Scope Guidelines’ has led to a considerable flaw in the assessment process. The Brown and Root report comments that the DIIAS "fails to clearly present a comparison of the various alternative technologies based on those three main criteria [electrical requirements, environmental considerations and cost]" (Sect. 4.2). Now, after a major change in the proposed technology, submitters have minimal information by which to assess a range of altered impacts.

      A supplementary DIIAS should be submitted by the proponent, to replace the now obsolete sections of the current DIIAS. This document should disclose all requested technical data and detail environmental impacts of the latest proposal plus the alternative bipole and IRC technologies. The supplementary DIIAS should be placed on exhibition for public comment for at least 60 days, followed by public hearings in both Victoria and Tasmania, and the findings incorporated into a the final IIAS.



      Back to top
        • Lack of Information on BPL’s Proposed Metallic Return
      Submitters will not be able to thoroughly assess or comment on the latest Basslink proposal or its possible alternatives until BPL discloses adequate information.
        • Previous requests for data
      On the 30th October, 2001, during the Victorian Basslink Hearings, I made a request to BPL, in the presence of the JAP, for magfield data on other HVDC technology alternatives, including field measurements from existing HVDC installations.

      15th April – I sent a letter to the JAP requesting data on magfields and a range of other technical data necessary to assess the cables impacts (see section 3.2).

      To date, BPL has not provided the requested information.

        • Information needed
      In order to make a scientific assessment of the marine impacts of BPL’s latest proposal, submitters require much more detailed information, to replace the now obsolete sections of the DIIAS.

      Required technical data includes:

            • Magnetic field values generated by each of the main cable, return cable and the resultant field of both cables.
            • These magfield values should be give at various distances ranging from the cable surface to the distance at which the magfield has attenuated to a value of 30 nT.
            • The above should include cable generated magfield values at both horizontal and vertical distances from the cables.
            • Data, vector diagrams and explanation of equations used to calculate the resultant magfield from bundled cables.
            • An array of combined (background magfield +/- cables’ magfield) values, similar to Tables 10.7, 10.8 and 10.9, DIIAS
            • Calculations of induced electrical fields.
            • Technical data: including current, resistance, voltage and power rating of each of the cables.
            • Specific values for transmission losses.
            • Specific values for heat generation and associated impacts.
            • Distances for which the bundled cables would not be buried in a 1.0 m deep trench?
            • Information from other HVDC schemes where cables have been bundled and tied together with polypropylene rope.
            • Proposed cable-laying technique.
            • Distance between loops of rope that ‘bundle’ the cable together.
            • Life expectancy of the polypropylene rope.
            • A detailed comparison of the ‘metallic return’ configuration with a ‘twinned cable bipolar & no electrodes’ configuration and an ‘IRC monopolar & no electrodes configuration’, incorporating the above information as well as an environmental impact assessment and economic analysis


      Back to top
        • Accuracy of the one and only magnetic field value?

      In the light of BPL’s past performance regarding the provision of accurate and complete data (e.g. resistivity and potential field data, calculated electrolysis products, natural electric fields, natural geomagnetic anomalies) one must view the single combined magfield value given with a degree of scepticism. Since no other data are provided, there is no way to verify the accuracy of this value through calculations.



      Back to top
        • One combined magnetic field value is meaningless

      The single,
      combined magfield value given by BPL is virtually meaningless (67.6 uT compared to background geomagnetic intensity of 61.0 uT, at 1 m above). The actual value of the magfield produced by the bundled cables at a height of 1m is obscured. Combination of both the background and cable bundle magfields by vector addition is a cause of this obscurity.

      The shape, direction and strength of the combined magfields of the HVDC and return cables would not be uniformly circular - therefore much more magfield data is required, at different distances and directions. It is probable that the magfield would be stronger at the sides of the bundle than above it. A diagram of the resultant magfield, plus equations, data and explanations are required.



      Back to top
        • The Myth of ‘Magnetic Field Cancellation’

      Regarding ‘monopolar configuration with metallic return’, BPL’ s earlier submission states "if the cables are located close enough together the resultant magnetic field is less than for a single cable". (BPL Submission, Part C). Recently their ability to cancel has apparently improved with terms like: "virtually eliminated", "substantial cancellation" and "small residual magnetic field".

      Furthermore, BPL states, "Induced electric fields will be minimal". These statements must be verified and quantified with technical data as requested.

      Current passing through a DC cable generates a magnetic field in a circular plane perpendicular to the axis of the cable. As an analogy, imagine a twenty-cent piece with a hole in the centre, through which runs a wire. The wire represents the conductor and the twenty-cent piece represents its magfield.

      The only way for two magfields to effectively cancel each other is for each magfield to:

            • occupy the same position in space (and time)
            • be exactly the same size
            • have magnetic lines of force rotating in opposite directions, i.e. one clockwise and one anticlockwise (right hand rule)

      With two cables side by side, as is the case in the ‘metallic return’ and ‘bipole’ techniques, the conductors can never occupy the same position in space, therefore their magfields cannot effectively cancel. Even a space between conductors of several centimetres can lead to a large resultant magfield. A greater extent of 'uncancelled' magfield would exist at distances horizontal to the cable bundle. BPL has not given magfield values on either side of the bundled cables. Obviously, as the separation distance between conductors increases their combined field increases dramatically.

      Only in a co-axial cable, such as the Integrated Return Conductor (IRC), are the two magnetic fields able to be superimposed so that they occupy the same position in space and completely cancel each other. The return conductor is integrated into the cable itself, for monopolar operation. In this design, the return conductor is laid co-axially around the cable core and insulated from the surroundings by a plastic sheath.

      As the current in the return conductor is identical to the current in the centre conductor, but flows in the opposite direction, the magnetic fields generated by the two currents cancel each other out. [Imagine two twenty-cent pieces on the same wire, rotating in opposite directions.]

      Since magnetic field is directly proportional to current [according to B=u.I/2(pi)r], it follows that the current in both the HVDC and metallic return needs to be the same, in order to create equivalent sized magnetic fields to ‘attempt to’ cancel each other.

      This leads to the crucial question of whether the current in Basslink’s main conductor would be the same as the current in the return cable? BPL have not provided this information. However, an engineer working within the HVDC industry recently stated "The metallic return cable usually operates at a much lower voltage and current than the main power cable" (personal communication).

