Gladstone Harbour

The issue of Gladstone Harbour's sick marine life is a continuing problem which is being swept under the carpet. It has huge ramifications in terms of human health and the environment in this Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Government scientists and the Gladstone Ports Corporation maintain that their massive dredging project is not creating any problems but this has been refuted by several scientists including highly experienced aquatic disease specialist Dr Matt Landos.

He says the sick fish and other marine life as well as human health issues are most likely directly linked to the dredging and resuspension of metals and toxins.

The article below was originally published as one of a series in the Queensland Telegraph and reproduced on The Great Barrier Reef Blog http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/great-barrier-reef-blog/

Dredging again blamed as likely
cause of diseased marine life

By John Mikkelsen

Gladstone Harbour’s massive dredging activity is again identified as the most likely cause of on-going health problems in seafood and other marine life, according to the latest report by aquatic veterinarian. Dr Matt Landos.
The detailed scientific document is the final instalment in a trilogy prepared by Dr Landos for community charity, The Gladstone Fishing Research Fund, and backs up earlier interim reports with survey results, further tests and scores of peer reviewed supporting references.
Titled ‘Investigation of the Causes of Aquatic Animal Health Problems in the Gladstone Harbour and Nearshore Waters’, the report was months in the making and covers a weighty 113 pages, or 200 when combined with the earlier studies.
The conclusion linking observed problems with the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project is based on “specific mechanisms” including:
- resuspension and mobilisation of contaminants (metals and metalloids) from sediments;
- increased parasitism due to stress, immunosuppression and external irritation from poor
water quality and toxicosis;
- increased boat traffic vessel strike risk;
- noise, and - generation of toxic algal blooms due to disturbance of sediments and release of nitrogen, iron and other nutrients.
-
These aspects and many more are examined at length in a non-political, non-emotive way although there are segments critical of the nature and extent of scientific testing, conclusions and controls by government departments and agencies including DERM/DEHP, Queensland Fisheries, Biosecurity Queensland and the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC).
He told The Telegraph yesterday that politics would need to play a part in any solution.
“A political fix is required, as that is where the core of failings began. But to arrive at it, ministers must be motivated by the science,” he said.
Dr Landos prefers to let the science do the talking and on that basis his findings would be difficult to ignore, particularly when they are backed up by a lengthy appendix of references, microscopic examinations and pathological tests.
His experience and qualifications also speak for themselves. Besides being a director of Future Fisheries Veterinary Service and a full time registered vet since 1995, he is also an honorary lecturer and associate researcher at Sydney University aquatic animal disease projects including an ornamental fish virus project and an associate researcher into ongoing studies on barramundi disease at the University of Queensland.
His practice has focused entirely on aquatic animals since 2000.
ReplyDelete

Replies




  1. Mikko,

    Congratulations on your long running exposure "dredging up the mud" behind the activity at Gladstone.
    Delete

138 comments:

  1. Thanks Geoff, someone else asked if there is any provision on the blog for posting a pic with main posts or in comments.
    Also I'm not sure how to post as an article rather than as a comment. Thanks for making this an article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm really interested in that too, Geoff and John. ie
      1) How do you get permission to post a new discussion? I would expect it has to be cleared firstly by a Moderation process and might get gonged off, but how do you initiate the process? (Don't worry, I don't have pen poised at the moment! :-)
      2) How do you include links, pics and other editing tricks (like italics, underlining, YouTube embeds) in both comments, and new discussion topics. Or can that only be done in the latter?
      Cheers al

      Delete
    2. Aha! I just clicked on 'New Post' up in the taskbar at the top, and suddely, all is clear. All the editing tools etc are there. But I still assume that any would - be new Discussion topic will have to be cleared, before becoming active?
      Cheers al

      Delete
    3. Anyone with author status can put up a post,al. I PM'd all (at least then all) of members and said:
      "If you send me an email address, I can add your name to the interim site as author and then you will have access to comment and post.

      At JG we agreed that real and full names should be used."

      Anyone wishing author status email me at

      Delete
  2. Geoff I obviously figured how to post an article and include pics, but when there is a category tab for Gladstone Harbour I would like to put further articles under that to keep them together. I tried that with the second harbour article, clicked on the harbour tab before publishing but it ended up back on the general discussions list. Any tips?
    Also I don't want this to look like a John Mikko personal blog but as Dale said, he wanted some stuff up for people to read when they come looking.
    Cheers JohnM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I have said, from the beginning, all those hours ago, Mikko, I believe that this is a temporary place for us to gather before we start on a new site.

      I offered this temporary stage, but we need a team to step up and create a new platform (I still believe NING to be the best) but this is what we have at the moment.

      Half way through formatting this email I talked to Dale who is having a problem with internet access due to the excess drain on the local internet because of the coal seam gas population.

      Delete
    2. You are right Geoff.
      Bring on Ning.
      Ning is the best format I have seen.

      Delete
    3. Hi John CF I see the desktop expert on everything (aka The Walking Wikipedia) has had a shot at you over on the Just Dirt files. That puts your credibility up another couple of notches in my book. He made so many obviously inaccurate claims about Gladstone and Central Qld in general including major geographical features that I wouldn't believe any of his pontifications on any other topic.

      Delete
  3. Last weekend for one day there was an article online from the Observer Newspaper in Gladstone which was headed with an excellent photo showing the harbour looking south over the harbour and bund. (couldn't find it in the paper, only online)
    The title of the article was "Scientist to ensure water in Gladstone Harbour is healthy."

    The water in the entire harbour looked like soup although I think soup would look better that the harbour photo.

    The Gladstone Porte Corporation must have taken offence at the photo because it disappeared from the site very quickly.
    I managed to copy the article before it was pulled but on searching I found that it was also on a site from the Noosa News and Sunshine Coast Daily. Still there when I last looked) The GPC probably consider that anybody looking for Gladstone Harbour problems would not be looking of Sunshine Coast sites.
    The GPC are obviously still using their influence to have the negative impacts of what they are doing kept out of the Public eye.
    Perhaps the photo in that article should be on the front of the "Terms of Reference" so that the Scientist conducting the work could see exactly what the problem is before he even opens the book.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Geoff, not having a shot about the temporary site which is much appreciated, but was just curious why more articles can't be added under the same category here. Is it just set for one article, and anything else will be a comment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/photos/qclng-curtis-island-site-tour/16519/#/0

    For all of those interested, look at the above link to see what has been forced on to the people of Gladstone on the once beautiful and pristine Curtis Island, totally within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

    It is to allow access for LNG ships of 300 mtrs+ to access this monstrosity (actually 4 major LNG plants and another small one planned for the Mainland).

    All of this is overseen by the CEO of the GPC, the person who is also Chairman of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which was instrumental in convicting and fining a Chinese coal ship that ran aground after leaving Gladstone Harbour a year or so back and did damage that was a very small speck compared to the deliberate destruction inflicted on the GBRWHA in Gladstone. The Reef will heal in time. What has been done within the World Heritage Area in Gladstone Curtis Island, The Narrows, Balaclava Island, the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay will never heal because the intention is to keep destroying more of the World Heritage Area for decades into the future.
    Double Standards???

    The development shown in the photos on this link is totally within the GBRWHA where the GPC and Qld Govt are attempting to have 1,000 Square kilometres of the GBRWHA removed from the protection of the World Heritage listing to allow more of this to happen.

    One third of Curtis Island is already committed to Industry by the GPC in spite of the fact that it is entirely within the GBRWHA. This is why they MUST have the 1,000 square Kilometres of GBRWHA removed from protection.

    Those living outside of Gladstone are unlikely to hear anything about what has been forced on to the people of Gladstone because the GPC seem to have enough control over the local press to have negative impacts kept out of the press.

    Even the locals get only the sanitised propaganda that GPC wants known and very rarely get to hear about the negative impacts and dangers created by the developments that impact their safety, health and the natural Marine environment that forms part of the most important Marine ecosystems and environmental heritage in the world.

    This is evidenced in my previous post where the article and photo showing the real vision of the harbour was withdrawn in a very short time because it showed the true picture of the harbour and was embarrassing to the GPC..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looks like it's one article and then comments under this category tab, so I will add the excellent credentials and experience of Dr Matt Landos as a comment which got up the noses of a couple of blokes who think they knew better than him over on the unJust Grounds site:

    Besides being a director of Future Fisheries Veterinary Service and a full time registered vet since 1995, he is also an honorary lecturer and associate researcher at Sydney University aquatic animal disease projects including an ornamental fish virus project and an associate researcher into ongoing studies on barramundi disease at the University of Queensland.

    His practice has focused entirely on aquatic animals since 2000. Other experience includes:

    • NSW DPI Aquatic Animal Health Veterinary Officer 2000-2005 (Pathology Laboratory and Field
    Based Fish Health Investigations);

    • Member, by examination, of the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists,
    Aquatic Animal Health Chapter, since 2002;

    • Private consultancy investigating aquatic animal disease outbreaks in farmed and wild stocks of
    fish (tuna, kingfish, barramundi, trout, salmon, murray cod, silver perch, cobia, catfish),
    crustacean (prawns) and molluscs (oysters, scallops) from 2005. Aquaculture clients in all
    Australian State’s and the Northern Territory;

    • Co-researcher on student investigations into barramundi and cobia parasitic diseases;

    • Lead investigator of Southern Bluefin Tuna Sudden Death Syndrome 2008;

    • Lead field investigator of Noosa two-headed bass pesticide drift deformity case 2008-2012;

    • Co-investigator with SARDI, Vic DPI trout disease research;

    • Co-investigator on Seafood CRC disease investigation (Yellowtail Kingfish Industry);

    • Design and run training courses in disease identification and management for prawn,
    barramundi, mulloway and silver perch industry;

    • Co-author on several peer-reviewed aquatic animal disease papers;

    • Consultant to Brunei Darussalam for development of national aquatic animal biosecurity system;

    • Co-author of AQUAVETPLAN, national disease emergency response manuals;

    • Co-author of NSW DPI Emergency Disease Response Simulation, exercise ‘kilpatrick’;

    • Invited presenter, International Animal Welfare Conference: Fish Welfare 2008;

    • Numerous presentations on fish health at Australian Veterinary Association conferences 2005-
    2011, Australasian Aquaculture Conference 2012, Australian Wildlife Health Network
    Conference 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A bloke who sits at his desktop down in NSW who admitted he once spent 30 minutes in Gladstone, disputed Dr Landos' findings . Unreal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Haha, yes. I am pretty sure that Dr Landos has found things that even the government investigation had missed even with their much bigger budget. I also noticed that photo of the bund and harbour and the dirty water all around it Peter. Then when i looked back at the image later, it was changed. Just part of the cover up of the truth of the state of the place and how much it has been changed. I've lost count of the times things like that have been done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found a link that shows the original image Peter. http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/scientist-ensure-water-gladstone-harbour-healthy/1634967/

    Looks like something might be a tad wrong with the waterway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spin and cover-ups are par for the course here. Now the Qld Govt has set up a Healthy Harbour Panel headed by Dr Ian Poiner (no other members names yet) and a Healthy Harbour Partnership. Dr Poiner also headed the former Labor govt's scientific panel which did a desk top review and came up with nothing much except recommendations for further tests.
    Big question on whether the new panel will be something similar.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I heard in on ABC radio & Gladstone Observor complete with a spectular photo of a red sea of a major spill of a toic waste known as "red mud" reported to be from the QAL plant.
    QAL, is that the alumium plant?
    http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/gladstone-suburb-hit-chemical-waste-after-failure/1641088/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lots of confusion over "aluminium plant" Dale. QAL is the oldest and one of the two giant alumina refineries here (the other, Rio Tinto Yarwun). They process the raw red bauxite from Weipa into a fine white powder (alumina) which is then sent to Boyne Smelters at Boyne Island, or exported, for the final process to convert the alumina into aluminium metal. So its a three-stage process with the final smelting involving a lot of electricity - hence the carbon tax hard hits.
    I saw the "red mud" spill on the ABC last night but don't know how it reportedly affected residents in Sun Valley which is a fair distance from the QAL plant, with other suburbs closer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Apparently it was a caustic spray leaking from a pipe at QAL and the spray must have been carried on prevailing winds back into Sun Valley.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't want to swamp the home page with Gladstone, so adding this as a comment.

    The State Government’s new Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership would only lead to “more chaos” and an ongoing failure to properly monitor the harbour, according to a leading environmentalist.

    Coordinator of Australians for Animals and The Great Barrier Reef Blog, Sue Arnold, was commenting on the appointment this week of Dr Ian Poiner to head the new Gladstone panel.

    Dr Poiner was also head of the former Labor Government’s scientific investigation panel which conducted a desk top review of harbour data provided by government agencies. It eventually produced a report which failed to implicate or exonerate the controversial major dredging program from continuing problems with sick marine life. Critics attacked that report because no scientific tests were conducted.
    Dr Poiner is also former head of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). No other appointments to the new scientific panel have been announced yet but Ms Arnold remains unimpressed and claims the situation in Gladstone Harbour warrants a call for a Senate inquiry.
    A former investigative journalist with Fairfax Media, Ms Arnold told The Telegraph yesterday the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership would see “a smorgasbord of Panels, Partnerships and others all focused on ensuring that dredging remains quarantined.”

    “Given the complete failure of the Queensland and Federal Governments to commission one single research effort which looks at the impact of dredging on human and aquatic animal health, the appointment of Dr Poiner can only raise more concern and more questions,” she said.

    The Federal Government’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) website contained information on the Gladstone Ports Corporation application for a second shipping channel which included: " To date no studies undertaken in Gladstone Harbour have included damage caused by dredging in their terms of reference”.

    Ms Arnold said this failure to examine the potential consequences was astonishing in light of details listed by the GPC in relation to its application for the second shipping channel under Nature and Extent of likely impact: Death from dredging and piling operation; sedimentation of habitat from dredging leading to dieback of seagrass and other benthic habitats; potential noise impacts associated with dredging, piling and blasting activities; a reduction in food resources as a result of sediment plumes from dredging; degradation to potential preferred habitat from sediment plumes.

