Building of port gas pipeline recommended

Press, 30 December 1982, Page 1

Building of port gas pipeline recommended

Wellington reporter

The construction of a high-pressure L.P.G. pipeline from the oil wharf at Lyttelton to the Woolston bulk depot, has been recommended for approval by a special commission of inquiry.

The commission of inquiry heard detailed submissions on the proposed pipeline between June and November.

The full report is not yet available for the public, but a summary has been published.

The pipeline was sought by Liquigas, a consortium set up to market and distribute L.P.G. throughout New Zealand. Its biggest shareholder is Offshore Mining Company. Ltd, a subsidiary of the State-owned Petrocorp, which holds 25 per cent of the shares. The other shareholders are B.P. and Shell, each with 18.75 per cent, Rockgas, a subsidiary of the Challenge Corporation, with 16.5 per cent, Todd Petrogas, with 12.5 per cent, and N.Z. Industrial Gases Investment, with 8.5 per cent. Officials of the Ministry of Energy have been instructed by the Minister. Mr Birch, to give prompt consideration to the findings in view of the need to get bulk supplies of L.P.G. to Christchurch.

Approval to build the pipeline has been made conditional to the prior approval of the Minister of Transport, Mr Gair, to build the undersea section of the pipeline.

The commission said it was satisfied with the draft regulations that were being used as a basis for the authorisation of pipelines, and recommended that these be promulgated at an early date.

The commission also recommended that the pipeline's authorisation be subject to a number of technical conditions.

These will include the installation of an extra emergency shut-down valve, and a suitable leak-detection system. Another recommendation deals with high-pressure pipelines in general. The commission saw the need to define the responsibilities of the chief petroleum inspector of the Ministry of Energy and the Labour Department's chief inspector of dangerous goods. The commission called for specific regulations governing the construction, running, and berthing of ships carrying bulk liquefied gases. It recommended that general regulations controlling the construction and running of ship-to-shore facilities be introduced.

It was a matter of priority that further investigations associated with a possible bulk liquids berth at Naval Point be undertaken by the Lyttelton Harbour Board, the commission said.

The commission also recommended that a New Zealand Standard for “petroleum liquids transportation pipelines’’ be approved as soon as possible. This standard was considered in draft form during the inquiry, and the commission found it to be satisfactory.

The use of the oil wharf at Lyttelton by the L.P.G. ship was not covered by. the Petroleum Act, 1937, the commission said.

However, it would be wrong to ignore the use of the oil wharf by the L.P.G. ship when considering the proposed pipeline. The ship could be berthed at the existing oil wharf with safety, providing certain well understood and commonly used transiting and manoeuvring procedures were observed. The history of the use of the oil wharf showed that there had been one possibly relevant two-ship incident involving a berth at that wharf. But the commission found that this incident could not have caused a release of product from an L.P.G. ship berthed at the wharf. Ships could be and were manoeuvred in and out of the

inner harbour at Lyttelton with safety. The commission considered the likelihood of a two-ship collision at the oil wharf was not increased by the introduction of the L.P.G. service.

The likelihood of a twoship collision involving the L.P.G. ship at berth at the oil wharf and causing a release of the product was remote. A finding that the use of the oil wharf by the L.P.G. ship would be unsafe, was not justified. The suggested Naval Point

berthing site was the only alternative site to the oil wharf which the commission considered seriously.

Financial constraint was one of the main obstacles to the development of a bulk liquids berth at Naval Point. But further investigations were needed, as a matter of priority. “The construction and operation of high pressure cross-country pipelines for the conveyance of L.P.G. should not cause apprehension in the community at large,” the commission said. But it made nine specific recomendations about the proposed pipeline:

© The above ground section at Lyttelton. should be investigated further. ® Uncased crossing were preferred to cased crossings. © Noise from the pumping station would not affect the surrounding neighbourhood adversely. © The Cass Bay Residents' Association had no cause for concern, provided that the undersea section of the pipeline could be constructed safely along the chosen route.

® Approval for the undersea section of the pipeline ought to be obtained under section 178 of the Harbours Act, 1950, before any authorisation was granted under the Petroleum Act, 1937. ® One additional ESV ought to be provided in the pipeline at or near the upper boundary of Mary Duncan Park.

• There were no technical difficulties involved in constructing the pipeline along the proposed amended route across land owned by Hurricane Holdings, Ltd, at Port Hills Road.

® A leak-detection system which included walking the pipeline and inspecting the undersea section periodically, would be needed. • The pipeline ought to remain full of product even when not flowing. © Building and running the proposed pipeline, from the oil wharf to Woolston, including all fittings, pumps, tanks, etc, would have no lasting and significant adverse effects on the physical environment through which it would pass, the commission said.

There was therefore no need for a continuing programme to monitor the effects of this part of the pipeline on the social environment.