      If the current in the metallic return cable is less than the HVDC cable, then the magfield would be comparatively smaller and field cancellation would be ineffective. An analogy would be the five-cent piece tying to cover a twenty-cent piece.

      Strangely, the voltage rating of the return cable is not provided in BPL’s Submission 2 – Proposed Metallic Return. Yet, the following information was given by BPL in a press release:

      "This second cable is smaller than the main conducting cable and operates at a much lower voltage – approximately 24kV – which is about the same as a suburban distribution cable. With Basslink, there will be only one major conducting cable and the secondary cable serves only to provide a path for the return current to complete the electrical circuit. This differs from a Bipole, which uses two main conducting cables" (BPL Press Release – 5/4/02).

      Hampered by the lack of specifications provided by BPL, and not having the knowledge of an electrical engineer, I went back to first principles and contemplated V = I.R

      The values that BPL have disclosed are:

            • Main Conductor: Voltage = 400 kV

      Current = 1500 A [giving 600 MW power], 1200 A [giving 430 MW power], 750 A [giving 300 MW power] (from DIIAS)

      Resistance = ?

            • Return Cable: Voltage = 24 kV

      Current = ? Power = ? Resistance = ?

      BPL states that the metallic return is rated 24kV, rather than 400kV in the main cable. Now assume for a moment that the Current is the same in both cables. According to I = V / R, if you decrease the voltage in the return cable (by a factor of 16x) there needs to be a corresponding decrease in resistance to allow the same current flow in both cables.

      However, we know that the copper in the return cable has a smaller cross sectional area and therefore provides greater resistance to current flow. So if it is true that the resistance is higher in the return cable, according to V = I . R , the current in the return cable must be smaller.

      Now assuming for a moment that the Resistance is the same in both cables. According to R = V / I , if the voltage is decreased, then the current flow would decrease. So, on two counts (less voltage & more resistance) it appears to be logical that the current in the return cable would be significantly less. If this is true then magnetic fields of ‘metallic return’ configurations would always be greater than corresponding magnetic fields of ‘twinned bipole’ configurations. It is the responsibility of the proponent to provide submitters with this information.



      Back to top
        • The Real Issues

      Irrespective of the technical jargon describing the various alternative HVDC configurations, the bottom line for those who are concerned about environmental impacts is:

          a) No electric fields

          b) No magnetic fields

          c) No chlorine products

          d) Minimal damage to reef and coast at cable crossings

            • Is ‘substantially’ achieved by eliminating electrodes? Residual induced electric field impacts occur with a ‘metallic return’ however. An IRC conductor would eliminate induced electric fields.
            • This can only be achieved by using an IRC conductor. Twinned bipole is the next best option.
            • Has already been achieved by eliminating electrodes.
            • Can be minimised by laying a single cable; either IRC or twinned bipolar (two cables in the same casing).
      Residual magnetic field impacts from the ‘monopole with metallic return’ proposal cannot be mitigated. Magnetic fields cannot be shielded; therefore, the only way to avoid residual magnetic field impacts is by a change of technology. Selection of current ‘best practice’ technology - IRC cable (as described below) would eliminate magnetic fields and induced electric fields.


      Back to top
        • Concerns about current ‘metallic return’ proposal

      I strongly disagree with BPL’s contention that "the impacts of the metallic return proposal are therefore confined to the physical effects of installation". Several important residual impacts are associated with a ‘metallic return’ configuration:



      Back to top
        • Magnetic Field Impacts

      The magfields of the latest proposal are significantly reduced in comparison to the superseded ‘monopole with sea/earth return’ technology. However, in terms of cetacean magnetic sensitivity, the magfields of the ‘metallic return proposal’ remain unacceptably large. This would also apply to other marine life that employs magnetic sense [see my initial Basslink submission, TE 41, for a review of magnetic sense in Cetacea]. Cetaceans are thought to be sensitive to changes in the geomagnetic field of
      30 – 60 nT, and probably employ much finer levels of discrimination.

      The only datum that BPL has supplied consists of a single magnetic intensity value of 67.6 uT at 1 m above the bundled cables. Now at this distance, the change in the natural magnetic field as a result of Basslink is 6.6 uT or 6,600 nT. This large magfield change is likely to be overwhelming to a cetacean that can sense a small change of 30 nT. This may lead to disorientation, since cetaceans, like many other species, are thought to rely on geomagnetic contours for orientation. A 60 nT alteration to the natural geomagnetic field is sufficient to influence stranding location Should cetaceans turn and swim parallel to the cable, the risk of cetacean strandings cannot be ruled out.

      The magnetic field at the surface of the bundled cables would be much higher than the value given at 1 m. Since it is dubious that the bundled cables would be buried for their entire length, it is likely that any marine creature swimming or walking along the seabed would be exposed to much greater magnetic fields.

      Basslink differs from virtually all other subsea HVDC schemes spanning important cetacean migratory paths, since Bass Strait is considerably shallower. This leads to a greater exposure of Bass Strait cetaceans to impacts magnetic fields from the cable.

      I disagree strongly with BPL’s contention that, based on the weight of evidence from other HVDC schemes, there would be no magnetic field impacts on cetaceans in Bass Strait.

      It is a fact that not one scientific study has ever addressed the impacts of an existing HVDC scheme on cetaceans. Consequently, it would be impossible to find hard scientific evidence to that effect. Any currently proposed studies on existing overseas HVDC would be hampered by the lack of baseline data.

      However, circumstantial evidence does exist which indicates that something has gone terribly wrong for the harbour porpoise population in the Baltic Sea. A recent publication (Koschinski, 2002) states:

      "The historic range of the harbour porpoise extended into the north-eastern parts of the Baltic Sea. During the second half of the 20th century, numbers of harbour porpoises have declined and the distribution range narrowed. Currently there is a considerable difference in abundance in the Kattegat and Belt Sea (0.73-0.99 animals km2) as opposed to the Baltic Proper (<0.01 animals km 2)"

      This difference in abundance by of a factor of 73 – 99 times is startling!

