Title of Report: Your Future – Your Say Consultation, Next Steps

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

CONFIDENTIAL

Paper No: 201/13

Date: August 2013

Report of: Director of Central Services

1.0 Purpose

1.1 To inform Honourable Members about the outcome of consultation with the Falkland Islands community on its preferences in relation to the infrastructure development of the new deep water port to be located at Port William, to seek approval to release the analysis for public information and to request authority to further progress work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

2.0 Recommendations

a) The results of the ‘Your Future – Your Say’ 1st stage community consultation exercise into the 10 early decision areas identified in the Towards an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) paper are noted;

b) The findings of the 1st stage consultation exercise are released for public information;

c) Work on the IDP by drafting policy principles which refine the intentions for each of the early decision areas is progressed;

d) Work on the whole of the IDP, by advancing consideration of all the identified 35 key decision areas is progressed.

3.0 Additional Budgetary Implications

3.1 None.

4.0 Background

4.1 In November 2012 Executive Council approved the design of the new deep water port facilities at the site of Port William to progress to “Concept” Design stages and with it specific site investigations and the appointment of professional and legal advice (paper 285/12 refers).

4.2 One of the key considerations at the time was the implications the new port, if constructed, would have on land development in and around Stanley and the port site. It was agreed there was a need to prepare with some urgency a land use plan for anticipated oil development arising from the development of the Sea Lion Field which also considers potential impacts arising from further exploration, appraisal and (potentially) development phases. In order to develop the plan it was necessary to find out what the industry requires by way of land and infrastructure, and when it is required. The aim was to produce high level scenarios for the period 2013 - 2028 which can then be used, with consultant / expert advise and support, to develop land use and development implications.

4.3 It was agreed a discussion on future development associated with the port be undertaken and include:

• Port facilities • Laydown, warehousing and specialist plant & equipment • Support services • Land and type of accommodation required for workers (broken down into different niche groups) • Key public infrastructure – roads, power, water and waste • Consideration of the practicalities involved in relocating existing oil related infrastructure from Gordon Lines to new development areas adjacent to the new port to be sited in Port William.

4.4 While Government is able to progress work on the Development Plan Policy, land ownership, existing supporting infrastructure and proposed infrastructure, it was also agreed we would need Oil companies to be engaged to provide information on future requirements and how they think they could be met. Equally the Islands based private sector would need to be engaged to provide information on their proposals for land availability and development and it was felt local people too should be encouraged to engage in the discussion and express their views.

4.5 David Smethurst Consultancy was appointed to research and identify the key decisions over a 15+ year view as part of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). Mr Smethurst visited the Islands in early 2013 and met with several local companies, oil & gas representatives, MLA’s and interested parties. He then summarised his findings and key issues identified in a document called ‘Towards an Infrastructure Delivery Plan’, which was submitted to ExCo in March this year (paper 48/13 refers) and became the approved approach to be taken for managing the process of developing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Falkland Islands.

4.6 In total 35 key decisions were identified through the Smethurst document of which 10 were identified as pressing, early decision areas that required public consultation to ensure they were addressed at this stage of the Infrastructure Development Programme. This paper provides an update to ExCo on the outcome of consultation with the community on their preferences on the 10 key decision areas in relation to the infrastructure development of the new deep water port to be located at Port William.

2 5.0 Consultation results.

5.1 A questionnaire formed the basis of a consultation programme within Stanley. This set out brief background details on the new deep water port to be located at Port William and details of potential choices (including where appropriate an indication of the Government’s current preferences) for the early key decision areas. Consultation involved distribution throughout all local amenities, a drop-in session at the Town Hall on Monday 3rd June, a FIRS phone-in on 5th June, an online blog was created where the consultation document could be downloaded at http://figinfrastructuredevelopment.blogspot.co.uk/ and assemblies were carried out at Falkland Islands Community School (FICS) and at the Infant Junior School (IJS). The full questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1.

