Fuel unloading, storage and dispatching facility,

Kwinana

WA Refiners Pty Ltd

Report and recommendations

of the
Environmental Protection Authority

Environmental Protection Authority

Bulletin 433
June 1990
Fuel unloading, storage and dispatching facility,
Kwinana

WA Refiners Pty Ltd

Report and recommendations

of the
Environmental Protection Authority
ISSN 1030-0120
ISBN 0 7309 3466 7
Contents

Page

Summary and recommendations

1 Introduction 1
1.1 The project 1
1. 2 The process 1

2 Description of the proposal 4

2.1 Timing of the proposal 4

2.2 Jetty and pipeline 4
2.3 Product tanks 4
2.4 Road tanker loading station 5
2.5 Ancillary units 5
2.6 Subsequent deve!opments 5

3 Environmental assessment 5
3.1 Identification of issues 5
3. 2 Risks and hazards 6
3.3 Water quality control 7
3. 4 Groundwater protection 7
3. 5 Air quality control 8
3. 6 Construction impacts 8
3. 7 Assessment of subsequent development 8

4 Conclusion

Figures
1. Locality plan and proposed pipo!ino route 2
2. Site plan 3

Appendices
Consolidated list of commitments 9
2 Request to consider changes 11
Summary and recommendations
WA Refiners Pty Ltd is proposing to develop a fuel unloading, storage and dispatching facility at
Kwinana. The site of the proposal is at the corner of Barter and Leath roads, Kwinana. The elements of
the proposal are:
Install a 450mm (18 inch) fuel import line from the Bulk Cargo Jetty to the site
Construct relined oil tanks (two of 11,000 cubic metres for ULP and two of 3000 cubic metres for
diesel)
Construct three small tanks for short term storage of each product
Install road tanker loading unit
• Construct a small office and gate house
Following the proponent's referral of the project on 14 March 1990, and the setting of the level of
assessment, the proponent prepared a Consultative Environmental Review (CER) in accordance with
guidelines issued by the Authority. The CER was provided to the Authority on 10 April 1990, and
distributed for public review to statutory authorities, the local authority, the Australian Consen.:ation
Foundation, the Conservation Council of Western Australia, and to local libraries. The Authority
sought comments on the proposal and submissions received on environmental issues are discussed
in this report. On 16 May 1990 the proponent submitted details of a number of changes to the original
proposal. These details were circulated to the same groups as for the CER, and additional comments
received have been considered in this assessment report.
In the CER for Phase 1, the proponent identified and discussed the following environmental issues:
risks and hazards;
waste water treatment;
groundwater protection;
air quality; and
construction stage impacts.
The proponent engaged a risk consultant to advise on the safety of the proposal. The consultant
found that the proposal would not generate unacceptable risk to the public from hazards emanating
from the tank farm.
The only waste water from the operation will be approximately 70 cubic metres of fresh water used for
clearing the import line at the end of each unloading. This will be treated in an oil separator then
discharged to a lined pond for evaporation or use on landscaped areas.
Minimising the possibility of leaks from the tanks will be achieved by epoxy painting of the tank floor
and regular (five yearly) examinations of the integrity of the floor. An overall check of the control
system will be provided through regular groundwater monitoring at a bore downstream of the site.
Use of floating roofs in the ULP storage tanks wlll eliminate evaporative losses vvhich could lead to
odour problems off-site.
Mmimai site preparation is required for Phase i of the proposai, so Hre poter11iai lo1 impact during
construction is low.
In the Introduction of the CER the proponent made a number of commitments to manage the potential
impacts of the project. The proponent's analysis of issues and environmental commitments have
been assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority as adequate to control environmental
effects to acceptable levels. Therefore the Authority makes the following recommendations.
Recommendation 1
The Environmental Protection Authority has concluded that the proposal to
construct and operate a ship unloading facility, pipeline, petroleum products
storage tanks, and a road tanker loading facility as modified during the process of
interaction between the proponent, the Environmental Protection Authority, the
public and the government agencies that were consulted, is environmentally
acceptable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Environmental Protection Authority identified the
main environmental factors requiring detailed consideration as:
risks and hazards;
wastewater treatment;
groundwater protection;
air quality; and
construction stage impacts.
The Environmentai Protection Authority notes that these environmental factors
have been addressed adequately by either environmental management
commitments given by the proponent or by the Environmental Protection
Authority's recommendations in this report.
Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Authority recommends that the proposal
could proceed, subject to:
the proponent's commitments; and
the Environmental Protection Authority's recommenaauons in this report.
The Authority believes that non-substantial changes should be provided for in subsequent approvals.