    GPC also stated: “The dredge footprint is located with the GBRWHA and the offshore disposal site may be located within GBRMP with dredging activities likely to have both indirect and direct impacts….”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They forget to mention that the entire project footprint, the proposed channel and the disposal site not only "may be located within the GBRMP" but is totally within the GBRWHA.
      They play on words and refuse to use the words GBRWHA but instead refer only to the GBRMP in an effort to hoodwink the people into believing that there is no detrimental effect within the GBRWHA and this is why they are trying to remove the 1,000 square kilometres of GBRWHA from the protection of the World Heritage Listing.
      They already previously removed the GBRMP zoning within that area and deliberately excised Gladstone so that they could correctly claim that they were not within the GBRMPA. The GBRMPA originally came right to the mainland the same as the GBRWHA still does.

      Delete
  15. The EIS for the duplicate shipping channel isn't out yet, but i can't see where they can drop to 20 odd million tonnes unless they go into the GBRMP. This might be why Seeney was earlier pushing for the boundary to be moved. The great barrier reef marine park just isn't compatible with sea dumping, its against the rules, so dumping there would not be even half palatable. Move the boundary maybe? Expand the current bund reclaim area to the point the current speeds and resuspension there are ridiculous. Build a new bund on Curtis Island salt marsh? None of these things are at all likely. Seeing as the EIS will be out while the boundary is where it is, they will have to ask for dredging in a World Heritage Area and the dumping in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Unbelievable stuff all of it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Estimates for the duplicate channel dredging are around 12 million cubics.
    They are looking at the GBRMP for dumping because the terms of reference for the EIS notes they wish to dump in the marine park and so must address the GBRMP act itself in the EIS. I see nothing in the GBRMP act itself that would allow dumping of spoil within the marine park zone. From what i can tell the authority itself could do something like that for research purposes only. There are things the minister can allow but spoil dumping seems outside the scope.
    The TOR mentions the need for addressing endangered species, turtles and dugongs and in particular turtles from boat strike, yet in the Marine Park act it provides protection for these things, with no likely harm allowed. It also asks for information about turtle breeding sites, population counts and current health.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There seems to be still the mention of only the GBRMPA in GPC propaganda. What they leave out most of the time is that it is also within the GBRWHA which still covers the entire area.
      Even if they extended the GBRMPA again, (it was previously shifted out from the mainland to beyond Curtis Island) so that they could say that they were not infringing on the GBRMPA with their destruction it is still within the World Heritage Area.
      This is why they have to convince UNESCO to remove the World Heritage Status on the 1,000 square kilometres of GBRWHA.
      Even the LNG companies argue that they are not within the GBRMPA and they are right but they refuse to mention or accept that they are totally within the GBRWHA because GPC told them that because they are not in the GBRMPA then they are doing no wrong. This was stated to myself by senior staff of at least 2 LNG companies.
      The GBRMPA was shifted some years ago beyond Curtis Island to allow the GPC to destroy Curtis Island and the surrounding waters including Fitzroy Delta, part of Keppel Bay, The Narrows, Balaclava Island and all of the Gladstone harbour.
      The GBRWHA is still described on the Australian Government Great Barrier Reef General reference Map as: "Extending from the low water mark of the Mainland and INCLUDES all Islands, Internal Waters of Queensland and seas and submerged lands."

      The GBRMPA by it's own definition does not exist.
      The same Australian Govt GBR General Reference Map states that it: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, "EXCLUDES Queensland owned Islands, internal waters of Queensland and seas and submerged lands."

      If you take away the seas, islands and submerged lands (which the reef sits on) you have something that is non existent. The GBRMPA is simply a play on words to deceive the people whereas the GBRWHA is a tangible thing that actually exists and genuinely covers all of the reef, seas, waterways and land bases areas within the zoning.
      Unless they disposed of the dredge fill from the duplication on land, there is nowhere that is not protected.

      A duplicated channel would have to be much wider than the present one because the present channel does not meet the world standards for shipping LNG.
      To accommodate the LNG tankers of the size that the LNG companies state will be using the channel the minimum for the channel should be 250 metres in width. The current channel is for much of the way only 180m metres wide. This means that any new channel would have to be a minimum of about 30% wider than the present one and then they eventually will have to dredge another 70 metres along the total length of the old channel to comply with world standards. Of course they haven't mentioned that yet. Probably won't until they get a new one done.
      The LNG plants are 45 kilometres from the Fairway Buoy. (open sea)

      Delete
  17. Well as we were frequently told elsewhere, don't worry, what's a few fish and turtles and dugong and coral, not to mention fishers livlihoods and eventually nature will overcome all that is thrown at it. Anyone who believes that must be off counting fairies at the bottom of the garden. It's just going to compound the damage already being done which is more than bad enough.
    I don't think UNESCO will be fooled for one minute, just like stopping the dredging for "urgent maintenance" two weeks before the delegeates visited in March.
    I don't think they would ever agree to remove Gladstone Harbour from the World Heritage Area, and as their call for a full investigation into the harbour situation is being ignored, there is a very real danger the whole GBR World Heritage Area will be listed as in danger or at risk.
    Many don't understand that will have far-reaching international implications for Australia but our governments seem to be doing their best to bring it on.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter, for your info, the Terms of Reference tells that the duplicate channel is to be 200m wide and 16 odd metres deep. This could change by the time the EIS comes out. I have noticed that some people have said that the harbour will become an exclusion zone for safety reasons, and this will be sprung on people later, because there would be too much opposition for that now. Certainly the channels themselves would become exclusions. So imagine an exclusion zone of this size in a WHA. An area of danger created within a WHA. Here is a map. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/14118/090707eCurtisIsland_GBRMPA_ZoningAndBoundary_Dec2011.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  19. Notice also that the area shaded from the Narrows and north, but including grahams creek is noted as a great barrier reef coast marine park. This is coloured in the following map and is listed as a protected zone. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/28123/Map17-GDA94.pdf
    But seemingly the turbidity etc from the works and even the pipeline dredging right on the border is deemed ok despite tidal movement of those contaminants. Grahams creek is a hotspot for crab shell disease and CSIRO found dissolved aluminium around 30 times the limit coming out of there, even though it is noted as a protected zone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tried to copy whole section but didn't work for me.
      The SIGTTO Design for Ports and jetties document states that:Channel width should be about 5 times the beam of the ship (approximately 250 metres). Short approaches are preferable to long inshore routes which carry more numerous hazards. Jetty location should be remote from populated areas and should also be well removed from other marine traffic and port activity which may cause a hazard. River bends and narrow channels should not be considered as appropriate positions for LNG carrier jetties.

      The SIGTTO standard states approximately 250 metres. The TOR is for 200 mtr wide channel.

      The LNG companies have stated that they will be bringing in Q-Max sized tankers in the future
      The Q-Max tanker is 345 mtrs long and has a beam of 53.8 mtrs and a draft of 12 mtrs.
      This means that the recommended width of a shipping channel to accommodate these ships would have to be 269 mtrs wide to safely accommodate this size ship within the recommended standards.
      If the standard for smaller LNG ships requires a recommended 250 mtrs wide channel and the larger Q-Max ships require a 269 mtr wide channel, then the GPC TOR falls way short of SIGTTO safety standards.
      The current channel falls short of the recommended standard for smaller ships by 70 mtrs in width and if they start to bring in Q-Max size ships before they have another channel the present channel will fall short by 89 mtrs in the width of the channel.
      Whichever way it is looked at, the present channel is not to the safe standard stated by Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators. (SIGTTO)

      Delete
  20. Hi Peter and 'RF' it sounds like an accident waiting to happen and the two tugs per LNG ship won't necessarily prevent that, seeing it was a tug that caused the big oil spill a few years back when it pierced the hull of a coal carrier. Then to rub salt into the wound, the ship's owners had to foot the clean up bill, under maritime law.
    Meanwhile The Observer yesterday ran a story from DEHP about greatly increased aluminium levels in South Trees from the Red Mud Dam for September, plus a comment from a CSIRO scientist saying they didn't know if this would be harmful to fish. Why not ask Dr Matt Landos who specialises in aquatic diseases and has been here studying the situation first hand?
    No doubt the fingers will be pointing at QAL as the cause of all the harbour problems but it is just one of many adding to the toxic mix.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The way I read it the levels of aluminium in Graham Creek are amongst the highest and most concerning within the harbour.
    There is no Aluminium refinery close to Grahams Creek so where does this come from?

    Is it possible that Graham Creek is functioning like a "Cyclone Action" and the new tidal flows caused by the intrusion of the bund in the middle of the harbour are creating a "swirl" into Graham Creek and so depositing Aluminium that may be coming from the Rio Tinto refinery at Yarwun. They must discharge into the harbour somewhere in the mid to northern sector and this could be where the problem lies.

    This would explain why the readings and apparent build up are happening since the bund was built.
    Of course these things should have been explored before they charged in like a mad bull at a gate without proper total consideration of what could happen, but of course it is too late now and will never be able to be remedied.

    If the Currents being concentrated coming out of The Narrows are severe enough to affect control of ships being manoeuvred at the Cement Australia wharf, then it is completely feasible that on the ingoing tides aluminium could be carried into Graham Creek and deposited there by the swirling action of the tide.

    Graham Creek in all of the early documents and propaganda by LNG companies and the GPC was supposed to be kept in pristine condition and there was supposed to be no detrimental effects in Graham Creek.
    What has happened now is that Graham Creek seems to be suffering the worst effect of any area of the whole dirty harbour.

    Are the rumours correct that Graham Creek could at some time in the future be dredged out to the eastern side of Curtis Island and Graham Creek become a major shipping channel to form a loop entry into Gladstone Harbour?

    The way that GPC are going on this could quite possibly be the case and if it did come to fruition the people owning houses and land on the Island would have to pack up and leave because the GPC would lay claim to the entire newly created island which they would use entirely for Industry. One third of the entire Curtis Island is committed to Industry (GPC statements in the newspaper)
    Lets not forget that when they stole the land on Curtis Island they took the entire width of the Island, not just what was needed for the LNG plants. There must have been some future plan for the use of the entire width of the Island so what was it. Don't expect to get an honest answer because the GPC and the Govt are a bit lacking in the truth honesty and transparency departments.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Have heard the story about Graham Creek being dredged thru to the eastern side of Curtis Island to cater for access to the LNG sites etc. Also suggestions of more coal wharves on the eastern side of the island. No idea if its true but notning would surprise me and it would fit with GPC's great desire to have the harbour removed from the world heritage area.

    ReplyDelete
  23. GPC fined for an illegal dredge spoil dump in the World Heritage Area back in January. Adverse weather conditions is given as an excuse but would't logic dictate you would stop dredging rather than load a barge in such conditions? Not if the slap on the wrist fine is less than a halt would have cost. No potential acid soil they say. How would they know and who could check after its dumped? http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/barge-dumped-dredge-spoil-safeguard-crew-and-vesse/1649296/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Opens a can of worms doesn't it.
    I dont know if you remember John but there was a claim by someone who knew a barge operator that sometimes the barges dumped spoil un non approved areas so they could go back faster, on the other hand, it might have been just this one off. makes you wonder if trolling a camera around the area would ever be done to verify that to be true or not.
    Each position is supposed to be noted by each barge as they make a dump into the WHA garbage tip.


    Sounds like they never tested the mound for potential acid sulphate. There is apparently no rule to test for PASS on the boat which would mean if they did dump PASS no one would know or be able to police it unless they had spot check audits for compliance and that would only cover that period. This means it would be up to the bucket dredge operators to never dredge over areas that have any PASS material. Impossible. The problem with the location is it can't work like that.
    The cutters are designed to do the heavy work in deeper water like in channels and some swing basins.
    Access to the island was done with buckets and also the buckets were used to give the cutter better start access too.
    It's not like the buckets are used over non PASS and the cutter is used on PASS material.


    The department never tested the mound, but they make it sound good by saying its not PASS. They must be relying on the fact that dumping PASS would be illegal and that the rule would be followed always.

    Just think, every bucket load goes on a barge, and not into the cutter pipe and to the bund. That means there is no efforts of bund attempted treatment for each bucket load. Now the core mapping of PASS showed plenty of PASS material in the nearshore muds, which is a location that the cutters had no access to because it was too shallow.
    Furthermore, the dredging began in May with buckets, there were also buckets working the area near the north LNG site.
    Now the evidence would show that the bund was not closed till late August 2011, atleast satellite maps show it open just prior to that, so they could not be dumping material into the bund for attempted treatment till it was finished.
    The question needs to be asked then, if they were dredging with buckets over the top of areas shown to hold PASS before the bund was in operation then how did they not dump PASS offshore? There should be records taken for every position the buckets worked in, just as there is for the cutter. it would be all mapped out using satellite navigation equipment on each vessel. This could be overlayed with the PASS maps of the harbour bed to show PASS was dumped offshore.
    Then, if it is considered law to not dump PASS because it would harm the marine life, and they did dump PASS then they would have harmed marine life seeing as marine life was harmed.

    The department overseeing the offshore dumps had asked for core samples to be taken closer to Curtis island to see what was there. GPCs core sites did not go right up to the curtis side boundary, these cores are shown in the maps of the appendix to the EIS. The department realised this fact and thats why the asked for more cores in closer.
    That soft mud once dropped from a barge would not just fall in a big pile but would be prone to drift on the way down. I reckon that is what added to the plume size in the JCU satellite imagery study. i don't know how they can say for sure that the illegal dumping had no environmental effects and i guess its nothing compared to what is being dumped in the legal position. How that is not contributing to the sick sharks and other offshore species around facing island is anyones guess.
    but weather maps and swell heights would show if that day in particular had decent wave heights. for the record, they say one load was illegally dumped. The disposal site is bounded by long/latitude.
    Each dump offshore also requires the operator to note the exact location of each drop and the idea is to dump in a way that they dump evenly over the area.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi RF I don't think there is any disputing that barges were dumping whatever the buckets dredged in close to the island, out at the East Banks dump site. Way back then, the GPC CEO was saying it wasn't a problem as potential acid sulphate soils were kept wet and covered, so wouldn't oxidise but we know they can oxidise into sulphuric acid under water. Does help explain the red rashes on bottom dwellers, rays and shovel nose sharks. I remember seeing as many as three barges in transit down the shipping channel past here and Wild Cattle Island at the one time.
    I have also seen them struggling against strong winds, waves and an incoming tide, making slow headway and thought suck eggs, I hope it's tough. But did they go the full distance - who knows. But they also have the motorised dump vessels which don't have to be towed and make much faster progress.
    A $6,600 fine for short dumping is chicken feed and no deterrent if it was a common practice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. More lies and cover-ups in the Gladstone Harbour. Between March and September LAST YEAR Santos had 5 OIL SPILLS and 2 TURBIDITY breaches in the GBRWHA in Gladstone which they say they reported to the GPC but conveniently forgot to tell the FEDERAL Government.
    Why did the GPC not report it and why is the story in a Sunshine coast newspaper but removed from the Gladstone Paper online.