5.2 The consultation asked residents for their views on the 10 key decision areas and asked respondents to provide any further comments as detailed justification alongside their answers. The analysis of the responses to the questionnaire is attached as Appendix 2 and a full list of comments received is attached as Appendix 3. 5.3 The consultation programme ran from 27th May to 21st June and a total of 1641 responses were received from the consultation and the drop-in session. Assemblies at both schools allowed dozens of young peoples’ views to be heard too. The key findings of the consultation results are available below.

• 89% of respondents agreed that phased development is the correct approach to creating a new port. • Over 90% of all respondents agreed that the port should be developed to support each of the following industries; oil and gas (89%), fishing (97%), general service traffic (96%) and ‘other’ (90%), of which popular suggestions included; tourism industry, cruise ships, research vessels and yachts. • With regards to the layout of the new deep water port, 76% of respondents preferred option 1 • The main factors respondents would like to be taken into account in choosing the port option were, in order of preference, cost (36%), length of time required to build (24%) and aesthetics of design (23%). • The remaining respondents (17%) stated other possible suggestions which included; industry needs, good engineering, possibility of future expansion, environmental impact and on-going costs. • With regards to the road access route, 64% of respondents agreed that option 1 was the best route. • The majority of respondents felt that the following industries should be located as close to the port as possible, oil and gas (86%), fishing (77%), general service traffic (57%), and other industrial and commercial businesses (42%).

1 164 responses were received but not all respondents addressed all questions.

3 • However 42% think the market should determine its preferences for oil related development in either Gordon Lines or Port William area. • 76% of respondents would prefer new fuel storage facilities near to the port, for bunker fuel, whilst retaining existing facilities at Gordon Lines to serve the wider community (domestic fuel). • In the longer term, 95% of respondents would prefer fuel to be brought into Stanley through Port William whilst only 5% would prefer fuel to continue to be brought in through Mare Harbour. • A total of 41% would like to see the two oil tanks removed from the south side of the Camber. • A further 57% agreed that further development should be permitted on the site on the south side of the Camber. • Regarding the location of the port and infrastructure accommodation for temporary workers, views were equally split, with 44% of respondents preferring these to be located near to the port, and similarly 44% preferring a location near to, or on the edge of Stanley. • 47% would like to see a new power station constructed in addition to the existing power station in Stanley, and in terms of water supply, 97% would like to see a new impound and extraction site between Two Sisters Mountain and Mount Kent. • A total of 48% would prefer large volumes of stone to be sourced from one or more locations, including on the north side of the Camber.

6.0 Conclusions and key implications

6.1 From the above raw figures, some general conclusions can be drawn. There can be no surprise to anyone about the extent of different opinions in the community. Not all choices will be universally supported, but the force of events, and the need to make progress, will require balanced and pragmatic decisions, often compromises, to be made. There are nonetheless some clear messages from this exercise, and relatively strong support for certain courses of action, in particular:

• very strong support for phased development of the new Port to serve all its potential users; • strong support for the Port design Option 1 (building out into the sea, rather than causeway based); • support for access route 1 (although with more differences of opinion and alternatives expressed); • very strong support for locating development associated with oil and gas close to the new Port, and similar, if less strong, support for Port locations for other uses; • fairly clear support for new or additional power station and fuel supply provision close to the new Port.

4 6.2 As might have been anticipated, there were less clear expressions of choice for the future of the Gordon Lines area, for development (including use of the oil tanks) on the south side of the Camber, and for the location of temporary workers’ accommodation.

6.3 From the detailed comments received on the questionnaires (Appendix 3), a number of issues were particularly notable. As mentioned above, diametrically opposed views were not uncommon (nor unexpected). Significant messages included:

