Attention everyone,
We need your time to send an e-mail or write a letter to prevent the government from doing something dodgey and without public knowlege that will destroy one of the best wave sailing locations in the country.
Oakajee = Known locally as "Spot - X" has been chosen by the iron ore industry as their prefferred site to build a ship loading port. Smack bang on top of our wave sailing spot.
The environmental approvals expired recently and the honorable minister is applying for an extension of the approval in an attempt to rush the process through.
The original EPA agreement has expired and has already been granted an extension previously, which has expired. The EPA stipulates "ONLY ONE" extension is allowed.
The EPA SHOULD conduct a new environmental investigation (usually takes 2 years) in order for the project to go ahead.
We need you to object to the ministers application to extend the EPA agreement.
I will post the "How to" this evening, but we have only just heard about this and have until Monday to flood the ministers inbox with objections and get the word out publicly that the government is trying to rush through something that is in writing - not allowed. All for more money grabbing from this "boom" which will pass.
Is your objection that the procedures are not being followed or that the port is to be built at all?
If the latter, you know, a port is a good thing, it generates billions of dollars for the economy which means jobs, infrastructure which translates into quality of life, kids education, and for government royalties into hospitals et al.
Where would we be now if in the 50s we decides, okay this is Nirvana, no more coastal development?
Please don't start a flame war on this but maybe we need a bit more discussion on why this is such a bad thing?
Cheers.
As Gavin said, the boom will pass, and then the port will be under utilized, but the enviroment down wind for many kilometres will be dead due to iron ore dust.
As far as I know the companies in the midwest extracting the ore are largly in the control of the Chineese now and are trying to manipulate the Australian market.
Ray
You have your opinion, Laurie and your'e entitled to it.
Procedures are not being followed, the public is being misled.
Environmental shortcuts are trying to be taken.
No Beer Bong, it's a "let's have a discussion about it" comment. I know little about Oakajee and would like to know more about it and the objections. I wouldn't appreciate Woodies being made into a port but we do have to have progress.
What about your reply? Was that a "I don't have anything useful to say so I'll try being insulting/intimidating" sort of comment?
No dramas, mate, I know it's a sensitive issue but we do need ports. RayQ has made a valid point, will the effect be that far-reaching?
Hirschausen: if they have EPA approval (albeit expiring or recently expired), how is this a shortcut?
Cheers.
obviously you guys aren't involved in the resources industry haha.
get with the program, development is good. you'd be whinging if unemployment was high as well so you can't have everything, silly left wingers....
abuse me if you like : )
a minority group like kiters or windsurfers will never get in the way of big business, stop wasting your time.
good day
No hidden agenda, RayQ, Oakajee is hundreds of miles from where I kitesurf and I doubt I will ever get there. Maybe that is a good reason why I should have trusted my instincts and not commented on this. As it doesn't affect me, maybe I should mind my own business.
I agree with your comment, we should live by the rules, but that's not Hirschausen's or your "agenda" is it? Your agenda is to block the port not police the bureaucracy. Would that be a correct statement?
I mean if that's all this about, making sure that the government obeys it's rules, let me know please and I will withdraw from this discussion. I don't have any interest in that and doubt that I could add anything constructive.
I thought it was an opportunity to discuss coastal development and I think I can add something, am willing to listen to others views and so forth.
So, please let me know, is this about building the port or is it about bureaucracy?
Cheers.
I'm not into slinging matches so here's the goods for those who can help. Laurie if you can keep this post up I'd appreciate it.
There is an approval process and that has expired, it was granted an extension and that too has expired.
For a project to be properly assessed, it needs to follow due process as circumstances change over time. Environmental conditions change and that is why EPA approvals have deadlines.
Think a carton of milk, it goes off after a while. Now if someone wanted to keep it in the fridge a bit longer as a useby date is really a guide, then that's ok. That's why there is already provision for an extension. That too has expired.
what our minister wants to do is extend the useby date beyond what is normally acceptable from the environments perspective. Would you like someone to pour sour milk on your favourite bowl of cerial forever if you knew it was preventable?. I think this analogy....kinda works?. Maybe not. Anyway the milk is off in my opinion and so is the EPA agreement.