    The breaches occurred between March and September but the time between when the breach occurred and when they reported it to the Federal Govt was EIGHT MONTHS.

    For 5 oil spills and 2 turbidity breaches that were kept secret for 8 months they were fined less than $20,000.
    It really is a joke and confirmation that lies and cover-ups are still happening in Gladstone.

    It is claimed that they also reported the breaches to MSQ and the State Govt so why did none of these do anything about it?
    When will the cover ups cease and when will the public be properly informed as to the breaches and other negative actions within the GBRWHA by the GPC and LNG companies.

    The Defacto Premier and the man pulling the Govt strings (Feeney) in the running of the Govt must surely have known if what Santos claims is true so why did he not do anything about it.
    These breaches were actual breaches within the GBRWHA and it was on that basis that they were dealt with. You can bet your socks that, just as the GPC and Bligh Govt forgot to tell UNESCO about a few thousand hectares of the GBRWHA being destroyed and the guts ripped out of the GBRWHA listed Curtis Island they have not advised UNESCO of these breaches.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Peter we just got back from the Sunshine Coast yesterday afternoon and I hadn't seen or heard anything about that. Sounds bad but I am not surprised at the cover-up. Meanwhile, last night we attended a Gladstone News Weekly Christmas party at Quoin Island in the middle of the harbour. Conference centre resort style set-up with fantastic food, tame wallabies and kangaroos mingling with guests, a train ride (open carriages) along a rickety track with big king tide lapping the wheels on the late return journey to the fast cat back to Gladstone Marina. Gladstone by night from the water is an amazing sight.
    Yes what looks crap by day is magic at night. There was an old run down resort on the island which we had visited a couple of times over the years but it was in disrepair and not being used when the present owner bought it a few years ago and did a complete revamp (local contractor Bob McCosker). He had it done just in time for the industrial development so has been housing some workers there and running ferries to the worksites but now that has wound down a bit as the LNG plants have opened their own accommodation on Curtis Island so apparently he is looking more at operating as a convention centre/ resort now and hopefully day trippers. It would be great for day trips and kids would love it as he is also operating a turtle rehabilitation centre there with about a dozen turtles in tanks and a pool, recovering from boat strikes and other ailments. The tame marsupials are mainly pretty faced wallabies native to the island but there are also about four grey kangaroos which were originally rescued from road kill pouches on the mainland, so he is obviously an environmentalist at heart. One of the young female roos joined us for dinner and pats, sharing Bob's pavlova and fruit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A paltry compensation offer from Gladstone Ports Corporation has not impressed Gladstone fishers who have been offered 1.5 years pay for virtually being put out of business. Details on the main home page.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is the Tooth Fairy, there is Santa Claus (coming to town tonight), and in the same league there is the "scientific theory" claimed by CEO Leo Zussino that the floods two years ago is responsible for what has almost wiped out the local fishing and seafood industries as well as killing off many turtles, dugong and dolphins.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Leo thinks that he is the "truth fairy" and sandy claws ( not wanting to insult crabs) all rolled into one.
    We know that the kids stories are all harmless myth but we now also know that it the absolute (no myth here) truth that we will be in trouble if it rains again this year because the effects of 2 years ago haven't cleared yet and new rain will prolong the problem for at least another year. How long did they say that it would take to completely stuff the entire southern end of the reef up so the flood waters can clear up?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Isn't it amazing that the stories by the Observer newspaper online regarding the efforts to discredit Dr Matt Landos' report do not have any provision to make comments.
    The comments by the CEO of the GPC does not allow comment and the report that The Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry review attempt to discredit the Landos report also does not allow for comment.

    Zussino claims that "the first correspondence from Law Essentials noting wide scale fish health issues is dated 20 May 2011 the day the WBDDP began!! This clearly shows even by their own records that the fish health issues started well before GPC's dredging project. He is still adamant that it was flood 2 years ago that is causing the problems.

    Take a look at the photograph in the in the Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and there is nothing but a muddy sewer.
    Boy!! that must have been some flood to leave the water in the harbour miles away from the river that GPC claims caused the problems still be looking like a sewer after more than 2 years.

    Mr Zussino knows full well that dredging started in the harbour in 2010, not in May 2011.
    He conveniently uses the term "western Basin dredging" because May 2011 was when the western basin dredging DID commence but the dredging that started in 2010 was given another title and so once again they are using SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO COVER UP THE TRUTH but the dredging DID start in 2010.
    Just as they claim that they are not depositing dredge spoil in the GBRMP because the boundary of the GBRMP was moved out to sea to accommodate this dumping, it is smoke and mirrors.
    The dumping area that they are using is totally within the GBRWHA and surrounded by the GBRMP.
    These people are experts at coverups and deception and using any means possible to discredit very credible and respected experts who are proving that they are wrong and not being truthful.
    A change of Chairman of the GPC has not brought any sanity to the situation but in fact it appears to be worse than it was previously.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Too true Peter. In the original report from Matt Landos there is a timeline showing dredging started in September 2010 to provide access to the LNG sites. The GPC chairman has claimed all along that major dredging started in May 2011 but even their own GPC newsletters mentioned dredging in 2010. He has also consistently pointed to maintenance dredging every year having no effect on fish health but that is not the same as dredging previously undredged areas with acid sulphate soils and 50 years of industrial deposits in the silt which is being resuspended and distributed throughout the harbour and out into the surrounding waters 35 km from the dredging, as shown in the recent JCU satellite study.
    The idea that a flood two years ago is still responsible for fish diseases two years on is totally ridiculous. If that were the case the entire Queensland seafood industry would have been wiped out by now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Talk about pathetic coverage in The Observer online - half a dozen lines from the actual Landos report, no detail, and a lengthy separate rebuttal from the GPC CEO who keeps on about the fine water quality, and the claim that the floods did it. Spin over substance again. The ABC did something similar last Friday night too.
    Don't rock the boat, too much money involved here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Observer finally has given Matt Landos the right to reply to Leo Zussino's incorrect claims about funding and bias:

    A REPORT linking fish health problems to dredging in Gladstone Harbour continues to make waves.

    The author, veterinary scientist Dr Matt Landos, on Sunday reiterated the sources of funding for the research.

    The report states 8% of the funding came from commercial fishermen, 24% from Gladstone processors, 31% from the seafood industry outside Gladstone and 37% from the general public.

    "My business has not profited from undertaking the work," Dr Landos said. "I personally contributed over $50,000 in resources from my business."

    Gladstone Ports Corporation attacked the science in Dr Landos' report on Friday, saying it flew in the face of all other scientific research on fish health in the harbour.

    GPC chief executive Leo Zussino said the integrity of the report was compromised because it was funded to support a legal action.

    "Matt Landos' report has been commissioned by the Gladstone Fishing Research Fund which has been financially supported by a small group of commercial fishers in the Gladstone harbour to support a compensation action represented by Shine Lawyers and Law Essentials," Mr Zussino said.

    Dr Landos rejected Mr Zussino's claim.

    "I do not work for Shine or Law Essentials," he said. "And I will not be any part of their legal case. The report was written for the public.

    "My personal view (not that of the Gladstone Fishing Research Fund) is there are many stakeholders of our coastal areas: kids who want to swim there; anglers who thrive on catching fish; the seafood loving public who want to be able to eat high quality local caught Australian seafood, and not fear that it contains dangerous levels of heavy metal pollutants; and the tourism industry who rely on our 'pristine' environment to lure people to visit our coastline.
    Continue reading here: http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/harbour-situation-should-never-happen-again-scient/1707667/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the situation was reversed and the attack on Dr Landos' report and credibility was made AGAINST LEO ZUSSINO, he would have immediately commenced a legal action against the attacking party for defamation as he has done in the past when something was said that he did not agree with..
      It all depends on who is the accuser and who is being accused.

      I am sure that Dr Landos would not waste his time taking legal action as the other party would but then he is a bit more tolerant of criticism by others, especially others who do not want to accept the truth or have the real situation revealed because it demonstrates the real science of what has been perpetrated in Gladstone harbour and not the sanitised propaganda that is now the case.

      Delete
  35. It is amazing what the Observer will do to help the GPC cover their bums. When I came home from town this afternoon I went into the online to read again the BS that was being offered there. Most of the matters concerning the Gladstone debacle and statements trying to discredit the Landos Report that are put out mainly in the online version because of the very limited number of people who access the Observer online had mysteriously disappeared. (Bet the GPC breathed a sigh of relief and offered thanks)
    Surprise, surprise, They appear to have been taken down with the exception of one article concerning Leo Zussino where the Newspaper claim that "comments" by Zussino were "INTERPRETED" by the Observer' as being comments criticising the funding behind the Landos report. Was a retraction required here and this is it.

    Why will the Observer not PRINT IN THE NEWSPAPER the whole story and print in full the stories that they withhold so as not to embarrass the GPC ?.
    Why does this paper continue to print only the edited, sanitised reports by the GPC and not the opinions and reports by very credible and eminent experts in the field ?
    What does the GPC have to hide if they are not prepared to have the full truth and all aspects and both sides of the problem printed for all to see ?.

    When are they going to open all of the so called reports to the public view, not just the sanitised and edited versions that must take many hours in some cases to get the report reading the way that they want the public to perceive their versions of events or are there no original versions left, just the BS that is generated in the offices of the GPC.

    More importantly, how did so few get so much power to trample over everybody and by what means was that authority obtained and who was responsible for it's being conferred onto the power hungry hierarchy of the GPC (and other Port Authorities up the coast of Queensland) ?.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Peter they are back up this morning. Maybe they were doing some maintenance. The woman doing the online editing seems much fairer now than previous biased monitoring but I suppose the editor still has ultimate control on deciding what articles allow comment (none allowed on the Zussino statements which does not surprise). It is great to see Matt Landos actually answering some of the BS comments and explaining his work and results which the main reports omitted. It is also worth watching the video interview where he hit every curve ball the reporter tried to toss at him. Can be accessed on the original article link here http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/report-accuses-dredges/1706828/
    Also some very interesting comments on this article http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/harbour-situation-should-never-happen-again-scient/1707667/
    Some from me and I believe, Rangi, while one commenter from "Rockhampton" seems to hold very similar views to one we knew well on another website. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  37. An excellent video from Planet Hope shows Gladstone is still very much in international focus along with Abbott Point but that was too much for narrow minds on another site to realise something that really is news and attracts international readers (Gladstone comes in about half way thru)
    http://www.france24.com/en/20130101-planet-hope-australia-coal-great-barrier-reef-coral-environment-energy-gladstone-port-exports

    ReplyDelete
  38. All sites relating to the Harbour once again have a statement at the bottom advising that they are now closed.
    Must be getting too much support for the non GPC camp. The GPC and it's management are not used to being subjected to the truth and because they can't handle the truth, their Friends at the newspaper assist by closing down all discussions when they look like going against them and embarrassing them.
    It certainly is good to have friends who will cover for you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Also, have you noticed Peter that none of their articles actually quote anything in detail from the Landos report - the basis of the whole serioes they have started then closed down? They ran a few paragraphs from the report conclusions in one story but that is all. Bloody pathetic journalism if ever I saw an example of that. Then they go running off to Leo Z, Fisheries Dept, Col Limpus (DEHP scientist) and anyoine who wants to take a shot at his findings most of which remain unreported by them. This article today obviously lifted from the Rocky Morning Bulletin, again tries to exonerate dredging, does not mention any of Dr Landos' findings, and contains the usual BS from Jeff Seeney blaming the floods "one year ago". He can't even count, they were two years ago but still being blamed! Unbelievable http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/wide-ranging-approach-needed-keep-reef-dying/1713938/

    ReplyDelete
  40. Excellent news for Gladstone. In the Observer today it is reported that Newman in going to fix the water in Gladstone Harbour in the next 6 months. Has he asked his boss Seeney if he can do this ?. (no pun intended) Seeney will be furious if he was not consulted first because he is backing the move to have the 1,000 square kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area removed from the protection of the World Heritage listing so that Curtis Island can be fully declared for industrial use. One third of he GBRWHA listed Curtis Island is already committed for industry by the Gladstone Ports Corporation in spite of the World Heritage listing. .
    How is it possible to fix the sewer (AKA harbour) when the dredging is still ongoing and will be for another 2 or 3 years if they proceed with dredging a new channel and keep churning the water in the harbour up 24 hours a day life a mixmaster.

    The GPC claim that there are more than 700 vessel crossings a day between the mainland and Curtis Island.
    Even if dredging was to cease, the water would not have a chance to settle and the construction has only just begun on one LNG plant yet. 700 vessels a day will keep the water well churned up in this enclosed place. What will happen when they start the rest of the LNG plants and the daily vessel count will probably run into the thousands a day in the harbour.

    It will be unsafe for vessels of any size to travel in the harbour. They are not all small vessels either. Many of the ferries are as large or bigger than some used in Sydney Harbour or Brisbane River. Then there are the barges and larger vessels carrying the components to the Island to build the LNG plants.
    The sad thing is that these LNG plants are manufactured almost totally overseas and transported here "flat pack"

    The Australian industries are getting very little out of the building of the LNG plants because they can get them built much cheaper in low income countries. It can only be hoped that the cheaper labour does not mean lower quality of the components for the LNG plants.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Some very interesting comments in The Observer on line lately, including some great rebuttals from Dr Matt Landos to the likes of 'Bill Burrows of Emu Park' and his repetitive harping about satellite images and silt plumes in Keppel Bay. A very familiar furphy for those familiar with the ramblings of a desk top expert on another site.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2013/01/16/australia-king-tides-inundate-fitzroy-delta-terminals/

    J M might have already posted this link. If not this is the Fitzroy Delta and where the Gladstone Ports Corporation is going to build 2 very large new coal ports.

