Mr MITCHELL - 1996-08-20
There is much speculation surrounding the timetable for the relocation of the oil terminals from Stuart Park to the new port. What is the current situation?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, there has been some speculation which is not altogether difficult to understand, given the scope of the project and the cost to the oil companies of relocation. However, the project, which falls under the Better Cities program, aims to build a better Darwin and is something this government has pursued strongly. Negotiations have been ongoing with the oil companies - more particularly recently with BP and Shell - in relation to their future in the Stuart Park area. Honourable members would be aware of the intention of Shell to collocate into the BP terminal by the end of this year. That would have cost in the order of $3m. Shell has looked again at that proposal and the benefits that would flow from it, and considers that it might be more appropriate not to do that, but to save the $3m and move earlier to the new East Arm port. Honourable members will recall that the target date for moving to the port, under the current agreement, is the year 2002.
In reconsidering their position, the oil companies, particularly Shell and BP, have considered the option of moving earlier. They are now of the view that the opportunity exists for them to commence construction of their new fuel storage facilities at the East Arm port perhaps by the end of 1998. That would cost the companies in the order of $40m to $50m. It would be a major development, and indeed a significant expression of support for the government's development of the port at East Arm. Of course, it would be the first major private development at the new port, and would release the land at Stuart Park for future residential development.
Page 1505
There have been some moves in that regard. I think that the staff at both BP and Shell will welcome the progress. There has been some uncertainty in relation to it, flowing from speculation. I think that they will be a little better satisfied now with what is happening, and surer of what the immediate future holds. It is also proposed to commence demolition work on some of the unused fuel storage tanks at Stuart Park this year, resulting in partial clearing of the site quite soon. I think that the possibility of the transfer of the fuel farm to the new port from Stuart Park 4 years earlier than the original target date will be welcomed by the people of Darwin. It will spell the end of road trains in the city centre - in itself a benefit - and it will allow the earlier release of land at Stuart Park for residential development and the major development to be undertaken at the new port. That is an update on the position. Some negotiations have yet to be completed, as members would appreciate with a project of this size. We will continue those negotiations with the oil companies, particularly BP and Shell but also other oil companies, and we will be seeking to have a final agreement in place at the earliest opportunity.
Page 1506
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, there has been some speculation which is not altogether difficult to understand, given the scope of the project and the cost to the oil companies of relocation. However, the project, which falls under the Better Cities program, aims to build a better Darwin and is something this government has pursued strongly. Negotiations have been ongoing with the oil companies - more particularly recently with BP and Shell - in relation to their future in the Stuart Park area. Honourable members would be aware of the intention of Shell to collocate into the BP terminal by the end of this year. That would have cost in the order of $3m. Shell has looked again at that proposal and the benefits that would flow from it, and considers that it might be more appropriate not to do that, but to save the $3m and move earlier to the new East Arm port. Honourable members will recall that the target date for moving to the port, under the current agreement, is the year 2002.
In reconsidering their position, the oil companies, particularly Shell and BP, have considered the option of moving earlier. They are now of the view that the opportunity exists for them to commence construction of their new fuel storage facilities at the East Arm port perhaps by the end of 1998. That would cost the companies in the order of $40m to $50m. It would be a major development, and indeed a significant expression of support for the government's development of the port at East Arm. Of course, it would be the first major private development at the new port, and would release the land at Stuart Park for future residential development.
Page 1505
There have been some moves in that regard. I think that the staff at both BP and Shell will welcome the progress. There has been some uncertainty in relation to it, flowing from speculation. I think that they will be a little better satisfied now with what is happening, and surer of what the immediate future holds. It is also proposed to commence demolition work on some of the unused fuel storage tanks at Stuart Park this year, resulting in partial clearing of the site quite soon. I think that the possibility of the transfer of the fuel farm to the new port from Stuart Park 4 years earlier than the original target date will be welcomed by the people of Darwin. It will spell the end of road trains in the city centre - in itself a benefit - and it will allow the earlier release of land at Stuart Park for residential development and the major development to be undertaken at the new port. That is an update on the position. Some negotiations have yet to be completed, as members would appreciate with a project of this size. We will continue those negotiations with the oil companies, particularly BP and Shell but also other oil companies, and we will be seeking to have a final agreement in place at the earliest opportunity.
Page 1506
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016