I would prefer the process to follow the guidelines so that our local environment is considered. Rather than things being rushed through to satisfy lobby groups. Heck, if iron ore is in demand now it will be later. Let's do things properly.
So,
The original environmental approval expired in Feb 2008
We have until Monday night, 8th April to let the Minister for the Environment, David Templeman, know that we disagree with this ridiculous extension. It is critical that he knows people are taking notice of this and that he can’t just push through with this.
I have a letter template that I can provide, please e-mail me directly and I'll forward you the letter.
If you care about the Spot/Oakajee, PLEASE take a few minutes and send him an e-mail/fax asking for a new and proper Environmental review of the Oakajee Port proposal. Feel free to use my letter, change it around and add your own things. Even if you just put your name to the same letter and fax/e-mail it. Something is better than nothing. He needs to know that there is a significant number of people who are taking note of what he is trying to do.
Please address your submission to
THE HON DAVID TEMPLEMAN MLA
Minister for the Environment
29th Floor Allendale Square, 77 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
and e-mail it to:
david-templeman@dpc.wa.gov.au
0r fax to
(08) 9221 4665
Please CC your e-mail to:
EPA Appeals Convenor: Gary Middle
admin@appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au
or fax to
Fax: 08 9221 8244
Feel free to cut and paste.....her'es a template letter that you may all use.
4 April 2008
David Templeman
Minister for the Environment
Perth Western Australia 6850
Re: EPA Review Assessment 1722, EPA Bulletin 1284, 25th March 2008, Proposed Oakajee Port
I am writing to you to inform you that I strongly disagree with any extension of the Minister for the Environment’s Environmental Approval (which was originally granted on 25 February 1998) for the proposed Oakajee Port (1074).
The present new proposal is very different from the original proposal 10 years ago and therefore should be assessed on its own merits.
The original EPA review states that, “the design of the port and infrastructure must be consistent with original approval concept to be acceptable for any possible extension.” This is the NOT the case. The original proposal is now over 10 years old and many facets are outdated.
The present port proposal contains numerous new design parameters, data and information that are not in the original approval.
Furthermore, Environmental approval for a port at Oakajee expired on the 25 Feb 2008 and there is no scope within the original Ministerial conditions to grant a further extension.
Condition 9 states that the approval is limited and that the approval was for a period of 5 years and could be extended for another 5 years ONLY, upon application. The original approval was extended for 5 years. Therefore, based on the Ministerial conditions, NO further extension of this approval is possible. There is no provision for more than ONE extension of this environmental approval.
I believe that neither the EPA nor any Minister can or should override condition 9 and 9-1, which clearly states that only one extension can be granted.
I believe the request for any further extension and this “review” is extremely inappropriate and possibly illegal given it is obviously clear that any further extension is not provided for in the Minister’s Approval.
To have the Minister for the Environment 10 years ago put a condition on her approval saying that it could only be extended once and 10 years later have another Minister of the Environment disregard that condition and apply for an extension beyond what was intended in the first place, without the public having a chance to appeal against it, is not aligned with the democratic values that our country stands for.
In your profile on the government website you state
“We’re making big decisions in the long term interests of the State. We’re making decisions for tomorrow, not just for today.”
I am pleased to read that you have the best intention of our state at heart. I therefore urge you to have the EPA objectively, independently assess the new Oakajee Deep Water Port Proposal to ensure the project IS in the best long term interest of the State.
I urge you to honour the conditions put on the original approval and have the Oakajee Deepwater Port proposal assessed by the EPA as a new project, as it would be done for any other project.
Can I have a count of those who have sent a submission in? It appears that nearly 500 people have read the post, I'd be stoked if 10% had actually done something.
Would greatly help our cause. It would also possibly preserve the SPOT for you that haven't had a chance to wave ride there. Give you a chance to come see what all the hoopla is about as environmental approval takes usually two years.
You want more?.....Here's some more, feel free to copy and add your bit to this letter.
Dear Minister.
I wish to add my support to the opposition for requests for an extension of the approval in 1998 for the proposed Oakajee Port (1074).
