This section of the EIA Report considers
the relative merits of the Black Point and
Consideration of the options has been
undertaken with regards to the following:
·
environmental
aspects as defined by the LNG terminal EIA Study Brief (ESB-126/2005) issued by
the Environmental Protection Department;
·
the
Hong Kong SAR Government’s policy objectives with regard to the use of natural
gas and the timetable for atmospheric emissions reduction; and
·
engineering
and cost considerations.
While the focus of this section of the
report is on the relative merits of the two sites it should be noted that a
thorough analysis of the need for the Project and a wide range of gas delivery
and siting options has been provided in Part 1.
The options considered included:
·
import
gas via pipeline from a nearby field;
·
importing
natural gas via the Guangdong Dapeng LNG terminal;
·
import
natural gas via a proposed LNG terminal in Mainland
·
import
LNG via a new terminal in
·
no
action or defer decision.
Table
2.3 of Part 1 presents a summary of the
comparison of these alternatives.
Having concluded that the preferred option
is for the development of a LNG terminal in Hong Kong, Section 4 of Part 1
describes the process by which the Black Point and
For each of the two sites, a number of
alternative layouts, design options and construction methods have been
considered to ensure that environmental impacts are avoided and, where
unavoidable, are reduced to the maximum
extent practicable.
The Study Brief requires the conduct of a
comprehensive range of technical studies, the findings of which are presented
in detail in Parts 2 and 3 for the
In liaison with Government and non
government stakeholders, CAPCO then undertook an Environmental Impact
Assessment of both sites, consistent with the Study Brief issued by the Hong
Kong Government under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
and following the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Process (EIAO-TM).
It should be noted that the technical
assessments were undertaken using conservative or worst case assumptions and
hence there is a high degree of certainty that the full extent of potential
impacts has been predicted and provided for by mitigation measures where
necessary, and that as a result, none of the identified residual impacts are
considered, following mitigation, to be unacceptable
as defined by the standards and criteria applied under the EIAO. In some instances,
additional measures have been incorporated into aspects of the Project design
and working methods to provide an additional degree of confidence that any
residual impacts do not breach the required standards and is not expected to
have long term environmental implications.
It is worth noting that whilst the Project
would be the first LNG receiving terminal to be developed in Hong Kong, the
sources and characteristics of potential impacts during construction and
operation in the
A wide range of issues was addressed in
the construction phase impact assessment and it was concluded that the Project would comply with the criteria and standards
defined in the EIAO-TM and its associated
Annexes. The principal environmental impacts
associated with construction of the Project arise from the excavation, dredging
and reclamation works.
Table 2.1 Summary
of the Key Findings of the Environmental Performance Comparison
ISSUE |
|
BLACK POINT |
||
|
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS |
||||
|
WATER |
·
The result of the construction of the
terminal at ·
Maintenance dredging less than once every
10 years. |
·
The result of the construction of the
terminal at Black Point will be the reduction in sea area by approximately 16
ha. ·
Maintenance dredging approximately once
every 4 to 5 years. |
||
|
WASTE |
·
Need to dispose of 3.89 Mm3 of
marine sediment. ·
Need to dispose of 179,000 m3 of
excavation waste off site assuming 1.30 Mm3 is used to rock armour
the submarine gas pipeline. |
·
Need to dispose of 3.15 Mm3 of
marine sediment. ·
0 m3 of excavation waste (assuming
all material accommodated within the reclamation site) |
||
|
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY |
·
Permanent loss of approximately 7.3 ha of
shrubland, 2.8 ha of plantation, 0.5 ha of
abandoned wet agricultural land, 1.8 ha of grassland and 5.3 ha of disturbed area. The affected areas are considered to be
generally low quality habitats. 0.2 ha
of medium ecological value secondary woodland will also be lost. ·
Many of the habitats on |
·
Permanent loss of approximately 4.2 ha of
shrubland considered to be of moderate ecological
value and 1.0 ha of disturbed area ·
Although the terrestrial ecology at Black
Point is mainly dominated by moderate-low value shrubland/grass
habitat typical of |
||
|
MARINE ECOLOGY |
·
Permanent loss of approximately 265 m of
natural rocky shore/natural subtidal habitat and
approximately 35 m of sandy shore which are of low to medium ecological
value. The residual impact is
considered to be acceptable, as the loss of these habitats will be
compensated by the provision of approximately 0.6 km of sloping rubble
mound/rock or concrete armour seawalls. ·
Permanent loss of approximately 0.6 ha of
subtidal soft bottom assemblages and marine waters
within the reclamation site. The
residual impact is acceptable as the habitat is of medium to low ecological
value and supports low sightings of marine mammals.. ·
Permanent loss of approximately 1.1 ha of
coastal habitat as a result of seawall modifications. The residual impact is acceptable as the
habitat supports assemblages of low ecological value. ·
Maintenance dredging of specific areas of
the approach channel and turning basin is expected to be required once every
10 years. Although impact to water
quality is expected to be compliant with current WQO standards, the works
will result in occasional disturbance to the low to moderate ecological value
habitat within the dredged areas. ·
Short term and temporary impacts from the
installation of the submarine gas pipeline, watermain
and power cable. ·
No adverse residual ecological impacts
have been identified. The marine
environment around the |
·
Permanent loss of approximately 600 m of
natural rocky shore/intertidal habitat which are of
low ecological value. The residual
impact is acceptable, as the loss will be compensated by the provision of
approx. 1.1 km of sloping rubble mound/rock or concrete armour seawalls. ·
Permanent loss of approximately 16 ha of subtidal soft bottom assemblages within the reclamation
sites. The residual impact is
acceptable as even though the size of habitat lost is relatively large it is
of relatively low ecological value. ·
Permanent loss of approximately 16 ha of
marine waters within the reclamation sites.