    This is proof of the stupidity of this Government Corporation and how they do not have a clue in relation to proper planning and surveys.

    This mess will probably be worse than the Gladstone shamozel which was given the same sort of considerations by the GPC as they are giving here.

    They do not know and do not care what is destroyed as long as the executive of the GPC get their names in the paper and make their mark in history in the name of greed and ego's on steroids.

    This area in this link is part of the 1,000 square kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area that they are intending removing from the World Heritage Listing because the World Heritage Listing is the only protection this very important ecosystem has since they removed the GBRMarine Park listing and moved it out to sea so that they could do what they are intending here.

    It is to be hoped that UNESCO will be strong enough to stop them from destroying all of this area.

    To dredge and fill this entire area to a height above the flood and tide lines will require probably twice what they have, and are continuing to dump into Gladstone harbour.

    Where is the sanity in what these idiots are doing. There certainly has been no sanity shown so far with the GPC and their Govt comrades still saying that that dirty sewer of a waterway in the harbour and all of the dredging has absolutely no effects on the waterways.

    They still claim that the flood 2 years ago are the cause of fish and marine health.
    They claim that the recently released "report" by the GPC and Govt gives Gladstone Harbour a clean bill of health and that the numbers of sick fish , crabs, prawns and marine animals in receding. Of course the numbers are receding, it is not necessarily that numbers are receding so much as most of the fish, crabs, prawns and marine animals have DIED.

    A well respected gladstone identity who used to fish weekly has told me that he has not caught a decent fish in months.
    From good healthy catches before the dredging started to nothing that can be eaten now and they claim that this is a clean bill of health for the harbour. Boy!!! I would hate to see the harbour if it was ever declared bad by the GPC.

    Sometimes is surprises that they are able to make over 700 vessel crossings a day without bogging their vessels in the sewerage created by the dredges.

    A pre-requisite of employment by GPC should be an IQ test and an eye test to determine if the applicants are suitable for the job.........If you had the IQ of a peanut and are completely blind you would be highly qualified for the job.

    They remind me of a skit I saw on TV once when a supposedly blind man got into a car, wound down the drivers window and proceeded to drive off with his arm out the window holding a white cane feeling his way as he drove.

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/independent-report-gladstone-harbour-misses-un-dea/1723737/

    Observer article showing the beautiful filthy Gladstone mHarbour that was given a clean bill of health by the GPC and the Govt this week.
    How can they honestly say that the dredging has nothing to do with this sewer and how can they say that this water is clear and clean and in no way contributes to the fish and marine health problems in Gladstone Harbour and is in no way a danger to marine or human health.
    Less than 3 years ago this was pristine blue clear water teeming with Marine animals such as dugong, dolphins and turtles in very large numbers.
    The Area in the centre of the photograph is the 6 square kilometres of bund area that was built over the seagrass beds that were the principle food source for the dugong, turtles and other marine life and fish. Now this 6 square kilometres of mud filled dam is to be filled to a height of up to 50 metres above the waterline according to the GPC material produced to show us how wonderful they are.
    They take us for complete blithering idiots who they think will believe anything that they try to ram down our throats.
    The blithering idiots are the ones who still argue today that the mess and disease in the harbour is caused by floods 2 years ago and not dredging.
    Helping to keep the muck suspended in the area in the photo is the more that 700 vessel crossings across the harbour every day (GPC figures) many of which are large ferries similar to those used in Brisbane River and Sydney harbour and the barges that bring the components for the LNG plants from overseas where just about every component on the LNG plants is manufactured. Australian Industries get nothing out of the construction of these LNG plants because they are brought in "flat pack" and assembled mostly by foreign workers.

    The entire mud hole in the above photos and the LNG plants on Curtis Island are all totally within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and they forgot to tell UNESCO that they have ripped the guts out of Curtis Island and the Marine environment within the GBRWHA.
    They were ordered to prepare a report by UNESCO on the GBRWHA here but have postponed starting on the report until after the World Heritage Commission meets to discuss the report that was supposed to be prepared and presented this year.
    More dirty tricks and hiding of the real facts relating to the destruction of the GBRWHA but GPC could not lie straight in bed and both Federal and State Governments are assisting them to destroy the GBR and condoning the destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And as Qld's Environment Minister Andrew Powell said, the collated reports he released showed there was nothing wrong with the water quality and dredging was not contribnuting to fish or human ill-health but measures were being taken to improve the water quality...
    Er, how's that for double talk?
    Meanwehile my article on serious health concerns over Gladstone oysters was published in Saturday's Queensland Telegraph and in the Great Barrier Reef Blog. Will post on main home page.

    ReplyDelete

  45. In view of what has been revealed this week, it would be interesting to know if the conditions on approvals in the Harbour given to the LNG and coal proponents and the GPC received the same attention to the conditions as the approvals given in the gas fields where it was revealed in the last week that one Public Servant was given 3 days to formulate the hundreds of "conditions" imposed on the approvals which were granted in as little time as a couple of weeks to the CSG proponents. In a matter of less than a month the LNG approvals were given with these bodgy approvals.

    It is not unreasonable to suggest that the actual approvals given in Gladstone to the LNG proponents would have been done on the same "3 days to formulate hundreds of conditions by one Public Servant" basis as was the case in the gas fields, especially when it is a fact that they are the very same LNG companies at both ends of the CSG/LNG trail.

    This would certainly explain why there is such a mess here (and along the full length of the LNG trail).

    When I questioned in Jan 2009 why the LNG was being forced onto us without the proper studies and considerations being carried out to determine the result of what they were proposing the CEO of the GPC immediately started legal action for defamation against me to shut me up. To this day he has refused to carry through with the legal action and refuses to put the matter before a Court for determination.
    As long as there is a Legal action pending, other persons wanting to comment and make public disclosure of what is going on are prevented from doing so because of a "LEGAL ACTION PENDING"

    It is all becoming clear now that the same rules were possibly being applied to short circuit the whole approval process in an open and transparent manner.
    If the approvals for the development of the LNG and Gladstone Port were in fact done on the same basis, this would totally explain why we are in the mess that we are in. It would be impossible to formulate hundreds of conditions for any proposal in 3 days let alone 6 months and so the conditions should be declared null and void. They are a lie and a sham

    The CMC is supposed to have been called on to investigate the way that approvals were granted in just a couple of weeks and the hundreds of conditions were formulated in 3 days by one Public Servant under instruction of the Bligh Govt as was reported in the national Press.

    The Premier (Newman) stated himself that if another person had not referred the matter to the CMC, he would have done so himself. Lets hope that the Premier now follows through and gets to the bottom of the whole dirty business.

    The CMC should also be called on to extend their inquiry into the Gladstone Harbour end of the CSG/LNG fiasco because it is the same companies running the dishonest show at both ends and it is quite apparent that we are being denied the truth in the matter by the present GPC administration.

    Is there any relevance in the CEO of the GPC being given his marching orders right now just as the CMC are called on to hold an inquiry into the CSG/LNG dealings and approvals???

    ReplyDelete
  46. There was also a delegation to Canberra representing Australians for Animals and an independent scientist which highlighted some serious deficiencies in the environmental process at Gladstone. They took submissions to the Environment Minister and other top level politicians. the same week as the non- renewal of the GPC CEO's contract was announced. See the articles in today's Weekend Australian. The pressure is on and the truth will out. Here is a bit from one of the articles:
    FROM the air, Gladstone Harbour is like a giant bloom of brown tea, swirling out to sea following another bout of flooding rains. Along the foreshore sits Queensland's biggest coal-fired power station, the nation's biggest cement works, the world's second-biggest alumina refinery and the world's fifth-largest coal export facility, which is being duplicated on an adjoining bank.
    Muddying the waters further, cutter-suction dredges are refashioning the harbour floor as part of a $33 billion project to make Gladstone the export hub for Queensland's burgeoning coal-seam gas export business.
    Curtis Island, where work is under way on three liquefied natural gas processing plants, with another yet to begin, is the head of the octopus.
    On the mainland, the CSG industry is causing widespread community concern as thousands of wells are drilled to feed a network of pipes that will snake their way to Gladstone. Concerns on the land are fuelled by the potential impact that CSG production and exploration may have on underground water supplies.
    In Gladstone Harbour, environmental concerns centre on the impact of what is taking place right before the eye. Gladstone may be a long-established industrial port but construction of the LNG projects has supercharged activity in the harbour, where the number of commercial boat movements has exploded to more than 20,000 a month.
    A mass outbreak of fish disease has captured world attention, but scientific reports split on whether it was caused by dredging or floodwaters. The visible evidence in Gladstone, however, is of a waterway clearly under stress....

    ReplyDelete
  47. The one thing that everybody has forgotten is that once the LNG establishments are up and running, the harbour will never see night time again. There will be so many lights illuminating the harbour that there will forever be daytime and that alone could cause more damage to the health of the harbour and the Marine life in the harbour than the actual dredging and disruption by the thousands of vessels that will be using the harbour because it will be forever.

    Day/Night cycles are imperative to the life cycles of every creature and plant. Even the smartest humans cannot exist without going through these cycles.
    Marine life depends on the cycles of Day/Night and it is critical for plant life to experience the Day /Night cycles.
    All animals also need to experience this Day /Night cycle to survive

    The sea grass is claimed to be suffering because the light source has been removed by silt from flooding and dredging. If the silt problem is removed, the sea grass will recover. That is because natural photosynthesis is once again allowed to occur. Take away the covering of silt that prevents light from getting to the sea grass and replace it with permanent light and the result will not only be as bad but will be worse because it will be permanent and night cycles will never be able to happen again. THIS IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO MUCH OF THE MARINE LIFE and it can never be fixed because they can't turn the lights off at night..

    Permanent daylight will probably destroy any seagrass that does survive the onslaught of the damage wreaked on the harbour because as with all plant life it can't exist without the Day/Night cycle.

    As an example of how the Day/Night cycle affects plant growth, if you have ever seen a flower farm that has lights illuminating all of their flower beds and wondered why, the answer is simple. PHOTOSYNTHESIS, The Day/Night cycle.

    The flower plants are flooded with light to prevent the plants from going into the "night time "portion of the cycle and so they can prevent the flowers from opening for quite a considerable time until they want to harvest them. When they are ready to harvest, they simply turn the lights off and let nature run it's course and the Day/Night cycle does it's job and the flowers open right on time for Mothers day or Valentines day or whatever.

    To have the harbour completely flooded with light as the GPC and LNG proponents claim will happen will most surely disrupt the growth of marine plants within the harbour.

    I have never seen any studies on Mangrove forests permanently exposed to light but I have no doubt that it would have to have a serious effect on the Mangroves because they are living plants and all living plants require the same access to Day/Night cycle to survive.

    At least the marine animals can move out of the light but Plant life can't so are we possibly condemning the harbour to a sure and permanent demise?.

    Even now the now defunct CEO of the GPC is claiming that the dredging and dumping in the harbour are in no way affecting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and it's marine life and he is correct in that statement because some years back they moved the boundary of the GBRMP out to sea beyond Curtis Island so that they could inflict the damage that they have done.
    This relocation of the boundary included a big arrow headed shaped boundary that took it out into the edge of the GBR so that they could dump dredge spoil onto the edge of the reef and claim that it was not within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I exceeded the maximum amount of characters and did not get all in so I am adding some more here now.

      The CEO of the GPC is adamant that the dredging, dumping of the spoil and massive destruction by the LNG proponents is not within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
      Technically this is correct because some years ago they moved the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park out beyond Curtis Island with the big arrow head shaped portion right out into the edge of the GBR so that they could do what they are now doing and to allow dredge spoil dumping onto the edge of the Reef.
      THE BOUNDARY THAT WAS REMOVED WAS THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK boundary NOT THE GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA boundary.
      The GBRMP zoning is a lesser zoning than the GBRWHA zoning. The CEO of the GPC refuses to acknowledge the GBRWHA, only the GBRMP.
      The GBRMP in the Gladstone region is out to sea beyond Curtis Island and the description on the Australian Govt, Great Barrier Reef General Reference Map of the GBRMP states that: The GBRMP, EXCLUDES QUEENSLAND OWNED ISLANDS, INTERNAL WATERS OF QUEENSLAND AND SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS. By it's own definition it seems that it does not exist because take away the seas, islands, internal waters and submerged lands and there is nothing left to call a Marine Park.

      On the same Australian Govt reference map the GBRWHA states that it: EXTENDS FROM THE LOW WATER MARK OF THE MAINLAND AND INCLUDES ALL ISLANDS, INTERNAL WATERS OF QUEENSLAND AND SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS. This puts the total area that has been destroyed in Gladstone fully within the GBRWHA but the CEO refuses to accept this. This is the reason why the GPC and State Govt are attempting to have 1,000 SQUARE KILOMETRES of the GBRWHA removed from the protection of the World Heritage Listing in the Gladstone region alone.
      The LNG companies state that they are not within the GBRMP but like the GPC refuse to acknowledge that their operations and areas that have been destroyed are totally within the GBRWHA. They base this on what the GPC have told them.

      The GPC has stated that one third of the GBRWHA listed , Curtis Island is already committed to Industry.
      It is time for an inquiry into the actions taken by the GPC and previous Govt in approving all of this without so much as notifying UNESCO that they were destroying many thousand hectares of the GBRWHA.

      Delete
  48. The currents will float it into the marine park for sure Peter despite what the soon to be ex CEO and the Walking Wikipedia on another site tried to tell us. Currents move out right to the reef islands such as Masthead and Polmaise Reef. You can see them on the ACORN/ IMOS radar website.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mikko, it's the natural floods!
    I wonder how coral has ever survived.
    Must be natural survival.
    Nothing to do with nutrient pollution!
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-05/coral-flood-recovery-to-take-decades/4553676

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Barrier Reef is going to have a hard time getting over the latest floods for many reasons.
      One of those reasons lies in the fact that all trees cut down for road making of clearing for industries (such as the 40,000 Ha Gladstone State Development Area) cannot be cut up for timber anymore and are now required to be mulched and left on the ground where they are removed from.