10 years ago the situation was very different. Another company (Kingstream) was the proponent, only “limited marine studies were carried out”, and as also indicated in the Review, “stockpiling and loading facilities will be different and it is likely that there will be environmental impacts of the new design”. Therefore it seems obvious that the proposal should now be independently assessed as a new project by the EPA, to ensure that it is in the long term interests of the State. It is not clear if any archeological studies were done to assess any impact on Indigenous sites, which could now be of significance.
A port at Oakajee will have considerable effects on a valuable area for recreational users who are knowledgeable about the environment through many years of involvement there, as well as the local fishing industry will undoubtedly be affected, at a time when it is already under stress.
The sustainability of the mining industries which are pushing for the new port has often been questioned by the State Government, which has therefore refused to provide funds for its development. As recently as March 2008, Minister MacTiernan was quoted as requiring proof “that there is enough marketable ore… to be exported through Oakajee”. Even at this stage it is, to say the least, a very uncertain situation.
It would be devastating to permit development of a port in such a valuable area on such flimsy evidence, when the long-term effects are still unknown.
A new assessment would give more time for the long-term sustainability and success of the project to be fully investigated and assured.
It is noted that the original approval had provision for only one extension, no doubt in the sensible belief that conditions could have changed considerably after that time and a new assessment would be needed. I hope you will ensure that the spirit of that intention is honoured.
Yours sincerely,
Here's a bit more for the newbies and Sparkled eyed one,
Oakajee is a wave sailing location approx. 4km from Coronation beach. The region has LONG been Australia's answer to Maui in terms of wind and waves. It's a truly beautiful spot to kite and sail.
A conglomerate of mining companies are trying to build a deep water port on top of the reef where the best wave break is. You need to realise that this is an uninhabited area of WA so therefore not a lot of opposition would normally result as impact to home owners is low. They have to build roads, rail and get power and water to this site. It will cost Billions.
The impact however to this site in size for kiting and windsurfing, is equivalent to shutting down Tariffa Spain. On any given day in summer you will see 70+ sailors on the water at the end of a remote road, a true eye opener.
The Mid West is Mecca for many long time windsurfers and is becoming discovered by kiters every year. The tourism potential is high and the long term security for that end lies in it's preservation. The deep water port at Oakajee is a short term (10 years) financial transaction to capitalise on the iron ore boom. The Mid West has unproven high deposits of LOW grade iron ore, and the time is ripe for making a quick buck on the ore price. If the price was any lower, we wouldn't be having this battle. Beyond that, most would say it's crystal ball stuff.
China has waded into the equation by financially underwriting the infastructure developer as it gives them an opportunity to manipulate their supply from Australia. That's an issue alone that would take hours to explain.
The WA government in their wisdom, has flatly refused to fund the port as there are serious concerns as to the proven quality and quantity of iron ore in the Mid West. However, the WA govt. is allowing Oakajee to be someone elses financial risk. It achieves a double wammy for them. Keeps voters happy as progress is GOOD! for the economy and gives the mining companies involved great viewings on the stock exchange. It also gives them a "it's not our fault!!" position if even slight changes in the world econmomy eventuate and it falls over.
Bear in mind that's EXACTLY what happened about eight years ago. The Asian crisis hit and it was abandoned. Geraldton immediately went into recession as heaps of people had banked on it and lost many a fortune. It even contributed significantly to a change of Govt. at the time. (wish I'd bought real estate then)
You all know how bloody delicate the world economy is at the moment. Even if all goes well, it's a 10 year plan, after that it doesn't matter. So...scenario in 10 years if it gets up. No world class wave sailing spot. Deep water Port instead. Under utilised and costing money. Natural landscape destroyed in the name of money.
It's a cause worthy of getting behind as it has a core group of people fighting hard against the lies that are being told to manipulate people into believing it's all good, Because it simply isn't. The divers that were commissioned to test the site had to abandon their work six months early due to crazy levels of water movement. Ship pilots have said "the break wall will never be long enough to enable a pan sized vessel to pull up in time". Engineers have said, "it's a very ambitious, risky project".
The project stinks of blow outs and engineering nightmares it's just shouldn't happen.
Please help by sending your objections
The thing is.....
Suits don't surf.
Big knobs making exec-decisions involving a zillion dollars about where to plonk a port.....
probably aren't your local kiters or poleys.
Now if they were, an alternative site would have been found.
No question about it.