Recommendation 2
The Environmental Protection Authority recommends that, subject to
Recommendation 1, the manner of detailed implementation of the proposal should
conform in substance with that set out in any designs, specification, plans or other
technical material submitted with the proposal by the proponent to the
Environmental Protection Authority. Where, in the course of that detailed
implementation, the proponent seeks to change those designs, specifications,
plans or other technical material in any way that the Minister !or the Environment
determines, on the advice of the Env!ronmenta! Protection Authorityj is not
substantial, those changes may be effected.
The Authority believes that any approval for the proposal based on this assessment should be limited
to five years. Accordingly, if the proposal has not been substantially commenced within five years of
the date of this report, then such approval should !apse. After that time, further consideration of the
proposal should occur only following a new referral to the Authority.
T!1e proponent plans subsequently to deve!op a small oil refinery, to be called the \A/est /\ustralian
Refinery, at Kwinana. if approved, the plant would process 10,000 barrels per day (1.6 million iitres
per day) of gas condensate into three products, Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), Unleaded Petrol (ULP)
and Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO).
This project would be integrated with the fuel importing facility considered in this assessment report
into a complete unit and the fuel importing facility, while able to stand alone, is seen by the proponent
as Phase 1 of the total development
For commerciai reasons, and because oi the time required to finalise the design and construction of
the refinery proper, the proponent wishes to carry out the development in two phases. The
Environmental Protection Authority accepts the proponent's desire for this approach, and has pointed
out to the proponent that a decision on the first phase does not pre-empt any decisions on further
phases. In particular, it does not imply that approval will be given to the second phase.

ii
1 Introduction

1.1 The project

On behalf of WA Refiners Pty Ltd, Energy Process Systems Pty Ltd is proposing to develop a fuel
unloading, storage and dispatching facility.
The proposed site is at the corner of Barter and Leath roads, Kwinana. The location of the site and the
proposed pipeline route are shown in Figure 1. The proposed layout of the tanks, truck loading area
and office block is shown in Figure 2.
The elements of the proposal are:
Install a 450mm (18 inch) fuel import line from the Bulk Cargo Jetty to the site
Construct refined oil tanks (two of 11,000 cubic metres for ULP and two of 3000 cubic metres lor
diesel)
Construct three small tanks for short term storage of each product
Install road tanker loading unit
construct a small office and gate house

1.2 The process

During the feasibility assessment oi the project, ihe proponent held discussions with the following
groups:
Department of Resources Development -to facilitate government and project approvals;
Department of Mines -to identify codes and regulations tor technical requirements;
Industrial Lands Development Authority -to establish land availability;
Fremantle Port Authority- to establish shipping and wharfage requirements;
Australian Iron and Steel -to establish criteria for the use of their No. 1 Jetty and land availability;
Kwinana Town Council -to advise council of the project details; and
Environmental Protection Authority - to identify requirements for environmental assessment oi
the project.
Following the proponent's referraf of the project on 14 March 1990, and the setting of the !eve! of
assessment, the proponent prepared a Consultative Environmental Review (CER) in accordance with
guidelines issued by the Authority. The CER was provided to the Authority on 10 April 1990, and
distributed lor comment to government agencies, the local authority, to the Australian Conservation
Foundation, the Conservation Council of Western Australia and to local libraries.
Submissions were received from Department of Resources Development, Department of Mines,
ilepartment of Occupationai Health Saiety and V"v'elfare, the Town of ~<wlnana, Australian Conserv·ation
Foundation and Conservation CouncH of Western Australia. Commenis received on environmental
issues are incorporated in this report in Section 3.
On 16 May 1990 the proponent submitted details of a number of changes to the proposal described in
the CER. The submission was in the form of a letter which is attached to this report as Appendix 2. The
main alterations were: relocating the site to the north, from part of the AIS site to land owned by the
Industrial Land Development Authority; installation of a pipeline from the Bulk Cargo Jetty rather than
upgrading the AIS jetty: and reorganising the layout to suit the new site. These details were provided
to the above groups lor any further comments and the further comments were incorporated.
 Cockburn
Sound