      There are various cumulative impacts that could have a bearing on the decline of the Baltic harbour porpoise population, and it would be difficult (without baseline studies) to isolate the impacts of HVDC from these. However, this information raises considerable doubt about the safe co-existence of cetaceans and HVDC. (Refer attached abstract below)

      In Supporting Study # 28 - Whales, Warneke notes that "Nicol (1991) did find that active strandings tend to occur at, or near, local geomagnetic minima, c.f. Kirschvink et. al. (1986)". Nicol’s findings regarding the orientation of geomagnetic contours (parallel or perpendicular to the coast) at active stranding sites, c.f. Klinowska (1985) are inconclusive. Nicol’s research was hampered by a lack of magnetic maps for the north coast of Tasmania and Bass Strait Islands. Furthermore, the maps available to Nicol at the time were not sufficiently detailed.

      The preliminary results of my current research [presented orally to the JAP since Study # 28 was written] regarding Tasmanian mass cetacean strandings and geomagnetic contours, are far from inconclusive. Highly significant statistical results for both:

            • strandings at perpendicular contours (p<0.0001) and
            • strandings at or near magnetic minima (p=0.005), were achieved.

      I am currently completing analyses for the East Coast of Tasmania, however Nicol has already produced significant results regarding magnetic minima for this region. Therefore, preliminary results of my research already show that there are strong tendencies for cetaceans in Bass Strait to mass strand:

            • Where geomagnetic contours cross perpendicular to the coast, and
            • At or near magnetic minima.

      Taking into account this recent scientific evidence (relevant to cetaceans in Bass Strait), the residual magnetic field impacts of a monopole with metallic return’ alternative should be considered as very serious. This evidence strongly indicates the need to adopt a change of technology so that magnetic fields are entirely eliminated.



      Back to top
        • Depth of burial

      "The cables will be buried (where required for protection) in the same trench" (BPL Submission 2). This leads to the question: where will the cables
      not be buried? The DIIAS gives the following information regarding burial:
            • Victoria: from the seaward end of the duct, burial will occur to a depth of 1.2 m to a distance of 30 km offshore and then to a depth of 0.4 m for a further distance of 110 km.
            • Tasmania: burial up to 1 m depth, or application of a cast iron shell, where burial is not possible, for a distance of 10 km from the coast.

      For more than half of the crossing distance, BPL is not proposing to bury the cables, but rather lay them on the sea bottom, where they expect the weight of the cables to self bury. With three cables bundled together, they may act like a sunken raft and be less likely to self bury.

      The bundle might self-bury or it might not - in which case our marine life would be exposed to the full force of the large magnetic and induced electric fields near the surface of the cable. Due to the transitory nature of bottom sediments in relation to tidal currents, storms etc., the bundled cables may be periodically buried or unburied. Bottom dwelling species of elasmobranchs and cetaceans that commonly travel along the seabed would be particularly vulnerable to these fields. Therefore, it is important that BPL disclose the predicted fields values at the surface of the bundled cables.

      I would strongly recommend against the use of iron shells to stabilise the bundled cables. The magnetic properties of iron must be considered. The magnetic field of the cables would magnetise the iron shells, creating an even larger magnetic anomaly!



      Back to top
        • Induced electric fields

      "Induced electric fields will be
      minimal" (BPL Submission 2). No evidence to quantify or support this statement has been provided.

      The extra electric field induced by water currents through the magnetic field above the NorNed (twinned bipolar) cable will be 8 µV/m on the seabed, 2 µV/m at 1 m above the seabed and 0.5 µV/m at 3 m above the seabed (KEMA, personal communication). Basslink, in a ‘bundled monopole with metallic return configuration’ would be expected to exceed these values for induced electric fields. Dr. Ad. Kalmijn has proven that sharks and rays rely for their orientation on electric fields as weak as 0.5 µV/m. Electric fields that are considered minimal by BPL, may not be considered minimal by an elasmobranch. The potential to interfere with the electric sense of sharks and rays must be seriously considered.



      Back to top
        • Heat generation


      "The operational impacts of the metallic return – compared to the originally proposed sea/earth return – are similar only in terms of generated heat" (BPL Submission 2). This is untrue, since the return cable has a large resistance, producing significant heat over a greatly extended area of seabed.

      "A sea cable in use generates some heat which will increase the temperature of the seabed along the cable route 1 to 3 K and might have effects on the species composition and species distribution of the benthic fauna in the seabed along the cable route" (Koops, 2000).



      Back to top
        • Use of rope & the bundling technique

      Whilst it is welcomed that BPL are endeavouring to address magfield concerns by ‘bundling’ the cables together with rope, I am greatly concerned about the efficacy of this technique. Has this method been tested previously? What is the life expectancy of the rope? What would happen in the event that the bundle has to be raised to the surface for repairs? Would the rope still maintain the integrity of the bundle, or would it become twisted and create loops when returned to the seabed? How would the slack be taken up and the cable returned to its original alignment?

      "The three cables will be bundled together on the lay vessel during the process of uncoiling from their respective turntables immediately prior to laying. The bundle is secured by polypropylene rope, which needs to maintain the integrity of the bundle during the installation process, that is, until the three cables are secure in the seabed" (BPL 2.3.2).

      Does the above statement imply that once on the bottom the rope is no longer expected to maintain the integrity of the bundle? Could the unburied sections of the bundle become misaligned due to rope disintegration, entanglement, tidal currents or storms? Any such increase in separation distance would lead to a large increase in magnetic field impacts. An IRC or twinned bipole cable would be immune to conductor separation for the life of the project.

      For a single IRC or twinned bipolar cable, the laying process would be simpler compared to the method described above (which appears to be rather awkward). Would there be an independent observer on board to monitor these installation procedures? Should an IRC or twinned bipole cable be employed, it would involve less joins and laying campaigns, which would decrease expenditure considerably.

      "Bundled cable installation now requires one more laying campaign than the two originally planned…Cable installation in three/four lengths, owing to need for metallic cable capacity on ship" (BPL Submission 2).



      Back to top
        • Entanglement


      Another impact on cetaceans that is exacerbated because of the ‘bundling’ technique is the potential for cetaceans to become entangled. This is particularly relevant for sperm whales, which have a history of getting their lower jaws entangled in subsea cables and dying. At least fourteen such instances have been reported in the literature. "It is suggested that the whales become entangled while swimming along with their jaw ploughing through the sediment in search of food. It is possible that the whales attack tangled masses of slack cable mistaking them for items of food" (Heezen, 1957).