      There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of these trees left on the ground after mulching and when there is high volumes of rain the relatively small mulch produced will inevitably find it's way into the streams and rivers and be washed down to the sea.

      Another worrying problem that will cause massive nutrient overloads on the reef and coastal waters is the massive piles of Amonium Nitrate that are stored at Bajool, south of Rockhampton.

      There are tens of thousands of tonnes of Amonium Nitrate (used as an explosive and also used as a fertiliser) lying out in paddocks, a couple of hundred metres from the Bruce Goat Track (AKA Highway) with a creek that borders the properties that runs just a nvery few Kms down into Port Alma and the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay.

      With the massive amount of Amonium Nitrate stored there and with the exceptional rains that have been experienced of late there must surely be a considerable amount washed down the creek, which was flooded to a depth well above the Bruce Goat Track.

      This Amonium Nitrate is stored in "Field Silo's" which are simply tarpaulins laid out on the ground , the product piled in big heaps on the trap and then covered with another tarpaulin. This type of storage is widely used for grain storage in grain growing areas as a short term storage because of the vast quantities harvested.

      The 2010 Google map (the latest available) shows approximately 50 "field silos" plus 2 massive "igloos" and many containers, plus there is storage hoppers for amonium nitrate emulsion (used in explosives).

      In handling the Amonium Nitrate a fairly large amount would be spilled by the front end loaders piling the product and removing for loading onto trucks.

      This explosive/fertiliser would surely wash into the creek that runs along the southern side of the stockpile site when it rains and be washed the short distance down the creek to the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay.
      This then would have the potential to cause algal bloom and affect the GBR.
      They are intending increasing the volume stored there by massive amounts (against the wishes of the people)

      About 2 years ago one of the hoppers of amonium nitrate had a bearing overheat and malfunction in it's conveyor system that had actually caused the hopper to start to emit vapours. Vapour can explode very readily and there was a worry that this would happen The Highway was closed for hours several Kms to the north and south and they were preparing to evacuate the entire township and surrounding properties in case it exploded.

      It was revealed at the time that if it had in fact exploded it would have blown out windows in Rockhampton which is 37.6 kilometres away to the north.

      With the massive amount there, one silo would have been sufficient to create an explosion of that magnitude and this facility is right on the Bruce Goat Track with the storage only a couple of hundred metres from the highway.

      Delete
  50. Hey John CF great to see you back! There are several other discussions involving Gladstone Harbour on the main home page (see archive lists on right hand side). And Peter those are very interesting observations - not exonerating dredging from damage and nutrient suspension at all, but adding some serious new dimensions to the equation. Will pass comment link on to Rangi Faulder and Matt Landos.
    Cheers
    JohnM

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks Mikko.
    I agree about Peter's observation and serious new dimentions.

    Flooding this year must have scoured the newly excavated estuary seabed at Gladstone and spewed massive loadings of nutrients into the GBR lagoon. Standing back and looking at the big picture it appears the whole GBR lagoon would have to be impacted in some way from so much almost daily excavation and dumping in those southern GBR waters that flow north.
    Divers on the GBR at least with long term experience are aware low visibility water in the GBR lagoon exists the lagoon near Cape York. Meanwhile the nutrients proliferate algae, or does BS science claim that does not happen?

    Imagine a nutrient and algae inundated GBR lagoon. Recent and present days of weather synoptics of the cyclone developing are interesting.

    There is mention of the present situation here:
    http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14762&page=2

    ReplyDelete
  52. True, JohnCF. And there is another article on the main home page archive here showing how the Gladstone Ports Corporation resumed dredging at the day the record Australia Day flood peaked at 8.3 metres over the Awoonga Dam Spillway (houses were being flooded and boats washed away but it was ok to dredge. Since then we have had more heavy rain, more muddy run-off and still they dredge. Under the new light monitoring to "protect" seagrass it seems turbidity will never be enough to stop dredging now. (The GPC says its "flocculation" and tannin from the fresh water that is making the harbour appear muddy.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could well believe that there is a problem with tannin because the thousands of tonnes of wood chips that are left all along the Highway by the MRD and the wood chips that are left out in paddocks when they clear the industrial sites would be running into the enclosed waters of the harbour when it rains and it would be like a big tea pot drawing the tannin out of the ships and bark , probably long after the waters have subsided.
      They are not supposed to dispose of the chips created because they are supposed to stay where the trees were felled.
      Sometimes when there is too much they let people take some home to put on their gardens.
      Which ever way you look at it the chips and the tannins that come from them will find their way into the creeks and rivers and then into the sea.

      There is a really big "tea bag" site in Gladstone. It is called "ash pond 7". recently they had trucks carting wood chips into the site for weeks and dumped thousands of tonnes of wood chips, piled up right around the entire perimeter of the site, fronting the creek. This of course was probably to supplement the arsenic that leaches out of the fly ash that the island is made entirely of.

      Delete
  53. Maybe so Peter but there is still the mud run-off and the toxic dredge silt plumes that would also be smothering any remaining seagrass. You can bet if the remaining seagrass disappears or diminishes at the next inspection they will blame the floods, not dredging even tho we know the plumes travel 35km from the dredging.
    I don't know how dangerous tannin is to marine life. There are creeks which run naturally brown thru tea tree forests but I don't think that kills the fish. The Elliott River near Bundaberg is a very good example - not a big stream but it flows thru wallum scrub and the fresh water reaches are always like a pot of tea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tannin might not kill the fish but it can certainly cloud the water and give the GPC an excuse for why the turbidity is so bad at times but if they cannot tell if it just tannin or silt they should stop dredging until they can establish exactly what is clouding the water. But then they may be saying that it is only tannin and not dredge silt and justify proceeding with dredging when they know all of the time that it is silt not tannin that is the problem and as such they proceed with their dirty dredging while feeding us with more BS about how clean it is.

      Delete
  54. From my saddle repair sewing days in the outback I believe tannin for tanning leather contains acid. I wonder if such acid is being counted in the CO2 carbonic acid nonsense involving GBR ETS carbon pricing BS.

    Apparently timber waste/bark develops a bacteria dangerous to humans. In any case bacteria produces nutrients. Nutrient loadings from all causes and sources should be measured concerning nutrient pollution.

    At end of the day nutrient fed algae can be seen and examined on seagrass leaf including on damaged and dead leaf. Not rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Be sure it's not chewing gum residue being dumped from Gladstone into the GBR ecosystem. Its unprecedented nutrient pollution.
    With more than a year for a significant build up of nutrients and warmth retaining algae to occur, that dumping coincides with unprecedented weather in the region.

    (maybe cut and paste the following link)

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/forecasters-uncertain-of-cyclones-path-20130307-2fme3.html#ixzz2MqIOHbsJ

    ReplyDelete
  56. Here is my article in the Queensland Telegraph and Great Barrier Reef Blog today - CPC takes on The Australian for reporting what is happening:
    http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/gladstone-lng-development-controversy-continues/
    GPC takes on national newspaper over latest environmental claims
    By John Mikkelsen
    GLADSTONE Ports Corporation has fired the latest salvo in a continuing controversy over claimed environmental breaches by lodging a Press Council complaint against a national newspaper.
    A federal probe was launched recently following a series of reports in The Australian, but the GPC hit back last week confirming it was lodging a complaint with the Australian Press Council against the newspaper for “misleading and false allegations”.
    This involved four articles claiming GPC had committed a number of breaches in its conduct of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (WBDDP) including audit and approval conditions. These claims were strongly denied by the GPC.
    CEO Leo Zussino said the corporation had taken offence to the claims and to the newspaper’s reluctance to publicly apologise.
    “The allegations have caused wide spread damage to the GPC’s reputation and are offensive to every GPC employee/contractor who has acted with complete integrity and honesty during the WBDDP,” he said.
    Meanwhile, the federal Environment Department has confirmed it did not consider the GPC had breached the approval conditions relating to independent audits and annual compliance report for the Western Basin project.
    “While no breach has been identified in relation to these conditions, the department is looking into a number of other matters related to the impact of dredging within Gladstone Harbour,” it said.
    And Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke said an independent audit of the Gladstone project may be ordered following a report by a new independent scientific panel.
    “When you have a project as environmentally and scientifically controversial as this one, ordinarily you would have an independent audit,” Mr Burke said.
    “But because we have established an independent panel, we will wait for the recommendations of that panel before making a decision”.
    One of the reports by The Australian had also claimed that companies involved in the $33 billion expansion of Gladstone Harbour were allowed to self-assess whether they were meeting the hundreds of environmental conditions to operate in the World Heritage area.
    Environment group Australians for Animals said it was considering legal action to force independent reviews. Coordinator Sue Arnold said self-assessment was at odds with undertakings given to the World Heritage Committee that “project approvals will reflect best-practice standards”.
    “The Gladstone development is the world’s largest LNG terminal currently under construction in a World Heritage area and involves the largest dredging operation in Australia and the future survival of a number of species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act,” she said
    Ms Arnold and aquatic disease specialist Dr Matt Landos, led the call for a probe into the ports corporation’s environmental record during a recent high level delegation to Canberra.
    She said dolphin strandings around Curtis Island had increased by five times and research by Southern Cross University PHD student Daniel Cagnazzi indicated a significant drop in harbour dolphin numbers.
    “We were aware quite some time ago there were major problems, 35 per cent of dolphins have disappeared from Curtis Island.
    “A second major shipping channel is in the works, if this is given the go ahead by the government, I don’t think there is any possibility these dolphins will survive…” Ms Arnold said.
    Dr Landos, who recently released a detailed scientific report pointing to the major Western Basin dredging project as the most likely cause of continuing disease in fish and other marine life, told The Telegraph that “the red alert has been ringing since May 2011 that this harbour development was a colossal disaster”.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Correction required: (TIC but true)
    Gladstone is in the Great Barrier Reef and SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem, it's not just a development in Gladstone Harbour.
    Consider the big picture because that is where the nutrient load and other pollution is also going and causing damage, adding to the total impact and consequences.
    I will start buying The Australian. It's good to hear a newspaper is again being fairdinkum. Attention Kim Williams.
    Development company self-assessment of environment conditions would likely exclude assessment of key negative indicators. The GPC is surely aware of that.
    The GPC was surely linked to estuary excavation at the port of Southport for super yachts. That excavation with re-suspension of sediment was followed by about a 40 sq km loss of seagrass at the Amity Banks RAMSAR site. That seagrass loss was then followed by mass starvation of mutton birds along coast all the way to South Australia and around Tasmania.
    Samples of the Southport sediment on Surfers Paradise beach were taken. I handed some to an EPA officer and scientist together but I was later told those samples have gone missing. I think relevant paperwork would be missing too, shredded.
    The GPC must surely have known of nutrient pollution at Southport, yet present Gladstone estuary excavation environment conditions exclude nutrient measuring compliance that should be required.
    I would like to be a fly on the wall when insurance companies realize increased nutrients and increased nutrient proliferated algae is linked to increased water vapour and humidity and increased storm severity, damage and payouts.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rest assured that UNESCO will,be keeping a close eye on latest developments JohnCF and they will be very aware that it is not just a localised problem, as claimed by some vocal know-alls on that 'other site' which people left in droves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UNESCO must have it's hands tied for such a damaging project to even be approved and put underway.
      The IUCN is there too and is associated with James Cook Uni yet all this damage is happening on their watch.
      I understand the IUCN only started looking at seagrass ecosystems last year (2012).
      CO2 tax - emissions trading schemes have been taking up vital research time and resources while nutrient loadings from all sources amounting to pollution and damage and consequences have been ignored.
      I am not so sure they are yet looking at the whole picture.
      There is no captain on the ship, no focus, no course of action, no plan toward solutions.
      It even looks to me like they are still building the ship nail by nail one nail a day one day after the other year after year.
      Meanwhile damage is causing damage, compounding.

      Delete
  59. It kind of makes you wonder if there will ever be a proper resolution to the destruction of the GBRWHA when you consider that the Australian administrators of UNESCO and the IUCN operate out of the office of Minister Burke in Canberra.

    It was the IUCN that arranged and facilitated the UNESCO visit last year and I made much mention at the time as to whether we would get a fair shake with the UNESCO team visit because it was all orchestrated from Burke's office in Canberra.
    I did mention at the time that it was like putting the fox in charge of the chickens.

    What was puzzling was that UNESCO claimed that they knew nothing of what was happening in Gladstone but their office is Burkes Department and so would be under his control.

    I found it hard to believe then (and still do) that with Burke running around approving so much destruction of the GBRWHA and UNESCO operating out of his department that they were not told anything at all.

    I personally had been informing UNESCO for at least 2 years of what was being forced on to us and the destruction being wrought but it was only in later days that they acknowledged the problem and decided to come and see for themselves.
    I know for a fact that others were also passing information on to UNESCO who rarely answered correspondence at that time.

    We can only hope that the people running UNESCO are strong enough see past the smoke screen and to put Burke, the Australian Govt and the GPC in their place.

    It was almost impossible to get a decent audience with UNESCO when they were here and I speculated that this was probably because of where the UNESCO tour was actually formulated, (In Burke's Department) and they weren't about to bucket themselves.

    Initially they did not even want the UNESCO deputation to fly over Curtis Island but they lost out on that one and countered by keeping the deputation in North Queensland for the bulk of the time that they were in Australia.

    JC's observation that there is no Captain on the ship, no focus, no course of action and no plan towards solutions would probably have something to do with the whole box and dice being rum from Burke's department.
    This is also probably why they defied UNESCO and failed to deliver the goods on the GBR studies and investigations.
    They will stuff around forever because they will not admit their collusion in holding the information back.