Figure 1: Locality plan and proposed pipeline route

2
Figure 2: Site plan

3
2 Description of the proposal

2.1 Timing of the proposal

In order to meet contractual obligations to purchasers of its products, the proponent is keen to
complete the project by the end of August 1990. This would ensure continuity of retail supplies to the
public while the proponent seeks approval for t11e subsequent development of a refinery (See 2.6
below).
Meeting the timetable is being facilitated by the proponent's commitment to identifying and managing
potential environmental impacts.

2.2 Jetty and pipeline

Relined fuels will be imported through the existing facility at the Kwinana Bulk Handling Jetty.
Shipboard pumps would be used to provide the pressure necessary to unload fuel cargoes.
A 450mm (18 inch) fuel import line would be installed for delivering refined product to the storage
tanks. On land the pipeline would be buried in a defined corridor and provided with adequate
corrosion protection. The pipeline will generally follow the route of an existing pipeline from the jetty to
the SECWA fuel storage, as shown in Figure 1.
Negotiations are being finalised with Fremantle Port Authority to determine their requirements,
including any additional safety and fire-lighting facilities that would be needed. The proponent
anticipates that some of the safety equipment and trained operating personnel would be provided by
Fremantle Port Authority under contract lor the time that the ship was being unloaded. This would be
more efficient because an average of only one shipload of refined fuels per three months would be
imported.

2.3 Product tanks

It is proposed to import unleaded petrol and diesel fuel. There are significant economic advantages in
importing fuel in sufficient quantities to maintain supplies lor about three months. To take advantage
of this, the proponent proposes to construct two 11,000 cubic metre tanks for ULP and two 3,000
cubic metre tanks for diesel fuel. The proposed layout is shown in Figure 2.
The two petrol storage tanks would be floating roof tanks, to prevent the venting of fumes during tank
mHng. Because of the !ow rate of fume generation from diese! fue!, the proponent cons!ders a floating
roof to be unnecessary, and a cone roof would be installed on these tanks. All tanks, pipes, valves,
etc. would be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian and international standards and
codes, chosen as relevant in consultation with the Department of Mines. The Department of Mines
regulates the handling of dangerous goods, in this case flammable liquids, under the Explosives and
Dangerous Goods Act.
The tanks Vv'oufd be surrounded by earth bunds for the containment of any spillages. Eact1 bunded
area would be drained to a sump from which contaminated water or large spillages would be recovered.
To maintain continuity of fuel deliveries during ship unloading, customs and excise checking, and
settling out of water impurities, the proponent intends to install three small tanks to hold about three
days' supply each of ULP, "super" and diesel. Super petrol is required for high compression engines
and must have a high "octane rating" to ensure that damage due to "knocking" does not occur. The
octane rating is usually increased in petrol by adding lead alkyl compounds to standard petrol. The
proponent proposes to make super petrol by mixing lead alkyl with ULP to raise the octane rating from
92 to 98. The Authority notes that this requires about one third of the normal lead addition required to
raise the octane rating from "standard" to "super". This has the potential for significant environmental
and public health advantages

4
2.4 Road tanker loading station
At this stage it is envisaged that all products would be distributed by road, and a truck loading station
would be built with provision for top and bottom loading of refined fuels.
Dedicated product loading pumps located in the tank farm area would transfer the products through
dedicated product loading lines to the loading station. A control panel would be located at the loading
station for remote stop/start of product loading pumps and would incorporate conventional loading
safety interlocks.
In hazardous areas, instrumentation and control systems would be intrinsically safe or explosion proof
in accordance with the relevant codes.
The loading bay would have a reinforced concrete floor draining to a sump connected to the oily water
drainage system.