      Basslink’s three cables, bundled together with rope and only partially buried would constitute a greater risk of entanglement than a single cable with integrated conductors. A twenty-ton sperm whale has the capacity to do major damage to the Basslink cables. In one reported case the armour wires were broken. In a few cases, the conductor was broken and in all other cases, the insulation was spewed out between the armour wires. There are also several instances of sharks attacking subsea cables.



      Back to top
        • Energy Losses
      It is nonsensical to decimate Tasmanian old growth forests to fire wood chip electricity generators, and impact World Heritage Areas in the process of electricity generation - only to lose a large percentage of this energy via transmission through inadequate HVDC technology. This energy wastage is unacceptable in the ‘greenhouse’ climate of today.


      Back to top
        • Lack of Information on Alternatives
            • Sources of confusion
      Consequential to the lack of information on alternative HVDC technology provided by BPL, there is a high degree of confusion among submitters. One source of such confusion is the definition of ‘Bipolar’. Most submitters have previously misinterpreted the terminology 'bipolar' to mean two cables. However, a pole does not refer to a cable, but rather it relates to an AC/DC converter station. Therefore: Monopole = one converter pole at each end and Bipole = two converter poles at each end.

      A far greater source of confusion involves the variables inherent in each of the technology options. For example, the terminology used in classifying alternative technology gives no indication of whether there would be no electrodes, small electrodes, or large electrodes. Nor are the conductor separation distances specified or is it clear whether cables are twinned or separate. To avoid such confusion in the future, it is important to describe technology options more specifically. For instance: ‘bipole’ could be better described as ‘a twinned bipolar cable, with a conductor separation distance of 9 cm without electrodes’.



      Back to top
        • Win – Win Technology
      "Bipole configurations substantially pre-empt the issue of corrosion, but not entirely, as they are typically fitted with sea/earth electrodes to enable them to operate in monopole from time to time. (The Cook Strait Interconnector in New Zealand is an example.)" (BPL submission 2 – Appendix1).

      This statement is misleading. The Cook Strait Interconnector was commissioned in 1961 (before I was born!). Recent bipolar designs are typically not fitted with sea / earth electrodes. Fig. 4.20 is also misleading as it omits the ‘bipole with no electrodes’ or ‘IRC with no electrodes’ options. A trade-off is implied between ‘bipole and stray currents’ and ‘monopole / metallic return and magnetic fields’. This had led to false fears of bipole technology among ‘corrosionists’.

      Clearly, Win – Win technology is available and currently in use in Europe. IRC and twinned bipole technology eliminates electrodes and stray currents and either eliminates or minimises magnetic fields, respectively.

      Examples of bipole or IRC configurations with no electrodes include: (In the Basslink Project Backgrounder 6-1 Marine Infrastructure: Offshore and Shore Crossing)

      Table 1- HVDC Interconnector Systems with Sub Sea Links indicates that the following systems are bipolar and have no electrodes:


      NorNed Cable* Feda-Eemshaven NO ELECTRODES 2 cables / Bipole

      Cross Channel France-England NO ELECTRODES 8 cables / Bipole

      Newfoundland, Canada Gull Is-Soldiers Pt. NO ELECTRODES 4 cables / Bipole

      Kii-channel Crossing Japan NO ELECTRODES 4 cables / Bipole

      Moyle Cable Scotland-N. Ireland NO ELECTRODES 2 cables / IRC
      Co-axial



      Back to top
        • An Abundance of Alternatives
            • Current ‘Best Practice’ Technology
      Since BPL has withheld information on both their latest proposal and alternative technology, it has been a long and energy expensive process of fact-finding and discovery for many submitters. Consequently, as new information becomes known to submitters regarding the impacts of various technologies and previous myths demonstrated to be false, submitters assessments have needed adjustment accordingly.

      Until recently, twinned bipolar cable (two conductors together in the one cable and buried to 1 m) with no electrodes has been considered ‘current best practice’ technology in Europe. In December 2001, the Moyle Cable, between Scotland and Nth. Ireland became operational.

      The Moyle Cable is a new type of HVDC cable, where the return conductor is integrated into the cable itself, for monopolar operation. In this design, the return conductor is laid co-axially around the cable core and insulated from the surrounding by a plastic sheath. As the current in the return conductor is identical to the current in the centre conductor, but flows in the opposite direction, the magnetic fields generated by the two currents cancel each other out. IRC may be the best choice for Basslink. It has considerable advantages over ‘bipole’ and ‘metallic return’ technology as indicated below and in the attached correspondence.

      ‘Monopole with metallic return’ is far from being current ‘best practice’ technology.

      Back to top
        • Recommendations for bipole technology:
            • Dr. J. Kirschvink – cetacean magnetic sense researcher:

      "Given the large fringe field associated with the cable, and the diurnal fluctuations, I would strongly recommend that they string two cables across the strait to make a bipolar connection. It does save a little bit in electricity loss as well ... ".

            • Dr. Ad. Kalmijn – shark electric sense researcher:

      "Refraining from polluting the ocean means installing a bipolar, not a monopolar sea cable"

      "Magnetically, a truly bipolar cable, rather than two single cables a sizeable distance apart, would be much better [than monopole with metallic return], of course. The extra cost would be a wise investment."

            • Brown and Root Report

      "Any cetacean approaching within several hundred metres [or several kilometres – my comment] of the Basslink HVDC cable would be aware of its induced electromagnetic field. These potential impacts would be best addressed by project design changes, particularly in regard to technology choice ………

      …The final decision should take into consideration that future findings may require a reassessment of the chosen alternative, and the adoption of more stringent environmental criteria as a result of the new findings. Thus, there are considerable financial risks associated with a choice of technology on economic grounds only, in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence that its impacts will be acceptable and manageable. If monopole technology becomes unacceptable at some time in the future, an upgrade to bipole technology may then need to be considered, at considerable additional cost. A commitment to this effect could be included in the BPL commitments (Draft IIAS, Chapter 16)" (Section 10.4.4).