The residual impact is considered to be acceptable as the habitat
forms only a small portion of the extensive home range of affected animals
(typically over 100 km2) and is not expected to result in long
term biologically significant impacts on the population of marine mammals in ·
Maintenance dredging of specific areas of
the approach channel and turning basin is expected to be required once every
4 to 5 years. Although impact to water
quality is expected to be compliant with current WQO standards, the works
will result in relatively regular disturbance to the low ecological value
habitat within the dredged areas. ·
No adverse residual ecological impacts
have been identified. It must also be
noted that the marine environment around Black Point has been subject to
disturbance in the past as a result of the reclamation at BPPS and sand
dredging. |
||
|
FISHERIES |
·
Acceptable residual impact is loss of 0.6
ha of marine waters used for small-scale fishing operations. |
·
Residual impact is loss of 16 ha of
fishing grounds. Considered acceptable
despite relatively large size as production values are low. |
||
|
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL |
·
Land based viewing locations too far
removed from the proposed LNG terminal to be aware of the change in
landscape. ·
The principal visual change and impact on
landscape character will be for those few viewers who visit the surrounding
area and particularly the ocean between South and ·
Land based VSRs
will experience negligible to moderate adverse impacts. ·
VSRs on
South Soko and on waters around ·
Potential glare and lighting impacts will
be low due to the distances between the site and careful lighting selection
and placement. ·
Impact on the landscape character of |
·
LNG terminal only visible from limited
viewpoints, including visitors to the remote ·
Visitors to
Lung Kwu Chau may
experience a moderate to significant visual impact during clear days. However
there are low user numbers to this area. The users of the ferry routes may
experience a moderate visual impact. ·
Potential
glare and lighting impacts will be low due to the distances between the site
and viewers and careful lighting selection and placement. ·
Impact on the
landscape character of Black Point headland is considered acceptable due to
the low number of viewers that will experience this impact and the adjacent
industrial nature of the landscape. |
||
|
CULTURAL HERITAGE |
·
Direct loss of archaeological
deposits areas Sites A to E. Given the
construction of underground utilities making in-situ preservation impossible,
as a last resort, an archaeological action plan has been recommended which is
a separate document containing the detailed rescue excavation plan,
archaeological monitoring plan and contingency plan to preserve impacted
archaeological deposits by record. ·
Impact on the Tai A Chau Tin Hau Temple, 21 graves and the associated tablet and
7 earthshrines is expected. These sites will be relocated with the
provision of photographic and cartographic records to preserve them by record
prior to their removal. An
archaeological survey will be undertaken at the suitable relocation site for
the Tai A Chau Tin Hau
Temple to confirm if any archaeological deposits will be impacted at the
relocation site. If archaeological
deposits are identified, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented
to mitigate the impact. |
·
Loss of two
building structures at Terrace 1, a WWII cave at Terrace 2 and a stone
structure at Terrace 3 of low cultural resource value. ·
The loss is
considered acceptable provided that a photographic and cartographic recording
is undertaken for the sites following AMO’s
requirements. |
||
|
·
The results of the Marine Quantitative
Risk Assessment of the transit of the LNG carrier to ·
The results of the Terminal and
Pipeline Quantitative Risk Assessments of the LNG terminal at ·
The location of the |
·
The results of the Marine
Quantitative Risk Assessment of the transit of the LNG carrier to Black Point
indicated that individual risk is acceptable and the societal risk is as low
as reasonably practicable (ALARP) as set out in HKSARG risk guidelines
presented in Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM. ·
The results of the Terminal
Quantitative Risk Assessments of the LNG terminal at Black Point indicated that
individual and societal risk levels comply with the HKSARG risk guidelines
presented in Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM. ·
Access to the Black Point site
today requires marine transit through busy harbour traffic, and along densely
populated areas, of: -
Western Hong Kong
Island: Ap Lei Chau, Cyberport; -
Ma Wan Island and -
New Territories: Sham Tseng, Tsing
Lung Tau, Gold Coast, Tuen
Mun. |
|||
The length of natural coastline lost due to the
development at
For the other construction phase impacts,
such as noise and air quality, the principal factor that differentiates the two
sites is their distance from sensitive receivers. The Black Point site is approximately 2 km
from the closest residential sensitive receiver, whereas the
A wide range of issues have been addressed in an
assessment of the operation phase of the Project including the assessment of
impacts on the environment([1])
and hazard to life associated with the operation of the LNG Terminal. The Project was judged against the criteria
and standards defined in the EIAO-TM
and its associated Annexes.