2.5 Ancillary units

The fire vvater system 'Would consist of foam systems for the storage tanks and a fixed deluge system
for the tanker loading station. Water would be distributed by an underground ring main system kept at
adequate pressure by iire water pumps.
Electrical power supply would be from the existing SECWA grid.
Oily water would collect in sumps located in the storage tank bunds and at the truck loading station.
Contaminated water a!so wou!d be produced during the clearing of the importing !ine at the completion
of unloading. This water would be pumped to a corrugated plate interceptor (CPI) for the separation of
oi! and water. Details of the interceptor and proposals for discharge are discussed below.
Offices and a workshop would be built on the site. Tile proponent would establish a small laboratory in
the office building.
Water supply to satisfy the small demands tor service water, potable water and fire water would be
drawn from existing Water Authority mains.
A gatehouse and fire pump room would be provided for security and to allow remote operation of fire
fighting facilities.
Road access to tt1e site would be along Beard Street, Leat11 Road and Barter Road. /\nticipated tanker
traffic is about 20 trucks per day.

2"6 Subseauent develooments

- -il ; - --

The proponent has indicated that further development could be of a small oil refinery. If approved the
plant would process up to 10,000 barrels per day (1.6 million litres per day) of gas condensate into
petrol and diesel oil. The Environmental Protection Authority has pointed out to the proponent that a
decision on the present proposal does not pre-empt any decisions on further developments.

3 Environmental assessment
3.1 Identification of issues
In the CER, the proponent identified and discussed the following environmental issues:
risks and hazards;
vvaste water treatment;
groundwater protection;
air quality; and
construction stage impacts.

5
In the CER the proponent made a number of commitments to manage the potential impacts of the
project. These have been consolidated by the proponent into a list which is included as Appendix 1 of
this report. In the following sections, the proponent's analysis of issues and environmental
commitments are assessed as adequate to control environmental effects to acceptable levels.
Therefore the Authority makes the following recommendations for this proposal.

Recommendation 1
The Environmental Protection Authority has concluded that the proposal to
construct and operate a ship unloading facility, pipeline, petroleum products
storage tanks, and a road tanker loading facility as modified during the process of
interaction between the proponent, the Environmental Protection Authority, the
public and the government agencies that were consulted, is environmentally
acceptable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Environmental Protection Authority identified the
main environmental factors requiring detailed consideration as:
risks and hazards;
wastewater treatment;
groundwater protection;
air quality; and
construction stage impacts.
The Environmental Protection Authority notes that these environmental factors
have been addressed adequately by either environmental management
commitments given by the proponent or by the Environmental Protection
Authority's recommendations in this report.
Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Authority recommends thai the proposal
could proceed, subject to:
the proponent's commitments; and
the Environmental Protection Authority's recommendations in this report.
The Authority's experience is that it is common for details of a proposal to alter through the detailed
design and construction phase. In many cases alterations are not environmentally significant or have a
positive effect on the environmental performance of the project. The Authority believes that such
non-substantial changes, and especially those which improve environmental performance and
protection, should be provided for. Accordingly, the Authority recommends as follows.

Recommendation 2
The Environmental Protection Authority recommends that, subject to
Recommendation 1, the manner of detailed. implementation of the proposal should
conform in substance with that set out in any designs, specification, plans or other
technical material submitted with the proposal by the proponent to the
Environmental Protection Authority. Where, in the course oi thai detailed
implementation, the proponent seeks to change those designs, specifications,
plans or other technical material in any way that !he Minister tor the Environment
determines, on the advice of the Environmental Protection Authority, is not
substantial, those changes may be effected.