    ReplyDelete
  60. OK but if you haven't read the UNESCO delegates report following their visit it would still be worthwhile as it was adopted in full at the subsequent international committee meeting in St Petersburg and it contained some very scathing criticism of the the projects, the GPC, EIS approvals, threat to the World Heritage Area and Reef etc. Their call for a proper investigation into Gladstone harbour developments has only recently been acted on by Burke and his report from this new scientific panel won't be ready in time for the UNESCO deadline.
    I'm not detracting from what you John CF and Peter are saying and that you have previously contacted UNESCO but do you know if your concerns were directed to the right people. Dr Fanny Douvere, one of the delegates who visited, is being kept informed of the latest developments from more than one source including some with FOI documents so I am optimistic there could be some real action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of my correspondence went to FannyDouvere@ unesco.org, F.Jing@unesco.org, k.rao@unesco.org and
      wh-support@unesco.org. and much of it was also sent to Penelope Figgis so it should have gone to the right people.
      Anything that I still send goes to all of these still.

      Delete
  61. UNESCO seems kept in the dark about the real state of the marine environment at least in Australian waters. The UNESCO delegates report you refer to Mikko, may have been adopted in full, but content of the report was likely not full. I think that report would be lacking evidence and content about the real already devastated state of the marine environment. For example the first SOMER (State of the Marine Environment Report) (Zann), measured seagrass loss at 50% on the NSW coast but the loss on the Queensland coast (and generally elsewhere) has not been measured.
    I put it this way.
    If any responsible authority knew how devastated the state the marine environment is already now in, there is no way Gladstone seagrass could be touched let alone destroyed on purpose as it is being.
    Australia is importing 70% of it's seafood including to feed aquaculture. Ask older people where the flocks of feeding seabirds have gone. Seven dead whales on Fraser Island during a recent 2 year period, plus elsewhere on Australia's coast, plus malnutrition amongst Pacific Island seafood dependent people, should be ringing huge alarm bells.
    But it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  62. OK but let's see what happens. You two may be right but the delegates' report was certainly not favourable to the developments and EIS processes so unlikely to have been swayed by any influence from Burke's department. If it all amounts to nothing, you are right but I'm prepared to give them the chance to take some action. I totally agree about the loss of seagrass which can't be adequately offset and which most people don't realise the significance of. It's not like grass growing in a cow or sheep paddock which will thrive after the next shower.

    ReplyDelete
  63. UNESCO don't seem to be backing off and I for one hope that they can bring enough pressure to bear to get a decent result.
    The "Offset" that the GPC have allocated is totally unacceptable.

    How can a dirty big mud flat tucked in behind Balaclava Island possibly be called an "offset" for all of the seagrass and destruction in Gladstone. This mudflat doesn't even grow mangrove for much of it.

    An offset is when you create something that is equal to and replaces something that is being destroyed, without destroying something else to do so.. I don't think that a mud flat that is totally out of water except in very high tides will grow seagrass and I think that there would be some difficulty in teaching the dugong, dolphins and other marine animals and fish to adapt to a land based "offset"

    Perhaps the GPC knows more than everybody else and they really are God and that they really can create a miracle of evolution with these creatures.

    The GPC is still trying to convince us that we are so stupid that we should perhaps turn ourselves in to a funny farm.

    They are so stupid with their remarks and claims about the sick harbour that perhaps they need counselling. It is hard to believe that so much power can be vested in so few people who's only goal is greed and ego.

    Why won't the Governments at both levels listen to the will of the people just for once. The distressing thing is that in the State Arena now the defacto Premier (and chief string puller), Seeney is determined to let the GPC do as they wish and is actually actively supporting the Labor administration in the GPC to destroy more.

    The new Chairman has done nothing to call them in so we can only assume that he too agrees with the destruction of the GBRWHA and if the person rumoured to possibly replace Zussion actually gets the job, it will probably get worse..

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think biologically and socially illiterate greedy arrogant economists are dictating policy and development. One that comes to mind is the CO2 advocate who dumps gold mine waste into the sea.
    I agree with you Mikko. But time should not be wasted waiting for outcome of an incomplete under-informed report whether from UNESCO or local fishermen.
    You know what is going on at Gladstone and that it is being allowed to go on, all licensed and approved.
    Surely there are grounds for a Royal Commission.
    Instead, government trying to censor media.


    ReplyDelete
  65. Bowen is also in GBR waters. Too bad for fishing and tourism.
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2013/s3716569.htm

    ReplyDelete
  66. Algae at any rate is getting into ABC news, this time due to CO2 according to climate change modelling and 'excellent' science.
    I wonder if such science can assess and quantify how much algae is due to CO2 and how much is due to farm runoff and city sewage nutrient loads, an how much is from Gladstone?
    (can URL's be made active on Evacuation Grounds?) Anyway perhaps copy and paste:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/coral-study-reveals-algae-erosion-threat/4581292?section=qld

    I had not long finished response to a Jennifer Marohasy article at Online Forum about the CO2 nonsense:

    http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14817

    Nutrients from the deep new excavation in the Gladstone/GBR estuary ecosystem are being dumped into GBR waters and that action must be causing reaction of proliferating algae in GBR waters.
    So if the science is so excellent why is the destruction at Gladstone being allowed to occur and why is the resuspended nutrient load not being properly measured?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hi John CF, yes why indeed. Also, Dale has found a way to post live links, I haven't had a chance to follow it up but you should find something under the help tab in the top bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  68. They are just going to dump it. Spare a moment to copy and paste this link.
    Oh for a Ning site with Geoff Brown.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/dredging-waste-to-be-dumped-on-great-barrier-reef/4588074

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John CF,

      email me at sceptic101ATme.com and I will give you the html to make your comment links active.

      Cheers

      Geoff

      Delete
  69. Lets see if this active link works. Thanks Geoff.
    Best watch the goings on up north because it's all going into the GBR lagoon just like at Gladstone.
    Approved and all apparently.
    And Australia is already importing over 70% of fish product worth close to $2 billion annually.
    Then there is all the pro and amateur fishing jobs lost and the then unemployed on the dole at more cost annually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like a cut and paste job. Try again another time.
      I see I included the www and maybe should not have.

      http://www.abc.net.au/rural/qld/content/2013/03/s3721539.htm

      Delete
  70. Yeah I will have to try to crack it too but I've been too bloody busy with a lot happening lately. Meanwhile here is another snippet in The Observer. How many independent scientists do they want expressing concerns before they realise something is drastically wrong with what is happening here:
    http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/top-scientist-raises-wild-west-concerns/1803918/


    INTERNATIONAL marine scientist Callum Roberts has labelled Gladstone as the "Wild West of industry".
    He was astonished at the size of the Gladstone ports yesterday when he took a boat trip around the harbour with local conservation groups.
    "It has changed a huge amount since I was last here 27 years ago" he said.
    "It's an enormous port. It has been completely transformed."
    The professor, based at the University of York, warned local authorities of the environmental impacts from industry development.
    "No one knows what the future will hold as yet," he said.
    "It seems like the Wild West of industry here.
    "I have great concerns on the impact it will have on areas of astounding beauty and significance."


    ReplyDelete
  71. A new tool for Gladstone. Mikko you could try Bunnings, they might have one. I wonder what shape they are, what they look like.
    Do you think it could fix things at Gladstone, Bowen, Abbott Point etc?

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/03/26/3723262.htm

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ocean going green? Screening Saturday March 30 via CNN.
    They still have a lot to learn.
    The green at least in GBR waters is being fed by nutrients especially at present from Gladstone, soon from Abbott Point and also Bowen.
    Apologies for need to copy and past but worth it to keep up to date and aware:

    http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/programs/en/program/757/

    ReplyDelete
  73. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-01/key-information-missing-from-lng-approvals/4603026

    Don't forget to watch Four Corners tonight where a whistle blower has revealed that the CSG/LNG approvals are a farce and pre determined no matter what the EIS revealed.
    We have always known that the whole process was a fraud and here is the proof that it is.
    The thing is, will the Government have the guts to do something about it?.
    The least that should happen is to have a Royal Commission into this fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  74. If Newman and the Defacto Premier and string puller, Seeney are to retain even a shred of credibility they must immediately call for a Royal Commission into the CSG/LNG fraud.

    These are just some of the facts that support this.

    (1) The recent revelation that ONE Public Servant was ordered to formulate hundreds of conditions imposed on a GSC approval in 3 DAYS. This was subsequently approved.

    (2) There will be a whistleblower (a person involved in the actual decision making) on FOUR CORNERS tonight (1/4/13) telling how all relevant information was not before the decision makers prior to approvals being issued.
    Statement by this person: "it became apparent that the Government was going to proceed without the missing information and ask for the details AFTER the process was concluded." This is obviously what did happen. This is fraud.


    (3)Now to top it all off, we have numerous top Public Servants, many of whom were involved in the key assessment work for the CSG to LNG projects, defecting from the departments where the approvals were made and are now working on the LNG projects that their Departments approved.

    Could this be the big Payoff and reward for their help in getting the projects approved?

    The Government cannot refuse to ignore these very serious facts and there should be a Royal Commission, a Moratorium on all approvals issued so far and for the Royal Commission to determine just how intrenched in corruption and collusion the Govt, CSG/LNG Companies were and who in fact ordered the fraudulent processes to proceed.
    Criminal charges should be laid against all who knowingly participated in the fraudulent actions relating to this industry.

    At least the Govt are consistent. Consistently dishonest, underhand and not afraid to commit fraud to get what they want and this flows on down to their Corporate bodies such as the GPC and other organisations.

    IT MUST ALL STOP NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Forgot to attach the link to above contribution.
    http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/csg-firms-snap-top-public-servants-links-premier/1812472/

    ReplyDelete
  76. The news Peter N has posted above indicates evidence exists for an injunction to halt all present work causing damage to the marine environment and associated dependent industries. Those industries include pro and amateur fishing tourism and coastal community tourism.
    Do not forget the Bligh government was in place when it all began.
    Has Newman been a Labor man?
    Newman nicked the LNP leadership from Langbroek.
    The politics of it all are mind boggling.
    Newman's actions now will interesting.

    It's extraordinary they have just gone ahead and excavated the Gladstone GBR estuary ecosystem and are still dumping loads of it in GBR waters inside the bent boundary.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The number of dead dolphin is unprecedented. The answer is weeks away. Sounds like Gladstone.
    Weeks go into months, years, never, all natural.
    No mention of nitrogen from sewage outfalls.
    Has reason for animals deaths at Gladstone been determined as scientific fact as yet?

    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2013/s3732146.htm

    ReplyDelete
  78. In the early days of the LNG debacle there were small outcrops of coral within the Gladstone Harbour which there was concern for because of their ecological value.
    The locations of these coral reefs were denied by the CEO of the GPC who steadfastly maintained that the nearest coral was 40 or more Kms out to sea and that none existed within the harbour.
    I would like to now know the status of these reefs (albeit small ones) and we should be able to get a report on the state of these small reefs in view of what has been done in the harbour, if they still exist.

    Does anybody still have maps showing the locations of these reefs?

    I did previously see such maps but do not have a copy of them.

    I somehow feel that most, if not all of them have been covered with dredge spoil or dredged up.
    Any remaining would surely be covered with silt and are probably now dead.

    These small coral outcrops were an indicator of the health of the harbour and being within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area would have been highly protected.
    We need to find out what state these small reefs within the enclosed harbour is at present and where any surveys regarding them are to be found.

    It is fairly certain that they would not have established within the harbour if the harbour was not clean and healthy before the LNG debacle commenced.

    Any damage or depletion of these reefs would be a positive indication of the damage and adverse health aspects of the harbour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,
      You might have some luck finding where reefs were in the bay of Gladstone.
      Perhaps leave a few photocopies at tackle and boat shops.
      Early members of an old fishing club would have a good idea. Many had inshore dinghies and/or inshore tinnies. Bigger tinnies frequented reef even like at Heron Island
      A photocopied note could ask old timers if coral was growing in the bay.
      Tackle shops and fishing clubs might help if they can see the effort might get back seagrass and increase/regenerate natural fish populations.

      Delete
  79. If someone has already posted this, sorry I missed it. Last weekend's issue of The Weekend Australian (ie 06-07/04) carried the following brief notice on p2:
    "Mr Leo Zussino
    An article published on February 16 (Environmental 'failings' spark port probe as dolphins depart - page 1) concerned Gladstone Ports Corporation and included personal descriptions of chief executive Leo Zussino. The Australian apologises unreservedly to Mr Zussino for any distress caused by the article".

    Cheers al

    ReplyDelete
  80. Does anybody know the location or contact details of the review panel re the GBR - UNESCO inquiry taking place that the GPC is to attend?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-11/authority-keen-for-panel-to-hear-dredging-evidence/4622418

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hey Al, everyone in Gladstone knows how sensitive the CEO is so that is not surprising. I can't recall what The Australian said about him personally but the GPC did complain to the Press Council about a series of articles about environmental concerns etc.
    And JohnCF, that review panel had meetings in Gladstone this week. I think public submissions have closed but it is all being done through Burke's department so don't have much confidence of "independence".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I recall they referred to him as the Godfather of Gladstone or something similar.

      Of course it was quite different when the then CEO of the GEIDB wrote a glowing report in the Australian Financial Review about how he was MR GLADSTONE and how it was reported that there should be two sets of statistics in Australia, one for the rest of the country and one for Gladstone and how the Financial review reported that Gladstone is his Empire and it is all his domain. Then the AFR reported Beattie as saying that Gladstone had a Mayor but she is subordinate to Zussino's role because Gladstone is a Port Town and Zussino runs the Port.

      Sorta confirms what we have known all of the time, that Gladstone is being run by a one man band.
      If this official report in the AFR is correct and it all goes pear shaped at least we will know where to point the finger.

      Delete
  82. Burke's department is backed by government scientists and science for money.
    That's why Gladstone and now GBR waters are in such a mess.

    Is the enquiry being held in secret locations? If so why?