            • Mr Jan Erik Skog – Project Manager for NorNed and Moyle HVDC, Stattnett.

      "…the panel accepts the evidence of Mr Skog (on behalf of BPL), which is to the effect that the cost of the investment in a metallic return would be better spent in upgrading to a bipole system." (p338, DPR).



      Back to top
        • Advantages of alternatives

      One of the main reasons that BPL cites against using bipolar technology is the increased cost of building two extra converter stations. IRC technology is monopole technology therefore requires no extra converter stations. However, IRC has several important advantages over ‘metallic return’ technology.

      The IRC type of cable is a metallic return that is integrated into the main cable. The advantages are as follows:

            • No outer magnetic field. Even bundled, the separate HVDC and metallic return cables have a small but definite magnetic field.
            • Weighs less than separate HVDC and metallic return cables.
            • Circular design, can be handled as a normal circular cable, i.e. there is no need for two separate laying campaigns or to bundle two dissimilar cables, or join cables.
            • It costs less to protect one cable than two cables.
            • As the copper cross-section is larger in the IRC cable than for the two separate cables, the losses are lower.
            • The converter system for monopolar transmission costs appreciably less than the bi-polar converters for the same power.

        • Information on other HVDC systems
      (Refer to the attached correspondence regarding the Moyle and NorNed cables below.)


      Back to top
        • Environmental economics

      According to the principles of economically sustainable development, environmental values need to be included in any economic analysis of new projects. To date, most of BPL’s decisions have been made on a purely economic basis in an effort to minimise the cost of the project.

      At this juncture, it would be prudent for Hydro Tasmania to consider whether they are getting value for their money and the potential risks of their investment. The economic viability of Basslink was questionable under the original proposal.

      Now, the greater transmission losses and increased costs of the metallic return configuration may render the Basslink project non-viable. A change to IRC or bipolar technology would maximise the returns on their investment.



      Back to top
        • Research Required
                          Need for Long Term Research / Monitoring
      Unless the Basslink technology is changed to an extent where magfields are eliminated, a long-term study on the residual impacts of magnetic fields on marine life is imperative. This research must cover both pre- and post– construction phases so that important baseline data can be generated.

      I fully support the Panel’s recommendation 4: "that a more holistic approach to monitoring of changes to the marine environment along the cable and at the electrode sites is required.

      Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the Strategic EMP be modified to incorporate a pre and post construction and operation monitoring program to provide an overview of ecological change. This program should include but not be limited to, cetaceans, sharks, marine flora and invertebrates."



          Research / monitoring the potential impacts of magnetic fields on cetaceans

      A brief research proposal is attached below to suggest how a the above research / monitoring may be carried out regarding cetaceans.

      BPL states that "The major monitoring program envisaged by BPL to validate the findings of the DIIAS and the DPR on biological impacts of electrical and magnetic fields can therefore be replaced by a program commensurate with the small, localised and transitory effects of construction." (p5. Submission 2).

      This statement is extremely concerning. It appears that BPL are not only withholding information on the magnetic fields of their latest proposal, but they are trying to evade a required research / monitoring programme. Furthermore, I cannot find any evidence of a previously planned ‘major monitoring programme’ on biological impacts of electrical and magnetic fields in the strategic EMP.


Monitoring Magnetic Fields
      "In addition, a single validation monitoring during early operations is all that is required to characterize the low predicted levels of magnetic and electric fields, and thermal fields generated by the cables" (BPL 2.2.2).

      The single validation monitoring described above would be a complete waste of time - the data would be insignificant without a baseline.

      After consultation with AGSO I would recommend the following magnetic field monitoring procedure:

      Airborne magnetic surveys should be conducted using a magnetometer. Traverse lines should be at right angles to the cable. A baseline survey should be conducted in the pre-construction phase. The follow up surveys have to be along the same traverses - this is fairly easy these days to a reasonable degree of accuracy thanks to real time differential GPS navigation.



      Back to top
        • Proviso

      I fully support the Panel’s Draft Recommendations 8 and 9, concerning the implementation of a Bass Strait Environmental Review Committee as well as the modifications to the Strategic Environmental Management Plan to incorporate an extensive monitoring and research program to investigate the impacts of magnetic fields on cetaceans.

      A proviso should be included in the strategic EMP and in Basslink’s commitments to the effect that:

      Should the magnetic fields be significantly larger than predicted, or should there be reason for concern about magnetic field impacts on cetaceans, then the cable should be shut down until such time as the situation is rectified.



      Back to top
        • EPBC Act
      Precautionary Principle

      I fully support the following approach, regarding potential impacts of magnetic fields on cetaceans. A change of technology to an IRC conductor or twinned bipolar configuration would be the best way to mitigate magnetic field impacts on cetaceans.

      "A number of unresolved concerns with regards to impacts on marine fauna are expected to remain in the foreseeable future. Underlying causes associated with monopole technology can only partly be mitigated by actions such as choice of trajectory and depth of burial. In these instances the Precautionary Principle should be applied, and the potential impacts should be weighted against assumed benefits and economic considerations" (Brown and Root Report, section 10.4.4).



        • Conclusion

      As far as the safety of cetaceans is concerned, the proposed ‘monopole with metallic return’ technology is not considered acceptable due to potential residual magnetic field impacts.



      Back to top
        • References

      Heezen, B.C. (1957). Whales entangled in deep sea cables. Deep-Sea Research 4:105-115

      Kirschvink, J.L., Dizon, A.E. and Westphal, J.A. (1986). Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans. J. Exp. Biol. 120: 1-24.

      Klinowska, M. (1985). Cetacean stranding sites relate to geomagnetic topography. Aquatic Mammals 11: 27-32.

      Koops, F.B.J. (2000). Electric and Magnetic Fields in consequence of undersea power cables. In: Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment. Proceedings International Seminar on Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment Ismaning, Germany October 4 and 5, 1999. Edited by Matthes R., Bernhardt J.H., and Repacholi, M.H., International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 2000, pp. 189-210.

      Koschinski, S. (2002). Current knowledge on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea. Opelia 55(3):167-197.

      Nicol, D.J. (1991). The Tasmanian Stranding Record: A review of the cetacean strandings in Tasmanian waters and an examination of possible causes. University of Tasmania, Unpublished Thesis.