6
3.2 Risks and hazards
The Authority did not require a Preliminary Risk Assessment for this proposal because of the low levels
of risk associated with this type of facility. Nevertheless, the proponent engaged a firm of specialist risk
consultants to prepare a "Qualitative Risk Assessment". The consultant's report was included in the
CER as Appendix 2. The assessment included review of the proposed facilities, safety systems and
operations. The Authority believes that this level of analysis is adequate for the low risk normally
associated with such installations.
In regard to shipping operations, the consultant indicated that "the requirements for tanker
movements and cargo operations are laid down in various statutory regulations and guidelines. The
statutory requirements of Fremantle Port Authority are generally acceptable to all other bodies with
responsibility for the handling of petroleum products at marine terminals" and that "it is the intention of
EPS to comply with all the guidelines and requirements of the FPA with respect to marine tanker
operations". In the opinion of the consultant, "the proposed fire fighting facilities are considered to be
acceptable and sufficient to ensure that a fire on the wharf could be readily contained and
extinguished." Based on the advice of the Fremantle Port Authority and the Department of Mines, the
Authority believes that the probability of a serious incident involving the shipping component of the
proposal is sufficiently low, and the response system is sufficiently developed, as to be acceptable.
The consultant has indicated that "the pipeline will be designed in accordance with an appropriate
internationally acceptable code and will be licensed by the (Department of Mines) Explosives and
Dangerous Goods Division. All requirements of the licence approval will be complied with." Based on
an assessment of the safeguards proposed, and the advice of the Department of Mines, the Authority
considers that risk due to the proposed pipet! no can be adequately controlled.
in assessing risks due to the product storage tanks, the consultant consideied that the "vvorst case"
fire scenario was radiated heat from a pool fire in the bund area. it was caicuiated that ti1ere wouid be
severe effects from such a fire out to a radius of about 90 metres from the centre of the bunded area. It
was conservatively estimated by the consultant that the frequency of such an event could be once in a
million years. The consultant indicated that "the results of the analysis indicate that the potential for
injury from fires to personnel is extremely low. (This 'worst case') analysis assumed that the fire fighting
and safety systems to be installed at the site were not used to extinguish the fires" and is therefore
very conservative.
In the conclusion to the report, the consultant has stated that "in the preliminary design of the facility,
EPS have given consideration to the safety of the public and io the protection of the environment.
- .. . . ' .,._ •'-~ ~-~•-- ----' -~"-'-'--· '--'··-.>.-.. --- -··"'-:-~ ...
Recovered unleaded oil would be returned to the refined product, and leaded oil would be disposed
of by means acceptable to the Authority.
Uncontaminated site runoff would be discharged to soak pits.
Sewage from the office and workshops areas would be handled through a septic tank system.

3.4 Groundwater protection

The greatest potential for groundwater contamination would be from an undetected leak from a tank
floor. Minimising the possibility of such leaks would be achieved by epoxy painting of the tank floor
and regular (five yearly) examinations of the integrity of the floor. An overall check of the control
system would be provided through regular groundwater monitoring at a bore downstream of the site.
Large losses would be detected by flow balances.

3.5 Air quality control

The potentiai ior odours to occur due to venting of fumes during filling of the storage tanks would be
controlled by installation of floating roofs in the two 11 ,000 cubic metre petrol tanks and cone roofs on
all other tanks. The Authority believes that this will be adequate to control effects on air quality to
acceptable levels.

3.6 Construction impacts

The proposed site is a partly developed industrial site with little vegetation cover. The potential for
impact on the natural environment is minimal, and some improvements would occur with properly
designed landscaping of the site.
In common with other construction projects, there is a potential for dust generation during earthworks.
However the Authority believes that the small scale of the works, use of controls such as site watering,
the location, and the time of year, minimise the potential for impact. No unacceptable impacts are
anticipated.

3.7 Assessment of subsequent development

Should the proponent wish to proceed with the foreshadowed development of a small oil refinery,
then a further environmental assessment will be required. The Authority believes that the key issues
in such assessment will be Hie ability to cornpty witt-i sulphur dioxide emission requirements, quantified
risk analysis, and the implementation of the Kwinana integrated Emergency Management System
(KIEMS) by the State Government.