As required by the Study Brief, the hazard to
life assessment consisted of a very thorough and detailed analysis. The Study Brief and EIAO-TM guidelines include both the consideration of societal and
individual risks and
For each of the components assessed in the South Soko EIA Report, the assessments and the residual
impacts have all been shown to be acceptable within the relevant
standards/criteria of the EIAO-TM and the associated Annexes.
The
assessment has evaluated the hazards to life associated with the LNG terminal as
well as the marine transit of LNG. Based
on the risk criteria set out in Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM, the
assessment has concluded that the individual risk for the marine transit and
the LNG terminal are acceptable.
However, the societal risk of the marine transit to Black Point is As Low As reasonably Practicable
(ALARP) ([2])
for some areas of the marine transit; the difference in risk
for these areas is due to busy marine traffic and high population density
particularly through the Ma Wan channel.
Measures
to mitigate the marine societal risk through these areas from ALARP to
Acceptable are not considered to be implementable at
this time by the relevant Authority due to their impact on other marine traffic
in the busy
One of the principal differences between
the
· Western Hong Kong
Island: Ap Lei Chau, Cyberport;
·
Ma
Wan Island and
·
New
Territories: Sham Tseng, Tsing Lung Tau, Gold Coast, Tuen Mun.
3.1
The
Reducing atmospheric emissions and
improving air quality is a major policy objective for the Hong Kong SAR
Government and for the Guangdong Provincial Government. In December 2003, the two governments jointly
drew up the Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Management Plan (the
"Management Plan") with a view to meeting an agreed set of emission
reduction targets. The control of
emissions from the power generation industry is a central component of this
policy.
The Hong Kong SAR Government’s
environmental policy includes the control of emissions from the existing power
stations in
“61.
To fully achieve the emissions reduction targets in 2010, we have asked the
power companies to … use natural gas for power generation as much as possible.
The provision of natural gas for the
purposes of power generation is consistent with the Hong Kong SAR Government’s
policy and is widely supported by the community.
3.2
Relative Performance of the Two Options
The time required to bring a LNG receiving
terminal into operation differs between the two sites.
3.2.1
It is estimated that the LNG terminal, if
constructed at the South Soko Island site, can be
brought on-line and deliver first gas 12 to 18 months earlier than one located
at the Black Point site. This is due to
a shorter construction schedule and permitting and zoning processes.
For the South Soko
location, once access to the site is granted through a Short Term Tenancy
agreement, construction work could begin consisting of:
·
10
months of excavation and site preparation activity, followed by;
·
30
months of tank and plant construction, followed by;
·
2
months of cool-down and commissioning activities.
The pipeline construction and a small
amount of reclamation activity would be performed concurrently with tank and
facility construction upon completion of Foreshore
and Seabed (Reclamations) Ordinance (FSRO)
process.
Site preparation and construction is able
to commence relatively quickly because (a) the large flat area, (the former
Detention Centre site) and (b) the existing dock enable mobilization activities
to commence immediately and facilitate delivery of personnel and
materials.
Based on the above activities, a LNG
terminal at
3.2.2
Black
Point
For the Black Point site, initial site
access is more difficult than at
·
15
months of excavation;
·
Up to
6 months potential delays in completion of Foreshore
and Seabed (Reclamations) Ordinance (FSRO) gazettal process
·
once
the FSRO gazettal is approved the
follow on construction would consist of:
5 months of seawall construction (for the
reclaimed area) and the initial phases of reclamation to enable tank
construction to start, followed by ([4])
;
-
32
months of tank and plant construction, followed by;
-
2
months of cool-down and commissioning activities.
