L.P.G. submissions completed

Press, 19 November 1982, Page 6

L.P.G. submissions completed

Final submissions before a Commission of Inquiry into a proposed liquefied petroleum gas pipeline between Lyttelton and Woolston ended in Christchurch yesterday, five months after the commission first sat.

A preliminary hearing into the application by Liquigas began on June 17 and the inquiry proper began on June 28. The hearing of evidence ended on September 28 and the inquiry was adjourned to November 15 for the hearing of final submissions.

During the adjournment, several members of the commission travelled overseas to inspect other L.P.G. installations.

The commission’s chairman, ; Judge .Skelton, yesterday told counsel for Liquigas,

Mr B. Bornholdt, that because Liquigas had sought the inquiry, it could be asked to pay some, or all, of the costs to the commission... , •

Liquigas believed it should not have to meet any of the “substantial” - costs, . Mr Bornholdt said. It had asked for the inquiry because of its “public attitude.” The company wanted the matter to be aired publicly and to give people an opportunity to express their views and opinions. Other members of the commission are Messrs G. W. Ensor, T. W. Smallfield, and R. A. McLennan. The commission will make its recommendations; to the Minister of Energy,.Sir Birch, as to whether the application for

the pipeline should be allowed.

In his final submission, Mr Bornholdt said that the main issue faced by the commission was whether L.P.G. should be discharged’ by a tanker at the oil wharf in the inner harbour at Lyttelton.

A suggested alternative site at Naval Point for discharging might be preferable but there were no facilities there. Liquigas would not be able to pay for a special wharf at Naval Point and it was not being contemplated by the Lyttelton Harbour Board, he said. If it was ever decided’ to build facilities at Naval Point they would take years to establish. Economics and time were "strong and valid”

reasons why Naval Point could not be used, said Mr Bornholdt. The use of the oil wharf was the most controversial issue raised during the inquiry, but there could be no pipeline if Liquigas could not use the oil wharf to unload the L.P.G. Mr Bornholdt reminded the commission that Judge Skelton said in August that the commission could not recommend an alternative site.

Little “real” objection had been raised to the connecting pipeline. Concerns were expressed on such matters as numbers of valves, erosion, and sabotage, but the expert advice answered the questions raised, he said.

The visits to overseas L.P.G. installations by members of the commission were to help with background material raised during the inquiry, and it should be taken no further. Those to whom commission members spoke while overseas were not available for crossexamination.

Mr Bornholdt said that feasibility, safety, and economics were all considered when the oil wharf, Woolston depot, and connecting pipeline were chosen. He submitted that the evidence presented to the commission established the case for Liquigas and that the company’s application should be given favourable consideration.