4 Conclusion
The Environmental Protection Autl10rity has assessed tile potential environmental effects of the
proposal to construct and operate a fuel importing, storage and distribution facility at Kwinana.
The Environmental Protection Authority has found that the proponent has identified all potential
environmental effects of the proposal, and that adequate commitments have been made to carry out
environmental management. The Authority concludes that the proposal could be developed without
unacceptable environmental impacts, and therefore recommends to the Minister for the Environment
that the project could proceed.
The Authority believes that any approval for the proposal based on this assessment should be limited
to five years. Accordingly, if the proposal has not been substantially commenced within five years of
the date of this report, then such approval should lapse. Alter that time, further consideration of the
proposal should occur only following a new referral to the Authority.

8
 Appendix 1

Consolidated list of commitments

9
Consolidated list of commitments

Risks and hazards

1 WA Refiners Pty Ltd will design, construct and operate the proposed facility in accordance with
codes and standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Mines.

Wastewater treatment
2 WA Refiners Ply Ltd will collect all oily waste water from the facility, treat the water through
corrugated plate interceptors, and discharge the treated water to a lined pond. Water in the pond
will be analysed on a regular basis and, depending on quality, disposed of by evaporation or
irrigation to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority and the local council.

Groundwater protection
3 To minimise the probability of a leak from any tank f!oor, VV/1, Refiners Pty Ltd \:vi!! paint the bottom
of the tanks with a suitable epoxy resin. The tanks will be checked visually for corrosion every five
years, and any necessary repairs carried out, to the satisfaction of the Department of Mines.
4 During the drilling phase for site investigation, one of the drill holes will be lined with PVC to
enable monitoring of groundwater. During operation of the facility, WA Refiners Ply Ltd will
monitor the groundwater for hydrocarbons at intervals of three to six months, to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Protection /\uthorlty. Should significant !eve!s of hydrocarbons be detected,
WA Refiners Pty Ltd will identify and eliminate the source of the hydrocarbons, and rectify any
groundwater contamination, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority.

Air quality
5 The two 11 ,000 cubic metre capacity storage tanks wl!l be fitted with floating roofs to minimise
evaporative losses of product.

Lead alkyl handling

6 The procedures and equipment used for the handling of lead alkyl compounds on the site will be
to the recommendations of the suppliers of the compounds and to the satisfaction of the
Department of Mines.

Construction impacts
7 During construction of the facility, WA Refiners Pty Ltd will control dust emissions and noise levels
to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority and the local council.

iO
 Appendix 2

Request to consider changes

11
 ':' ! i'c-JcH~[ ;\11-9: ~79.:/'
,- ;,~ >-''.'<_L (:'.1-S-Ji479 FbP
PO BOX 257
BELMONT
WESTERN AUSTRALIA6104

- - ENERGY PROCESS SYSTEMS PTY LTO - - - - -

16 May 1990

Chairman
Environmental Protection Authority
1, Mount Street
PERTH WA 6000

SUBJECT: VARIATIONS TO:- PHASE I OF MINI OIL REFINERY

DEVELOPMENT

Dear Sir
We seek your urgent attention on reviewing the variations that
have occurred to the project in the past week. These variations
have been made as a result of negotiations with, Department of
Resources Development (D.R.D), Industrial Land Development
Authority (I.L.D.A.) and Fremantle Port Authority (F.P.A). The
variations are as follows:-

* Site Location:
Changed from the Am;tralian Iron and Steel Works
(A.I.S.) parcel of land, zoned industrial and described
as "part of location 506 and location 343" Leath Road
K•,.inana Beach to:-
Lot 9 being portion of lot 31 Kwinana. (Copy of
certificate attached)

* Tank Farm Layout:

Configuration changed to suit new location. (Copy of
Drawing Attached)

* Jetty Upgrade and New Pipe Line:

The upgrade to the AIS No: 1 jetty will not eventuate
as the Fremantle Port Authority (F.P.A.) in conjunction
with ourselves will be installing an eighteen (18) inch
line from the F.P.A. Bulk Cargo Jetty to our site.
This pipe line where practical will follow the same
line (known as the SECWA line) from the same jetty to
SECWA's petroleum storage facilities just north of our
new location.