    Nobody should miss the following:

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/call-for-inquiry-as-csiro-comes-under-the-microscope-20130411-2hojm.html

    ReplyDelete
  83. For the record on this day:

    http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Heres-idea-worth-spreading-future-138801.S.231612467?qid=80e9d455-b860-439e-9342-a007c63bba3e&goback=%2Egmp_138801

    ReplyDelete
  84. Red on the under belly looks familiar. Looks to me like this shark has brushed against lyngbya cyanobacteria algae, a species of algae known to have impact on breathing.
    What killed this shark?
    Does any scientist have scientific evidence lyngbya is not present along the SE Queensland - Noosa coast waters, and/or that lyngbya does not cause red rash on marine animals.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-12/dead-shark-on-noosa-main-beach/4625072

    ReplyDelete
  85. Coastal and rural and city and town economies throughout Queensland will be impacted by the downturn in tourism caused by excavation of the GBR ecosystem at Gladstone.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-18/barrier-reef-snubbed-in-lonely-planets-top-10-dive-spots/4636868

    ReplyDelete
  86. GBRMPA and WWF and all the other BS experts are surely already aware of the danger of nutrient pollution in GBR waters. Yet Gladstone excavation of nutrient matter has not been and is not being duly measured, and in fact it's approved and licensed. Truly incredible.

    At least farmers should be happy the blame is no longer being directed solely at them. Sewage is now being reported overseas, but, not yet in Australia concerning Australian ocean water quality.

    I would like to be a fly on the wall when the penny drops about farm runoff only being able to occur during or just after rain, whereas sewage is dumped daily.

    WWF take note and correct your incorrect blame on farmers. WWF must be able to understand that nutrient fed algae is smothering coral, sometimes leading to coral bleaching following smaller dead zone areas

    Meanwhile the damage and devastation and consequences are continuing and compounding worldwide.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130418/GREEN/304180044/Kentucky-develop-water-pollution-plan-curb-dead-zone-?nclick_check=1

    ReplyDelete
  87. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/04/13/56/great-barrier-reef-in-danger-un

    This link is a very important read.
    It looks like UNESCO are actually going to carry through with their threats to have the Great Barrier Reef named as a World Heritage Site in danger, next month.

    Australia committed to the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage Site and so now whatever side of the fence you sit on the agreement must be upheld by the Australian Government if ir is to retain any semblance of credibility.

    It is obvious that the State and Federal Governments have no intention of honouring the international agreements that they committed to because they have consistently and deliberately not met deadlines for studies and reports that were in some cases due years ago but were deliberately disregarded.
    They have consistently destroyed and damaged thousands of hectares of the GBRWHA for gain and profit to the detriment of the Environmental treasure, The Great Barrier Reef, the greatest Natural Marine environment on Earth.

    Whether you like UNESCO and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area listing or not, it is the only protection that the entire Great Barrier Reef has against destruction.

    The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a sham and as they have demonstrated in the past, the Govt moves the boundaries at will to allow destruction within the Great Barrier Reef to allow whatever takes their fancy at any given time.

    The Gladstone Ports Corporation try and confuse the GBRWHA with the GBRMP which are 2 totally different titles designed to confuse because the GPC continually claim that they are not within the GBRMP, which is true but they refuse to acknowledge that every square centimetre of the destruction within the harbour, Curtis Island, The Narrows, Rodds Bay Dugong sanctuary, the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay is totally within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

    When the action is taken by UNESCO the Government have only themselves to blame for being deliberate Environmental Vandals.

    ReplyDelete
  88. (1) http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/sediment-leaks-harbour-first-time-year-gpc-says/1909543/#c608082

    (2) http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/friday-oil-spill-at-harbour-sparks-renewed-concern/1905421/


    Here we go again. The Gladstone Ports Corporation telling lies and trying to cover up again.
    This time they got caught with their pants down and could not deny photographic evidence of the massive discharge of mud into the harbour.
    The photo in the link number (1) shows 12 PIPES coming out of the side of the bund wall which would be at least 1 mtr in diameter.
    At least 4 of the lower ones are discharging full or half pipe flow . All 12 of the pipes appear to have mud discharge coming out of them in varying quantities.
    GPC claims that this is the first time this year that there has been such a discharge. If this is so, why does the harbour constantly resemble a very dirty sewerage pit. They claim in spite of the evidence that Gladstone Harbour is very clean.
    Where are they taking the readings on the water quality in the harbour?.
    Does the GPC think that they can take us for absolute fools and believe that we will swallow whatever lies they try and shove down our throats?.

    Link number (2) shows an oil spill (right in front of the GPC office) which GPC are trying to say is not oil at all but a coal slick.
    It matters not if it is oil or coal, whichever one it is constitutes a pollution spill in Gladstone Harbour that should not happen.

    Are they going to press on with the porkies about the mud spill out of the bund wall being a "once only" event that miraculously happened for the first time on Friday? Are they telling us that the flood rains that we had earlier in the year did not discharge from these pipes? If the bund didn't discharge then, where did it go and where does this mud discharge normally go?. It has to get out somewhere.
    We are beginning to see why the CEO was sacked, but will the incoming CEO be any better and will he/she release all of the records of testing and incidents in the harbour so that the people of Gladstone can see the truth for a change and not just the cover-ups.
    The disturbing thing is that the Defacto Premier,(Seeney) and the figurehead Premier (Newman) support the way that the GPC is being run and in so doing, supports the secrecy and lies that prevent the people of Gladstone from knowing the truth about the whole dirty business.
    As the Photos in the links show it literally is a very dirty business and the proof is in the photographic evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Peter, on Ch 7 local news, fisher Trevor Falzon said he had taken samples of the discharge water which had been sent for analysis. He was predicting more sick fish. If he's right we will again here "the floods did it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/concerns-over-sick-barramundi/1910910/

      John,
      It is already happening as is written in this link.

      Delete
  90. Media Release
    24 June 2013
    The Bund Wall is not leaking, ABC report incorrect and misleading..
    The Gladstone Ports Corporation would like to reassure the Gladstone and wider community that the reclamation area or bund wall in the Gladstone harbour is not leaking.
    The ABC television 7pm News on Friday 21 June reported the bund wall was leaking with images of water discharging out of the bund wall – this is incorrect.
    On Friday 14 June, a polishing pond weir box situated on the inside of the bund wall was not sealing properly and was fixed over the weekend of the 15 and 16 June.
    The ABC report and subsequent images on Friday 21 June were of a normal regulated discharge that happens every day in the Western Basin.
    To clarify, dredge soil is transported by the dredgers as a slurry of water and spoil, the spoil being retained in the reclamation and the water returned to the environment through the licensed discharge point.
    As the dredge soil is deposited, the heavier and larger materials are immediately deposited, with the finer materials remaining suspended in the water.
    The reclamation is divided into three distinct areas, the main reclamation, the ‘siltation pond’ and the ‘outlet channel.’ The system is designed so that as the water travels through each area a percentage of the finer materials settle’s out of suspension.
    Discharge water quality is achieved through decanting the clean upper layer of water from each area so that by the time the water reaches the discharge point, the licensed discharge criteria is met. This process is what the ABC filmed on Friday afternoon, not a leaking bund, but a regulated discharge.
    The claim by commercial fisherman Trevor Falzon that the water discharged is toxic is incorrect. All controlled water releases from the reclamation area are monitored for water quality.
    The extensive independent environmental water quality monitoring program for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (WBDDP) shows no visible or scientific signs of any negative impact from changes in water quality to date. The Water Quality Monitoring Program is overseen by the Dredge Technical Reference Panel appointed by the Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Population and Water.

    THIS IS THE ACTUAL PRESS RELEASE PUT OUT BY THE GPC where the CEO states that the filthy water coming out of the 12, one metre pipes coming out of the bund is not leakage but normal discharge that happens every day.

    http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/sediment-leaks-harbour-first-time-year-gpc-says/1909543/#c608082.
    This is the link to the photo that shows the filthy water being discharged from the pipes that the CEO claims is normal, every day discharge.

    How can this man claim that the harbour is in pristine condition with extremely clean water when he then states that the muck coming out of the pipes is not leakage but normal every day discharge.

    Where does this filthy muck coming out of the bund go to when it comes out of the pipes and where were the "tests" taken in the harbour that showed that the harbour is completely clean and in pristine condition.

    The deceit and coverups by the GPC are unbelievable. It is typical of the GPC to try and push this BS onto the people when they know that it is all lies. It is no wonder that the CEO and the Chairman of the GPC got the chop. They deserved to be dismissed based on the outrageous claims that everything is OK and then forgetting themselves and disclosing the real situation which is nothing like the real situation.

    Perhaps they should take notes on what they are saying and save themselves the embarrassment of putting their foot into their own mouth. If they are going to tell porkies, they would be better off if they told the same story every time because at the moment they are confusing themselves proving their complicity in keeping the true facts from the people.

    ReplyDelete

  91. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/can-fracking-cause-bigger-more-frequent-earthquake/1950137/

    This is a link to claims that "fracking" can possibly cause earth quakes.

    We need more of these sort of studies BEFORE they start drilling to establish if the process is in fact safe.
    If it proves to be unsafe, then under no circumstanced should the activity be carried out.

    ReplyDelete
  92. The Gladstone newspaper looks like it is finally coming out of the closet and starting to print some of the real facts and not just the sanitised versions released by the Gladstone Ports Corporation.
    Until very recently this article would not have been printed at all because of the loyalty shown to the GPC by the newspaper..

    http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/dredge-dumps-sewage-in-one-of-many-incidents/1988097/

    Reported here are several startling facts that have been kept secret from the public.
    People should not have to pay money for information under the FOI. It should be public knowledge.

    1,500 litres of raw sewage was dumped into the harbour by a dredge working there.
    This dredge had somehow received certification in spite of having no back-up system as required under international standards.

    The dredge at the time of the incident did not meet certification standards even though GPC staff had signed off on the paperwork before deployment. This is just one of the very serious incidents that have occurred and kept secret.
    48 environmental incidents have happened between July 2011 and Oct 2012 including the dumping of 4,200 cubic Mtrs of dredge spoil into the harbour and .
    The newspaper report pretty well debunks the claims recently that the harbour is in excellent, pristine condition. Have a look at the muddy water in the photo and see if the water in this harbour is not seriously contaminated.

    We are getting more lies and cover ups from the GPC, LNG and the State Govt and it all has to STOP.
    There were more than 35 oil spills in Gladstone harbour in 14 months. the largest of which was 575 litres.
    It is in the above link for all to read.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hi Peter, the water is the greenish colour of pea soup which is definitely not healthy. Yes under a new editor and chief of staff The Observer is printing stuff that would never have seen the light of day under the former editor and most of the good articles are coming from former Morning Bulletin reporter Daniel Burdon who is now on the APN newsdesk. It took them a couple of days to put that report online after it appeared in Saturday's print edition but better late than never (I asked a few questions about that in comments to other harbour articles).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G'day John,

      Yes there seems to be a change of heart at the Observer. It is to be hoped that they carry through and keep giving honest and up to date reporting which is something that was non existent previously.

      There now seems to be less of the online articles having a comment section and it is almost impossible to get a comment printed now. haven't had any letters printed for a while either. Might change my name to Geoff, would have a better chance.

      Had visitors yesterday who previously owned a fairly large property at Waterford, south of Brisbane.
      The property is presently being used to teach asian imported workers to weld and then lay the gas pipes.

      I thought that work visa imports were only to be used when local qualified people were not available.

      If they can import untrained people and train them here for the LNG industry, why can't they train local workers who would be an asset to the country when they finish the big jobs.

      Obviously they are using Australia as a training area for foreign workers who will then leave when the job is done and work (probably for the same companies) elsewhere in the world and our own local people will miss out on the training opportunities that are being given to unskilled import workers.

      Delete
    2. This foreign worker, training facility is in the heart of the electorate that Beattie is running in, which just happens to be the electorate that Krudd gave a signed commitment (and distributed by Chris Trevor) to SECURE LOGAN'S ECONOMIC FUTURE.

      Perhaps beattie is spending all of his time in North Qld (in spite of the fact that he is not running in the north) extracting similar commitments from northern candidates to help secure Logan's economic future.

      Maybe Krudds commitment to channel money from Central Qld to Logan City to secure their economic future was not a mistake at all but a leg up for Beattie.

      Delete
  94. Curtis Island. Algae and dead fish in ABC news 31 Oct 2013. f.y.i.
    And where is Mikko?
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-31/blue-green-algae-named-as-likely-cause-of-central/5060686

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mr Hunt says the most significant challenge facing the reef is reducing sediment, nitrogen and nutrient flows.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/barrier-reef-assesment-released/5063718

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JCF, there is one thing that is being swept under the carpet here and Hunt does not seem prepared to acknowledge it.
      There is probably more nitrogen and nutrient washed into the GBR from the storage facility at Bajool, south of Rockhampton than the entire amount released from farms in Queensland.
      There is 500,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate leaves the Orica facility on the outskirts of Gladstone every year and a very large proportion goes to the Bajool facility. This is supplemented by what may be a similar amount brought in by ship through Port Alma (accessable only through Bajool) and much of this is also stored there
      Most of the storage is in "FIELD SILOS", thousands of tonnes of product piled on tarps out in a paddock and covered with tarps to "protect"it from the weather.
      Handling in this manner there is always loss of the product in handling process on the site.
      When it rains any spilled ammonium nitrate washes down a creek (complete with a large pond area) that borders the southern side of the storage facility.
      This creek is only a short way from the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay where it would then be carried further afield and out into the GBR by tides and currents.
      Like the hidden problems in Gladstone Harbour, the authorities must cover this up so as to not alert the public.
      Blame the farmers for nutrient release but cover up the fact that the Govt and it's agencies are releasing far more than the farmers could ever release into the GBR.
      This storage facility is under the control of the State Mines Department who claim that all ammonium nitrate being transported is in sealed containers and accompanied by "observers" to ensure security.
      There are dozens of semi's and B Doubles travelling the highway every day with this product in plastic bags.
      They line up at the eating places and there has never been an "observer" in sight.
      There has been a number of these semi's and B Doubles crashed near Mt Larcom in recent years (one carrying emulsion), so where does any spillage go in such an incident? Down the creeks and out into the GBR when it rains.
      There has been no indication that the Defacto Premier Puppet Master and chief string puller, Seeney has withdrawn his actions to have 1,000 square kilometres of the GBRWHA removed from the protection of the World heritage listing. This area encompasses the entire Gladstone region, Curtis Island, The Narrows, Port Alma, The Fitzroy River Delta and the southern end of Keppel Bay. It just so happens that the runoff from the Bajool storage facility feeds into this area.