      Back to top

      Integrated Return Conductor (IRC) Technology

      From: <Georg.Balog@nexans.com>

      To: <antareon@...

      Cc: <Bjorn.Sisselberg@nexans.com>

      Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:56 PM

      Subject: HVDC Cables with metallic return system

      Dear Antara May

      We have introduced a new type of HVDC cable, where the return conductor is integrated into the cable itself, for monopolar operation. In this design the return conductor is laid co-axially around the cable core and insulated from the surrounding by a plastic sheath. As the current in the return conductor is identical to the current in the center conductor, but flows in the opposite direction, the magnetic fields generated by the two currents cancel each other out. This design was implemented on the Moyle, (Northern Ireland -Scotland) project, put into operation as per December 1 2001. This design will of course also do away with the need for the electrode systems. At one end the return conductor is earthed to ensure that the system potential is not floating with regard to earth. This potential earthing does not conduct any current in operation. The length of the Moyle cables is 63 km.

      The IRC type of cable is a metallic return that is integrated into the main cable. The advantages are as follows:

        1. No outer magnetic field, as described above. Even bundled, the separate HVDC and metallic return cables have a small but definite magnetic field.
        2. Weighs less than separate HVDC and metallic return cables.
        3. Circular design, can be handled as a normal circular cable, i.e. there is no need for two separate laying campaigns or to bundle two dissimilar cables.
        4. It cost less to protect one cable than two cables.
        5. As the copper cross-section is larger in the IRC cable than for the two separate cables, the losses are lower.
        6. The converter system for monopolar transmission cost appreciably less than the bi-polar converters for the same power.
      In most other regards the two types of metallic return has the same properties, as none of them needs a electrode system.
      As electrode systems are costly and difficult to get acceptance for because of stray currents leading to corrosion and because of environmental concerns, short route length crossings, up to approximately 150 - 300 km, will be advantageous with metallic return system.

      The limits of cables with IRC:

        1. We have developed the HVDC cable type to 500 kV level and certified it for 800 MW power transmission capacity at 500 m laying depth according to the CIGRE recommendations. Based on this we expect to be able to supply 1000 MW cable with IRC. The Moyle cable is 250 kV, 250 MW.
        2. The IRC system in itself has no length limitation. However, as the return conductor is insulated there will be a standing voltage on the cable that has a maximum at the un-earthed end. The Moyle type of IRC insulation is viable to approximately 200 km length, and for longer lengths it requires a rapidly increasing IRC cross-section, so in it´s present form it is not viable for lengths above 300 km. However, with further development the above limits may be removed.
      For large power transmission, 1000 MW and above and for some type of transmission system requiring it, the bi-polar system is the only alternative. The Voltage Source Converter system from ABB requires bi-polar transmission and has at present maximum voltage 150 kV and transmission capacity 330 MW. When the two cables are laid close together or bundled there will be a small magnetic field, just as from bundled HVDC and metallic return cables. We have patented, but not yet developed, a concept with a coaxial bi-polar cable where the two conductors and insulations were integrated. This design would eliminate the external magnetic field just as in the IRC. However, this concept is not viable for higher voltages as the voltage between the center conductor and the second conductor is twice the nominal voltage to earth requiring large insulation thickness.
      In case of large transmission capacities two cables are needed. To reduce the risk of loosing all transmission capacity at once these cables are usually spaced 500 to 1000 m apart and electrodes are established so one of the cables may transmit until the other pole is repaired. Of course for short routes the use of two cable with IRC may be advantegeous instead of electrodes.

      I hope this gives you a feeling for the possibilities. If you have questions please contact Nexans Norway for an eventual study.

      With regards

      Georg Balog

      Competence Centre Manager



      Back to top

      From: <Domenico.Gerace@nexans.com>

      To: <antareon@...

      Cc: <Georg.Balog@nexans.com>; <Kjell.Bjorlow-Larsen@nexans.com>; <Jan.Stensrud@nexans.com>

      Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:00 PM

      Subject: Bass link - HVDC cable with integrated return conductor

      After studying the technical solution with the above cable design, Nexans confirms that it could be applied to the project in question. Nexans has however no knowledge of the economics that currently govern the proposed conventional solution with a separate return conductor for the project in question.
      We apologise for the late answer but hope to have been of assistance.

      Regards,

      Domeni Gerace
      Export Sales Manager



      Back to top

      Information on the NorNed Cable, supplied by KEMA:

      (KEMA is the Dutch consulting firm employed by the proponents of NorNed – their equivalent of NSR)

      The NorNed cable is a 400 kV, 600 MW bipolar cable. It has two conductors, one for the energy current and one for the return current, together in one cable. It is a cable connection without sea electrodes. The magnetic field from the energy current is compensated by the magnetic field of the return current. The compensation depends on the distance between the two conductors. In the NorNed cable this distance is about 9 cm. On the seabed, about 1 m above the buried cable, the magnetic field will be 28,7 µT and 3 m above the seabed 1,8 µT. The electric field of the cable will be screened by the metal sheaths of the cable, but water moving through a magnetic field will generate an electric field. The mean natural electric field in the North Sea by water currents through the geomagnetic field is 10 µV/m with maximum 25 to 35 µV/m in strong tide currents. The extra electric field by water currents through the magnetic field above the NorNed cable will be on the seabed 8 µV/m, on 1 m above the seabed 2 µV/m and on 3 m above the seabed 0,5 µV/m. If the water currents through Bass Strait are stronger than in the North Sea, the electric field strength near the cable will be proportionally more. The total of the natural electric field and the electric field by the cable depends on the direction of the natural and artificial magnetic field and the direction of the water currents. Effects on sea animals, movements of sharks and whales are not to be expected. Any possible effect on these animals close near the cable will be disappear on a distance of some metres from the cable.

      On the surface of the seabed the heat is released to the water and is too low to give a discernible rise in water temperature above the seabed. So the heat production has no effect on the epifauna, the benthic fauna on the seabed. Attraction of fish to the cable by a temperature increase of the seawater above the cable is not to be expected. Most benthic infauna lives in the top layer up to 30 cm depth. The heat in the seabed depends on the thermal resistance of the seabed, depending on the composition of the seabed. In a sandy seabed the temperature increase on 30 cm depth will be no more than 1.2 K and in a muddy seabed about 3 K.