• the need to give serious attention to the planning and phasing of work, whilst also having in mind the final full nature of the development – and a preference to work towards final rather than temporary solutions; • the urgency of making decisions now – and avoiding further delays; • detailed points which need to be (and indeed are being) taken into account in progressing technical design (e.g. relating to dredging, or potential pollution); • ideas about alternative options not canvassed, e.g. around 20 respondents expressed access route preferences via Fairy Cove – which whilst not in fact ignored in the preceding analysis, may need future explanation about the reasons for discounting; • views that the interests and potential of tourism were under-represented; • not unexpectedly, several expressions about the importance of road improvements in the Islands; • some confusion about the purposes of consultation now (and inevitably, about the role of FIG). There were also some clear misunderstandings about the scope for making fundamental choices at planning application stage; • differing and often opposed views about the extent and timing of change in the Islands, and the desirability (and from some quarters, inevitability) or not of some degree of growth; • more specifically, differing views about the desirability of embracing or rejecting physical changes around (and visible across) Stanley Harbour, including debating the merits of increased life and vitality against the potential significant loss of tranquillity and environmental harm; • expressions of views about future changes in Stanley – the merits or otherwise of directions of growth around its edges, and the potential need for different types of development and change within it (e.g. for more offices, or the need, often expressed with regard to the Gordon Lines area, for environmental improvements. The scope and desirability of integrating the construction workforce within Stanley, and potential effects on the local economy, were controversial matters); • the extent to which businesses and market forces should be allowed their preferences, or whether the Stanley community as a whole would have a different view, which should prevail.

7.0 The Way Forward

7.1 The consultation results introduced through this paper relate directly to the Statement of Policy Principles agreed at ExCo in July 2013, which aimed to set out clearly the Government’s stance on the development of the offshore oil industry so that the industry, other business sectors, private developers and the community are all aware when and where such development will be supported in the short to medium term.

5 7.2 Further engagement and consultation on the 10 key issues will be required to clarify some areas and explain Governments decisions in others. We can already say though that some of the policies in the adopted Development Plan (Structure Plan and Town Plan) are now out of sync with these principles and will require revision. Progress of the development of the IDP is required by drafting policy principles which refine the intentions for each of the early decision areas – and identify issues where further work is necessary, and choices remain to be considered.

7.3 Without these new policy principles which refine Governments intentions in each area, planning applications may be determined by the Planning and Building Committee which the Lands Committee (on behalf of the Government as landowner) subsequently does not support, creating uncertainty for businesses, the development industry and the community. Although the two Committees have different roles the uncertainty created by the two decision making bodies applying different policies will be at best confusing and at worse, potentially highly damaging to investors perceptions of the Islands. The two key policies affected in the Structure Plan are BE8 and ALW1, as shown below.

Policy reference & current policy wording

BE8 - The Government will actively investigate the potential for construction of a new deep water port for Stanley and increased civilian use of Mare Harbour.

ALW1 - The Government views positively development proposals that support the exploration and production of oil and gas from the Falklands Offshore Exploration Zone. Onshore proposals for office accommodation, warehousing, laydown areas and overnight lodgings should be centred on Stanley or MPA unless clear operational reasons can be demonstrated for locating elsewhere.

7.4 The three key policies affected in the Stanley Town Plan B5, B8 and B9, are as shown below.

Policy reference & current policy wording

B5 - The Gordon Lines industrial area is the preferred site for larger scale industrial and warehousing and activity. National or international companies supporting the fishing industry or oil exploration will be expected to locate here. The use of Gordon Lines for industry will be reviewed if a new port is constructed at a location other than FIPASS.

B8 - The Government will investigate the potential for construction of a deep water port for Stanley.

B9 - The Government will provide for the onshore implications of an offshore minerals industry through its Housing and Business, Commerce and Industry policies.

7.5 Further work on the broader IDP is now required. This will be essential to inform the early key decisions, by necessarily setting them in the wider planning context. It will also inevitably mean opening up the discussion to a wider debate about the future of Stanley

6 (and the Falkland Islands), and thus link into the intended review of the Structure Plan and Town Plan – including addressing the extent and desirability (or otherwise) of likely change and possible growth, and the appropriate means of controlling and directing it.

8.0 Financial Implications

8.1 There are no financial implications associated with this proposal.

9.0 Legal Implications

9.1 None for the purposes of this paper.

10.0 Human Resources Implications

10.1 None for the purposes of this paper.

FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT

YOUR FUTURE - YOUR SAY

ExCo has designated Port William as the location for a new deep water port to serve the Falkland Islands. This is undoubtedly an investment project of great significance, representing a new era for the Islands, and creating a significant new asset in relation to the future economic development and prosperity of the Islands.