      Delete
  96. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/reef-authority-raised-dredging-concerns-interventi/2071133/

    This is the link to the article in the Gladstone Observer this morning.
    This is the newspaper that has consistently covered up the actions of the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) and refused to print comments detrimental to the wishes of the GPC.

    Now they print this information gained under freedom of information after the horse has bolted. If this had been disclosed sooner there would certainly not have been as much damage inflicted on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
    What is significant with this article is that they are not allowing for people to lodge comments to the report.
    Did they get caught out and have to print something to save face and have they not allowed comment on the article to minimise the impact as much as possible. Too bloody late. The cat's out of the bag now.

    The Government was warned 2YEARS previously that there could be problems but the GPC covered it up and the local press aided and abetted that by not bringing the matter to the notice of the public by way of the "NEWS" that they supposedly print each day.
    If the paper did not know what was going on with the close relationship that existed between them and the GPC (several Editoral staff moved over to the GPC) then they were either inept or deliberately accommodating to them.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Good points Peter, and the Bajool factor is certainly one that has been swept under the carpet.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Evacuation Grounds

    Peter, Mikko, Dale, Geoff, others,
    Crown of thorn starfish are known to be causing major destruction of GBR coral and it is nuterient pollution that is feeding algae that COTS larvae consume to stay alive and grow big enough to begin eating coral zooanthellae algae that is supposed to feed the coral building animal.

    Very important to understand is that some nutrients are bonded to fresh water that is moved vast distances in wind driven surface currents, such as to Cape York and beyond if nutrients are not taken up - used up along the way. Then there is resuspended nutrient matter exposed by dredging, matter such as decaying solids and other nutrient rich residue, including in dredged mud that can be seen, that is spread by plumes and deeper currents before it sinks down and settles again. At Gladstone it’s all in the GBR ecosystem.

    Now what has really been swept under the carpet is samples of nutrient solid matter handed to a senior Qld EPA manager and Dr Eva Abal from Qld Uni, at the Gold Coast. They showed very noticeable concern about massive lyngbya algae bloom destruction of the RAMSAR seagrass food web nursery near Amity, Stradbroke Island, downstream from the Gold Coast, during 2000.
    That evidence clearly indicated nutrient loadings from dredging were combing with other nutrient loadings to form damaging pollution.
    But no scientific nutrient measuring was subsequently needed at the Gladstone works licensed by the EPA.

    Dr Abal was on the recent panel or whatever concerning the UN GBR World Heritage study involving the Gladstone works. I do not know the outcome but resulting documents will perhaps show details, missing details maybe.

    Look, I am not a greenie. My interest is because Gladstone waters are part of the GBR ecosystem that is part of the SW Pacific food web ecosystem where my islander friends are dying early due malnutrition linked disease.

    For example, mutton birds have arrived this year at Gladstone region feeding ground but were unable to find adequate food.
    Stronger birds continue south but still do not find adequate food at other already devastated and feeding grounds.
    Consequently now in Oct Nov 2013 there are dead mutton birds along coast extending from Qld to SA and Tasmania.

    Clearly there are not enough small fish to feed whales and bigger fish such as tuna that Pacific Islands people depend on for essential protein and daily food.

    N.B. Populations of the four main species of tuna in the SW Pacific Ocean are now described as being at historically low levels.

    Aust government is allowing such unnecessary devastation and death to continue unchecked.
    Mr Abbott has even failed repeated urgent request to discuss the problem/s.

    I explain all that (for some again perhaps, sorry) because truly I am not able to explain how ammonium nitrate and other pollutants affect coral and marine life.
    It’s the nutrient pollution feeding algae.
    Nutrients can be explained as linked to algae in more ways than one.

    Best you all consider algae, as well as it’s impact on weather and farming nationally as can be seen re El Nino events, via the following link.

    Never mind the carbon dioxide spin in text at this link.
    Algae warmth impact on climate has not been measured and assessed in AGW – Kyoto – IPCC science, so impact and damage will continue and worsen.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNinoColor/el_nino_color_3.php

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi John CF, sounds very plausible to me. You should post your comment above as a separate article in its own right. (It's easy, just go to new post in the top bar). Some of Peter's contributions could also stand alone as articles IMO.
    Cheers
    JohnM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey I just looked for 'new post' re my suggestion to John CF, but it seems to have disappeared for me.

      Delete
    2. It's there for me, John. Do you need to sign in again?

      Delete
    3. No Geoff,I can post comments so obviously I'm signed in but there is no "new post" at the top that I can see. Maybe it's because I had to sign in with new email address and update profile recently. The thing is, can Peter and John CF see it because you need that to post an article rather than just comment.

      Delete
  100. The wheels are starting to come off with the Gladstone Ports Corporation. The old CEO just got out in time to miss the sh....t that is now hitting the fan.
    The truth is starting to emerge about the cover ups and deliberate withholding of vital information from the University that did work on the Harbour now claims that the GPC may have breached Commonwealth Law by withholding information.
    THIS IS FROM S UNIVERSITY. Link to the story in the Observer compiled by APN.

    http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/gpc-may-have-breached-law/2084832/

    Someone must be held responsible for all of this and the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the previous CEO and Chairman of the GPC. They should be called to a Royal Commission into the activities and dishonest dealings in the Gladstone Harbour.
    Many people warned about this earlier on, including myself and what I got for it was attempted legal action by the CEO to shut me up. To this day he has never proceeded with the action because it was only a stalling action so that they could say that nobody could publicise anything about the harbour because of a "Legal action pending".
    The whole organisation and the State and Federal Government that backed them up and gave them whatever they wanted were corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Calls are increasing for a Royal Commission into the whole debacle. Too late for Gladstone but if the cover-ups are exposed they might be more careful with other port projects and mass multi-billion development approvals with combined environmental impacts. BTW, the 'new post' problem has been fixed for me Geoff.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Catch up on the news: No dumping in the World Heritage area.
    Though nothing sis aid about what will become suspended during the dredging.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-16/government-axes-gladstone-reef-dredge-dumping-plans/5096744

    ReplyDelete
  103. If they also make them use silt curtains and don't allow dredging on spring tides, it would help keep it more manageable. Wonder what the great kow all on the other old site would say about all the reports surfacing now about cover-ups and unreported environmental breaches in the Western Basin project which was finished 12 months early because it was rushed despite obvious consequences to marine life.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The Australian has a report today headed "Fish fears rise over LNG port dredging" but online you have to pay for it.
    It's a very eye opening report.
    I suppose you can't even read it for free in the Gladstone fish and chip shop because it is likely closed due the dredging.

    By the way, this is all not just about spoil being dumped in GBR waters.
    The dredging and excavation is happening IN the GBR ecosystem.
    The GBR ecosystem is being excavated.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Other sources include nutrient matter resuspended during dredging.
    Solutions are not just a matter of waiting until dredging is completed.
    Impact is reaching far beyond Gladstone and the GBR.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-11-large-pollution-impact-coral-reefsand.html

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sydney Morning Herald reporters or editors seem oblivious to government dumped sewage nutrient loadings in GBR waters.

    Does anybody besides me think it extraordinary a whole newspaper report can blame farmers and farm runoff but not mention sewage nutrient matter at all?

    It is all sources of nutrient loading, including from Gladstone, that can add to form pollution that causes damage.

    If farmers don't stand up to this unjustified blame then more legislation restricting rural land use has to be expected and damaging works such as at Gladstone will continue.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/the-great-barrier-reef-just-unwell-or-terminally-ill-20131204-2yqxk.html

    ReplyDelete
  107. Finally. No greater fools than those who can’t see the bleeding obvious. Bung wall height, membrane placement, material purchased.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/bund-wall-needs-50m-fix/story-e6frg6xf-1226801836666?from=public_rss&utm_source=The Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=33625056

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What will happen if they decide to continue with the plans to fill the height of the dredge spoil within the bund site to a height of 27 metres above the waterline. This is what their amended permit from the Govt says that they can do. The original height that was planned was 70 metres above the waterline.
      If they can't contain the runoff and silt now, how are they going to contain the runoff from a hill that is 27 mtrs high above the waterline, within the bund wall. Surely when they reach a point that is above the top of the bund wall, there is nothing to stop all of the liquified slush flowing over the top of the wall and then it will be worse than it is now.
      Will the fact that the Govt have given the GPC a permit to exceed the height of the wall with dredge spoil to a height of 27 mtrs be taken into consideration by the Commission of inquiry?

      Delete
  108. On trawling through some obscure sites I came across a reference to something that prompted me to dig further into what I found out.
    We have been told a million times that LNJG from csg has been made and used for domestic and industrial uses for up to 100 years. What I found out was that there has never been a commercial quantity production of LNG from COAL SEAM GAS, EVER in the history of the world. the LNG corporations, Gladstone Ports Corporations and the 2 levels of Government have lied and kept the truth from the people regarding the Production of LNG from CSG because the whole LNG/CSG industry is still in the experimental stages.
    I believe that it was my public disclosure that LNG has never been commercially produced from CSG that prompted the LNG mob to declare that a world first has been achieved in Gladstone with the first ever LNG from CSG about to be exported. I believe that had the public not been alerted the LNG mob would still be hiding the truth from us.

    To claim that LNG from coal seam gas is the same as the American production of LNG from SHALE is wrong.
    The fracking is not even the same. As I understand it, the water used for fracking in America is largely the same water that is recovered when they take out the gas and this water is reused for further fracking.
    Here in Australia they have to use water stolen from the artesian basin (there is no artesian basin in America) and do not reuse it for further fracking. The experts claim that the gas from CSG is very dry and so the yield of gas from SHALE and COAL SEAMS is very different and they are now finding that there may not be enough gas coming from the coal seams to supply the massive oversupply of LNG processing plants that they have built in Gladstone.

    On an experimental gas process that has never been done before, there is no benchmark for safety or the correlation of the quantity of gas able to be produced from CSG as opposed to the production from SHALE and it is mystifying to know why so many huge plants were built (6 trains already built with another 2 approved) to produce something that is untested and has so many unknowns.

    This is bad for the farmers because the gas mob will have to drill tens of thousands more wells in an attempt to keep up the supply to the plants in Gladstone. Their lies and greed will be their undoing. They will have to drill many times the number that they expected ( having never done it before it was only a guess) to supply the plants in Gladstone. They got it very wrong and now they have to go all out and take much more land for the tens of thousands of extra wells that will be needed to feed the Plants in Gladstone.

    This is why they are pushing to develop the Bowen basin and northern areas of NSW. There is no intention to build a plant for the gas from the Bowen Basin now (a) because there is not enough gas to feed what they have already built and (b) without the gas coming from the Bowen basin there will be a major shortfall for the 6 trains already built in Gladstone.

    Some time back in the Australian Financial Review the then CEO of the GPC stated that they considered that Gladstone could support one train of LNG production, but when 8 trains showed interest he took the lot. It was pure greed.
    So Gladstone Ports Corporation facilitated the establishment of LNG production units totaling 8 TIMES what was considered acceptable for Gladstone.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Here are a couple of examples from credible sources that confirm that there may not be enough gas from the coal seams to supply the massive experimental plants in Gladstone.
    http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/queensland_lng_doesn_add_voelte_EHshjwpmVn9WeNNKrq3fFP

    Queensland LNG doesn’t add up, says ex-Woodside boss Don Voelte

    Seven Group Holdings chief executive Don Voelte has raised fresh questions about the viability of $70 billion worth of gas export plants in Gladstone, warning the economics of the industry had become tougher and coal seam gas remained difficult to extract.
    he described the investment as “a big bet” in a process “with no pilot and no test”.
    I just think coalbed methane gas is tough because there are no liquids in it. It is inherently a tough gas – you’ve got to have multiple wells,”

    His comments come at a critical time for the Queensland’s liquefied natural gas industry, which is nearing the start-up of production and will be the first commercial instance worldwide of large-scale production of LNG from coal seam gas

    Despite progress on the three large projects, all due to begin exports within the next 12 months, some observers are concerned about the technical and economic issues associated with coal seam gas.

    technical issues, at a time when “field costs and compression costs and everything are ­rising” as well as increased competition from shale gas producers in the United States, raised questions about the economics of the Queensland LNG industry.

    Mr Voelte said the success or otherwise of the Queensland projects would have “big ramifications” in Australia, with the Cooper Basin in South Australia and the Bass Strait fields likely to be required to produce more gas. “All those plants will take a little longer to get on stream than they are expecting and cost a little bit more. They will have to drill a lot more wells. I think they are going to need more gas. Where is it going to come from?

    http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/doubts-raised-over-csg-well-capacity-to-feed-curti

    Doubts raised over CSG well capacity to feed Curtis Island LNG plants

    Doubts have been raised over whether Queensland’s coal seam gas fields can produce enough to feed Curtis Island’s LNG export plants, with claims that many wells are not meeting production expectations.

    "When we are talking to the operators in Queensland, we hear from them that the coal-seam gas (wells) that currently have been drilled are actually not meeting the production expectations," SES head of Asia Pacific, Ruud Boendermaker, told investors last week.So what they have to do is to drill a lot more CSG wells in the next few years because of the commitments to the LNG trains that they are currently building in the north of Queensland

    "So what they have to do is to drill a lot more CSG wells in the next few years because of the commitments to the LNG trains that they are currently building in the north of Queensland."
    Boendermaker said the coal seams are not as homogeneous or permeable as expected, claiming this has led to poor well performance.

    The calls comes as a former executive for one of the projects told The Australian that the gas fields’ "sweet spots" had not been as large as anticipated.While it has been reported that a number of dry wells have been an issue for another proponent.

    These are little snippets of copy and paste but they demonstrate that things are not as they are claimed to be and the experiment may be a little rougher than they are claiming.
    Many tens of thousands more wells will have to be drilled on our agricultural lands to try and keep the greedy LNG/ CSG proponents from failing.
    They lied. They cheated and they withheld vital information from the people and so they deserve to fail.







    ReplyDelete

Welcome to a place that has a focus (but not exclusively) on regional and rural Australia open for anyone living anywhere to read, learn and interact. Please feel free to make a comment.

You can use some HTML codes such as, a for active; b for bold; i for italics

Active code - substitute a for @
<@ href="web address">linked words

[Click Here] for a link to another site where there is a very good simple explanation.