      The distance between the main cable and the return cable of the cable through Bass Strait is possibly some more than the 9 cm of the NorNed cable. With some more distance between the main cable and the return cable, the magnetic field will be a little more than near the NorNed cable, but I think the difference will be small.



      Back to top

      KOSCHINSKI, SVEN.

      OPHELIA 55(3):167-197. 2002.

      Current knowledge on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea.

      *D-24326, Nehmten-Sepel, Germany.

      Abstract:

      Concern has been raised about the long-term viability of the harbour porpoise population in the Baltic Sea. By-catch at possibly unsustainable levels, contaminants, overfishing of prey species and disturbance have been identified as possible threats. This literature study summarises the current knowledge about harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea and, on the basis of reviewed material, tries to identify critical remaining uncertainties and suggests management needs. Information on porpoise demography like distribution, abundance, migration, population structure, and factors affecting survival are presented.

      The historic range of the harbour porpoise extended into the north-eastern parts of the Baltic Sea. During the second half of the 20th century, numbers of harbour porpoises have declined and the distribution range narrowed. Currently there is a considerable difference in abundance in the Kattegat and Belt Sea (0.73-0.99 animals km-2) as opposed to the Baltic Proper (<0.01 animals km-2). Although recent orphometric, genetic and contamination studies of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea are somewhat inconsistent with respect to population structure, the existence of a distinct Baltic subpopulation appears to be a valid concept. Migrational patterns of Baltic Sea animals are still ambiguous. In historic times large numbers of harbour porpoises were hunted in the Danish straits during winter and spring. Therefore it was often concluded that porpoises escaped from ice cover in the eastern Baltic Sea in the winter and re-colonised the Baltic Proper in spring. Recent observations indicate that migration behaviour is much more complex and diffuse. There seems to be a tendency of animals from the Kattegat to migrate into the North Sea during winter. But also animals remaining in the western Baltic or Baltic Proper have been described. Available nutritional studies suggest that harbour porpoises take a variety of different prey.

      Herring, sprat and cod are their most important prey items. Sexual maturity is attained at an age of 3-4 years. A larger proportion of females give birth to one calf every year (pregnancy rates were reported between 0.61 and 0.84). The average life span of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea is unknown. From existing data, a maximum age of 22 to 23 years seems to be a realistic assumption. However, a high mortality in the first years of age and a proportion of less than 5% of the animals living beyond 12 years have a significant impact on the potential for increase of the stocks. It is assumed that shallow areas play an important role for this species with respect to calving and nursing. A variety of studies report heavy attacks from parasites such as Anisakis simplex, Tonyurus convolutus, Stenurus minor, Halocercus invaginatus or Pseudalisus inflexus. However, when compared to samples from Greenland these can be regarded as normal infestations. Environmental contaminants most likely affect the long-term viability of Baltic Sea harbour porpoise stocks and might have been a major cause for the decline of Baltic Sea harbour porpoise stocks between the 1940s and the 1970s. Since then concentrations of PCBs and other organochlorine contaminants have declined. To date, the most important threat to Baltic Sea harbour porpoises is by-catch. Noise pollution has the potential to increasingly become a major threat due to the development of new activities in the Baltic Sea (offshore-windpower plants, fast ferries, etc.). This study lists a number of life history variables for which data is urgently needed. On the basis of the currently available knowledge, an effective management strategy must include political and technical means of mitigating threatening activities such as by-catch, disturbance to critical habitat, disposal of contaminants and over-fishing. In this respect it is important to establish marine protected areas and time- and area closures for certain fisheries which are likely to be unsustainable, to establish mandatory fishery observer programmes and to compile appropriate fisheries statistics.



      Back to top

      Recommendations for Researching / Monitoring the Potential Impacts of Magnetic Fields on Cetaceans

      1. INTRODUCTION:

      Any residual impacts of a development that are considered acceptable on the basis of over-riding public interest should be monitored accordingly. This is especially important if there exists any degree of uncertainty as to both the effects of a development on the environment and the significance that any impacts may have on protected species, habitats or ecology.

      The precautionary principle is itself a fundamental component of Ecologically Sustainable Development, a principle officially adopted by the Australian government in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development in 1992. It is also a principle embodied by the National Oceans Policy, which is responsible for the development of strategic regional marine plans, such as the South-East Regional Marine Plan, which covers Bass Strait.

      The EPBC has most recently translated these requirements into Commonwealth law (section 3A). However, the precautionary principle (section 3A(b)) is only one of the fundamentals of Ecologically Sustainable Development. The Act also requires decision-makers to give regard to conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity (section 3A(d)). These latter considerations are particularly important in the context of the National Oceans Policy and the forthcoming South-east Regional Marine Plan. Under these management regimes, authorities are encouraged to consider potential cumulative impacts of development.

      At present Basslink's preferred method of HVDC cable construction is one which is considered to have the potential for impacting on the surrounding marine environment There is a strong case for using different technology, which is likely to have a less detrimental effect on marine wildlife. If, after mitigation measures are in place, there is any doubt as to whether there may be residual impacts from the technology employed, the situation with respect to cetaceans should be monitored. Cetaceans are at the top of the marine food chain and are indicators of the health of the marine environment. Being air breathers which need to surface, they are relatively easily detected compared to other likely affected groups such as sharks. In addition, they are poorly known in the south-east marine region and worthy of further scientific attention.

      The aims of this monitoring programme would be:

      (a) to establish whether or not there is an impact on cetaceans and to make recommendations for remedial work as appropriate - if this is a condition of a Section 238 (EPBC Act) permit to interfere with [any] cetaceans or the project's approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act;

      (b) to publish the results of the study in a scientific and peer-reviewed journal so that the information can be used to better inform the development process for HVDC cables in future, both in Australian and elsewhere in the world;

      (c) to contribute data on the distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the Bass Strait for the benefit of regional management of South-east Australian waters under National Oceans Policy and Environment Australia's National Cetacean Sightings Database.