The pipe line will be buried and installed in

accordance with the required statutory codes (AS-2885)
and regulations (Pipelines Act). We will comply with
all regulations and requirements.

Management/Development of
011, Gas and Chemical Projects
 * Hazardous Risk Analysis
Industrial Risk Management Pty Ltd (I.R.M.) were
originally engaged by E.P.S. to complete the
qualitative risk analysis report on blocks 1864, 7 & 9
which are owned by the Industrial Land Development
Authority (I.L.D.A.) (The report is in the C.E.R. and
refers to our new location.)
When it appeared that I.L.D.A. and ourselves could not
achieve a commercial agreement we then changed to the
A.I.S land and again engaged I.R.M to review the new
site and to verify its suitability, the result of which
is the additional comments attached as a letter to
their report.

*
We request your indulgence by seeking a most urgent
resolution and approval of the changes as any delays
further impact the approvals we need from the Kwinana
Council. They have informed me that they cannot act
until the Environmental Protection Authority has
approved the project.
We v1ould emphasise that the results of the changes are
not of our accord but apparently due to problems with
the State Aqreem.,nt between B.H.P and the government.
Should you / rt::.quire any further information or documentation
please do n~t ~esitate in contacting the undersigned.
Yours fai t.hfully

1///~
"~7•i
'/// . 1_ , '-' •_I
! l'. ;;··, .
G R' Hod;.j.son
I
MANAGING DIRECTOR

ATTACHMENTS
l) Certificate of Title - Lot 9
2) Proposed pipe line route
3) Site Plot Plan (Phase I) Drg No: 89100-020-12003 Rev A.
I
fL:j VCjL i OL

Voluc,to l79S rellCJ J(,S 181tl S1G

lD
"'0'
-"
lD 0
CL
i ccrlliy ilr;tl lhc> person \l~~~~~btc.J in tho F.r~,t Sclteliulu l1Crclo is lite rc>g'sterc(l propriPI\H 01 IIH'l uncJurm~nt;oncd oslato lr1 tho
u•Hiurrf1onilonud l~n(J tuiJ;oct IO 1110 ea~Oil\Of11~ 11nU ortcurnbrilt1Ci'S El\Own In the Socond Schodulo llOroto,

""'
""'
co rflh'\\
_j

~
.-< 0 )>
> D~ted 12th July, 1989 REGISTRAR OF TITLES ~
m
-;;;-
w ,.
0

""m"- ESTATE AND LAND REFERRED TO "6

~

N
zm
:§. Estate in fee simple in portion of Kwinana lot 31 and being lot 9 on Diagram 76027,
delineated on the map in the Third Schedule hereto, limited however to the natural surface
and therefrom to a depth of 60.96 metres.
"
)>

'"m
en
(L
0

FIRST SCHEDULE (continued overleaf) "'_,

-r~:~bema1<-e rs-of-Au s-t r a-1-i-a-L-td~of-4 1-C'u rri e--St re et-;-Adelai·de ;-South--Au stra-1i·<r:-~_:~.-;.. 1

.
~I~9~-~ 2~-~f__Q_ULE {continued overleaf)

l
!'!A>lltR ROI\D

'"
<"'"1_, .. ~ ......? l. lRANSFER 0133510 The right to enter upon the port1on of
the within land marked 'A' on the map in tl1e margin to construct
9 use and maintain a pipeline for the carriage of natural or
other gas as set out in the said Transfer is granted to The
S~_~te_ Energy Commission of Western Australia. Registered
YJ.l0.85 at ll.Jll o c.

THIRD SCH[DULE
ROAD

9 0
1.7649 ho ~

I : ,,
I ,,
l.'_r (,'{'

/ "::t>·
0
z
X
r
,,
rr:
;u

"'
10
' :t:
'"0z
!.1371 ho <t
1- r
"'2
I
' y~

~----1 w

i ,< '
•, 0
a
I .;1· I
Or-4 !-\". .: ~ '"'· \II
I
" p ""V

6 ? 169o

NOTE ENTR!ES MAY GE AFFECTED BY SUBSEQUENT ENDORSEMENTS