So after all these decades of delay,
after a long stay of execution,
With Oakajee having languished on death-row for an inhumane length of time,
Capital punishment is about to be brought down on all WA windfreaks,
Spot x a-frames are to die by lethal injection,
A massive injection of Chinese funds....
to build some stuff.
lol.
So anyway, the time must be ripe, opportune.....apparently.
Finally, there will be a black-top road into the Spot.....
only to be confronted by a big f.u.c.k.-off iron-ore loading port when you reach the end.....
instead of a nice set of a-frames to hotdog wavekite and jump.
Bummer.
But try to find the positive,
it's out-there, somewhere,
Look within.
Ah ben kenobi wave,
wise words.....
OR go to the effort of submitting an objection to the breach of legal process.
Might work?.
What the hell is wrong with you Lauriep and hosko? You kite but you think it's a good thing to have places like this wrecked by industry. W A N K E R S !
Hey Gav, I wrote the fella an email simply saying
"I am apposed to Oakagee because the iron ore can stay in the ground a bit longer...not going to loose value now is it?
Plenty going on up north as it is.
We have messed enough with our environment already."
as if more development is needed. as said before we are basically handing over everything we have for sure some fat wallets but surly holding back on exporting our resources when we already have too many jobs for everyone to fill would be making sure we have something for the kids to work on ect. anyway, all this would do is give more of our wealth to the Chinese and im all for halting their development and squeezing as much our of their bank accounts as possible.
If we managed our own **** properly we could all be driving gas powered cars for like 20% the cost of petrol.
Thanks hoop for your intellectual contribution. If you care to have a re-read you would actually see that I haven't come down on either side, I just wanted a bit of discussion to know just what it is we were being asked to put our signature to.
The initial post (and please hirschausen do not see this as personal criticism, I can see that you are very very passionate about this) said little more then "please sign this as we don't want it". Did my statement that ports can sometimes be a good thing and can you give me info on why this one is bad really warrant me being called a ****er?
I only asked the question that probably 99% of people thought but just moved on instead. I took the time to raise a query. There was your chance to win support from the vast majority. Most people would be like me - no real view either way but willing to be persuaded by good arguments.
Having done my own research, I can see that the initial EPA approval was over 10 years ago. That wasn't mentioned early on in the posts. I think I agree. Maybe the approval should have to be re-justified giving that it was that long ago. We are a lot stricter now on what we define as precious and it should be judged against this newer criteria.
If you really want to get the public on-side then you will have to do so in a manner that is palatable to them. Just because someone queries a statement doesn't mean you have to jump down their throat, boots-and-all. It will not get you anywhere. It's alienating.
To give you an example re-read the post from kaleidoscope. Did you get the sense of what they were saying or were they just another "pro-porter" worthy only for scarcastic comments? All they said was that the description, you know, the thingy that gets peoples attention, that they use to decide whether they should click on it or not, really doesn't do much for your cause. Perhaps "URGENT assistance to save pristine area" might have garnered more response.
Maybe you could get in contact with the Save Smiths Beach people. They really kicked ass. They had a multi-pronged attack but the show-stopper was that they proved that the EPA submission was fraudulent not to mention the corruption at all levels of goverment.
If you think it will help, please think of more names to call me.
Sure I can go ahead and try and sell, sell sell. This closes very soon, I just happened to have 10 minutes break from teaching and threw it out there as some only need to hear the word "Oakajee" and they know what's going on.
My humble Apologies for not waltzing up to you in the store and asking politely, "Is there something I can help you with Sir?" "Can I suggest this opinion as it will go nicely with your past time of kitesurfing?"
"How about I sit with you and explain the whole saga over a nice steaming cup of tea?"
"do you mind waiting a moment while I fetch that?..."
Have you got your info straight now? GREAT
Have you submitted something? GREAT
Thank you for your support. I don't have time to concern myself with your feelings or to try and understand if I could have done it better. If 20 people got the message...without their feelings getting all bent out of shape -GREAT.
It's a forum, gee whizz bucks fizz! Get used to your opinion or what you say not being liked.
Lauriep, this is a discussion about not wanting the port and trying to stop it. Not about how good you think it might be. As you said earlier it doesnt concern you. So why such a long winded response?
No apologies from me. I think you have missed the point.