      2. METHODS:

      2.1 INTRODUCTION

      Various methods are suggested as relevant to this study with the following objectives in decreasing order of priority:

      (a) to establish whether cetaceans demonstrate a change in behaviour as they approach the location of the cable or change their swim direction in response to the cable;

      (b) to establish whether cetaceans occur in significant numbers in the region of the cable development (with particular reference to species listed as threatened and / or migratory under the EPBC Act - most specifically Humpback Whale, Southern Right Whale and Blue Whale);

      (c) to establish whether cetaceans occur at a greater / lesser than expected density in proximity to the cable.

      These surveys will need to be comparative both on a temporal and spatial scale. A baseline survey prior to development is essential in order to identify the likely numbers of cetaceans passing through the Tasmanian Island chain. This will enable comparison of data collected during the development and operational phase of Basslink. Other studies will aim to assess longer term trends in abundance and distribution of cetaceans on a spatial scale by looking at both behavioural and population effects.

      Surveys should be undertaken during October – December, as this is the period of southward peak humpback whale migration, the period during which southern right whales may still be encountered along the coast in Bass Strait, and the period when blue whales are likely to be moving into the area. This timing will increase the cost-effectiveness of the survey by maximising the chance of encountering cetaceans.

      Surveys should also be undertaken employing competent observers using standard and statistically robust methods. This is particularly important in terms of behavioural studies. Surveys of cetacean distribution and relative abundance alone will not address the issue of ‘interference’, which is the fundamental consideration of the monitoring objectives.

      Long-term monitoring should maximise the chance of obtaining statistically significant trends in the data. For example, it is possible that studies could reveal a short term change in behaviour followed by a period of habituation, the net conclusion being that there is no impact despite a change in behaviour in the first year. Equally, a natural fluctuation in abundance one year may bias the result of a short-term study making it impossible to draw reliable conclusions. In addition to identifying trends, several independent annual samples may be cumulatively analysed creating a larger data set each year. This approach is more statistically valid than collecting all the data in a single year as it allows for replication of methods.

      In conclusion, it is recommended that the period for long-term monitoring should be no less than ten years.

      2.2 LAND-BASED SURVEYS

      Land-based methods have been successfully used to survey cetaceans up to a distance of about 18km in a number of studies. The Basslink cable would be routed to the west side of the Hogan Island group. It may be possible to position observers on Hogan Is. during periods of presumed peak whale migration (a period of about one month each year). Observers can track the movement of whales through the Bass Strait and across the cable route from a suitable vantage point using compass and theodolite. Ideally, an elevated vantage point is preferred to enhance the range of visibility. This is considered a cost-effective method of survey which will help indicate the numbers of animals passing across the cable route and enable behavioural observations to be undertaken consistent with the primary objective of the study. The simplest method of determining changes in behaviour would be to identify changes in swim direction and swim speed. Pre and post-construction monitoring would be essential. Examples of where such methods have been used in practice include Malme and Miles (1985); Würsig et al. (1994).

      2.3 AERIAL SURVEYS / BOAT-BASED SURVEYS

      A series of aerial surveys would be required to determine the extent of cetacean movement through areas beyond the range of land-based observers. It is suggested that a few aerial surveys are necessary, perhaps focusing in a north-south band covering the Basslink cable and some distance to either side (e.g. 4 in total during the period of presumed peak whale migration) but they are not to be depended on to meet the objectives. Aerial surveys are cost-effective for covering large areas, but can only provide a brief snapshot of cetacean distribution. They are not adequate platforms on which to determine precise behaviour. However, aerial surveys may be able to give an indication of the gross behaviour of cetaceans relative to Basslink, i.e. are they heading towards it/away from it/along it? Do they actually cross the cable?

      It may be prudent to mount additional vessel based surveys to collect more specific behavioural data on a number of animals. This could be achieved over a relatively short period e.g. one month during presumed peak whale migration.

      2.4 PASSIVE ACOUSTIC SURVEYS

      Passive acoustic monitoring using sonobuoys has been used as a method of tracking cetaceans in Goold (1996) but with some limitations. It may be possible to utilise similar methods to determine potential impacts on species such as Common Dolphin, which are thought to occur in large numbers in the Bass Strait at certain times of the year. Passive acoustic monitoring is effective during darkness and at other times of reduced visibility, and may detect significantly more whales than visual surveys (e.g. Dawbin and Gill, 1991). It is an effective method of assessing the presence/absence of species such as blue, fin and humpback whales (e.g. Clapham and Mattila, 1990; McDonald and Fox, 1999; Stafford et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 2001), and has also been used to track movements of individual blue and fin whales (McDonald et al., 1995).

      REFERENCES

      Clapham, P.J and D.K.Mattila. 1990. Humpback whale songs as indicators of migration routes. Mar. Mam. Sci. 6: 155-160.

      Dawbin, W.H. and P.C. Gill. 1991. Humpback whale survey along the west coast of Australia: a comparison of visual and acoustic observations. Mem. Qld Mus. 30(2): 255-7.

      Goold, J.C. (1996) Acoustic Assessment of Populations of Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis in Conjunction with Seismic Surveying. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK. 76, 811 - 820.

      Malme, C.I. & Miles, P.R. (1985) Behavioural responses of marine mammals (gray whales) to seismic discharges p. 253 - 280 In. Proc. Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, N.S. Tech. Rep. 5 Can. Oil and Gas Lands Admin. Environ. Prot. Branch, Ottawa, Ont. 398p.

      McCauley, R.D., C. Jenner, J.L. Bannister, C.L.K. Burton, D.H.Cato and A Duncan. 2001. Blue whale calling in the Rottnest trench – 2000, Western Australia. Project CMST 241, Report R2001-6, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth.

      McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the northeast Pacific. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 98: 712-721.

      McDonald, M.A. and C.G. Fox. 1999. Passive acoustic methods applied to fin whale population density estimation. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 105: 2643-2651.

      Stafford, K.M., S.L. Nieukirk and C.G. Fox. 1999. Low-frequency whale sounds recorded on hydrophones moored in the eastern tropical Pacific. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 106: 3687-3698.

      Würsig, B., F. Cipriano and M. Würsig. 1991. Dolphin movement patterns: information from radio and theodolite tracking studies. Pages 79-112 in K. Pryor and K. S. Norris, ed. Dolphin Societies-discoveries and puzzles. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.










© Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) - 2012