Reclamation activity of approximately 12
months duration would be performed simultaneously with tank construction and
prior to plant area construction.
Based on the above activities, a LNG
terminal at Black Point requires approximately 54 – 60 months from initial site
access to first delivery of gas.
The prompt provision of a new gas supply
is a matter of the utmost importance due to the earlier than planned depletion
of the reserves at the Yacheng gas field. In addition to ensuring continuity in the
reliability of power supply to the SAR, the South Soko
option allows an earlier replacement of natural gas supply and can provide
flexibility for higher gas off-take depending on certainty of remaining Yacheng gas availability which would result in CAPCO
bringing less coal and avoiding associated emissions.
The principal environmental benefit of the
In the context of the Hong Kong SAR
Government’s policy objectives for emissions reduction, the
The key components of a LNG receiving
terminal include:
·
marine
jetty facilities for unloading LNG;
·
full
containment tanks for LNG storage;
·
process
equipment for the regasification of LNG; and
·
utilities
and associated infrastructure.
These components are common to both
options. The principal difference
between the components for the two options is the requirement for a submarine
gas pipeline for the
There are also a number of differences
associated with the civil engineering and site formation work, as presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Key
Design Parameters
|
|
|
Black Point |
|
Overall
project area |
36.5 ha,
mainly where the former Detention Centre and its facilities were located |
32 ha on
the headland south of the Black Point Power Station |
|
Permanent
Land-based works areas |
18.5 ha |
5 ha |
|
Reclamation
areas |
0.6 ha |
16 ha |
|
Seawall
modifications |
1.1 ha |
0 ha |
|
Dredging
volume |
3.89 Mm3 |
3.15 Mm3 |
|
|
|
|
The
The preferred site for the LNG terminal
has been identified after undertaking extensive studies and investigation
works. A comprehensive Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of the
Taking into consideration the range of
factors described in the previous sections, the
·
Earlier replacement gas supply:
South Soko will enable a replacement gas supply 12 to 18 months earlier than the Black
Point option;
·
Gas offtake: South
Soko allows an earlier replacement of natural gas
supply and can provide flexibility for higher gas off-take depending on
certainty of remaining Yacheng gas availability which
would result in CAPCO burning less coal, and avoiding the associated emissions;
·
Meeting the Hong Kong SAR Government’s
policy objectives for emissions reduction:
·
Reducing reclamation works:
·
Marine transit: The location of
CAPCO believes that siting
the LNG terminal on
The enhancements envisaged are not
intended to address or mitigate the potential impacts of the LNG terminal on
South Soko Island as such will be addressed through
specific construction practices, mitigation measures and monitoring
programs. Rather, the enhancements
envisaged are similar to recent local
and overseas experience whereby industrial facilitates and conservation areas
co-exist within the same area 1,2.
With input from a range of
stakeholders including Government, NGOs, local community groups and fishing
interests, CAPCO proposes that an Enhancement Plan be developed. This Plan will contain various components as
described below and draw on local marine conservation programmes enhanced by
overseas experience in the establishment of marine parks and conservation
areas. In this regard, CAPCO has
commissioned detailed and extensive marine studies as part of its EIA process,
obtaining expert views from well known and highly respected specialists in
marine conservation. CAPCO will provide
access to those studies as part of any Enhancement Plan.
CAPCO has identified the
following key possible enhancements through its discussions with stakeholders
and experts:
·
Marine Conservation:
CAPCO understands that the waters around the
·
Rehabilitation of Marine Environments: CAPCO’s experts have advised that artificial reefs could be
deployed in the area to the west of the
·
Cultural Heritage: A
portion of the
·
Public Access: In order to maintain and improve access for grave visitation, and for
fishermen and recreational users of
·
Education: CAPCO is
willing to potentially support education efforts focusing on cultural heritage,
marine and terrestrial ecology conservation at and around the
·
Recreation: Recreational use of the
Figure 6.1 illustrates some of the key attributes of
an indicative Enhancement Plan at
CAPCO is committed to working with the
Country Marine Parks Authority, other relevant Government departments and other
stakeholders to formulate and then agree, after the EIA process has been
completed, on the most appropriate means, funding and time of implementation of
an Enhancement Plan for
(1) AAHK's Aviation Fuel Receiving Facility
located in the Lung Kwu Chau
and
(2) Dominion Cove Point Liquid Natural Gas, LP's LNG terminal operated
within the Cove Point Natural Heritage Trust, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA
([1]) In this context, “environmental perspective” refers
to environmental performance comparison parameters of, Air, Noise, Water, Waste,
Terrestrial Ecology, Marine Ecology, Fisheries, Landscape and Visual, and
Cultural Heritage.