WE WANT YOU TO HAVE YOUR SAY ON YOUR FUTURE!

BENEFICIARIES OF THE NEW PORT

There are a number of potential users, in the short, medium, and long-term. The anticipated services include:

Oil and gas industry - vessels serving the development of offshore oil and gas exploitation, conveying physical materials and servicing personnel working offshore.

Fishing industry - potentially refuelling and re-supplying vessels, and landing catches for containerisation and subsequent export. Layover might also be desired. Although much of the industry currently operates offshore, transferring catches and re-supplying via reefer vessels that do not need to dock in the Islands, the balance between this form of operation, and containerisation, may change over time as a result of the practicalities of shipping containers, and fuel availability etc.

General service traffic - providing facilities for general commercial traffic, wool and meat to and from the Islands, including fuel tankers. This could potentially include civilian cargo shipped on the FIRS vessel being offloaded at Stanley - significantly reducing heavy haulage on the MPA Road.

Cruise liners - whilst the preference is likely to remain for these large vessels to moor further out in Port William bay (and convey passengers through the Narrows to Stanley by tender), it may be that some occasional cruise traffic would make use of a deep water port.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW PORT

Our intention is to manage the design and development of the new port in a phased way – beginning in phase one with quay and laydown space for oil industry, followed in phase two by space for traditional industry (fishing, wool, meat etc.) and a third phase, if required to allow further expansion in the future.

Q1. Do you agree this phased development of the new port is the correct approach?

Yes 97 No (If no, why not?) 12

Comments:

Q2. Do you agree the port should be developed to support the following potential users?

Oil and gas industry Yes 106 No 2

Fishing industry Yes 104 No 3

General Service Traffic Yes 103 No 4

Other industry Yes 81 No 9

If other please insert comments here:

THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR A NEW PORT

There are currently 2 development options being considered for the Port layout.

Option 1 : consists of forming a harbour by building out into the sea with infill won locally from the site (which will also greatly assist in creating the necessary flat onshore hard standing areas) as well as dredging to the required water depth, see figure 1, top right.

Option 2 : piled structures built offshore and linked to the land via a causeway (as with FIPASS today). The jetty would be positioned to reduce the requirement to dredge, see figure 2, right. It would however have a greater impact on large cruise ship mooring due to extending further into Port William, probably rendering the best current mooring unusable. This option would still require the formation of hard standing areas onshore. Both options may be protected by a breakwater (if required) and there will be some on shore excavation and reclamation to create a flat quay area. Option 1 can better utilise the materials (rock) that will in any event need to be removed to create these hard standings and working areas onshore.

Q3. Broadly speaking, which option do you prefer for the proposed deep water port?

Option 1 Yes 78 No 9

Option 2 Yes 25 No 77

Q4 . What factors do you think we should take into account in choosing the port option? Please prioritise these if more than one selected. (weighted due to prioritisation) • Cost 206 • Length of time required to build 135 • Aesthetics of design (what it looks like) 128 • Other 97

If other please insert comments here:

Figure 1: Option 1

Figure 2: Option 2

ing areas Both options may be protected by a breakwater (if required) and there will be some on shore excavation and reclamation to create a flat quay area. Option 1 can better utilise the materials (rock) that will in any event need to be removed to create these hard standings and working areas onshore.

Q3. Broadly speaking, which option do you prefer for the proposed deep water port?

Option 1 Yes 78 No 9

Option 2 Yes 25 No 77

If other please insert comments here:

Figure 1: Option 1

Figure 2: Option 2

PORT WILLIAM ACCESS ROUTE

Construction of the new port at Port William inevitably requires a new access road to be constructed. Two options were put forward for the access routes, see figure 3, below.

The two options for the road route are actually a variant of the same “pathway” identified as the best way to avoid potential heavy load traffic from entering and exiting Stanley and initially follow the same route from the MPA Road as far as Moody Brook, then vary from that point. Both routes were influenced by a desire to minimise visual impact from Stanley and open up land for development, also out of view of Stanley.

Option 1: takes a route east from Moody Brook to a low point along Wireless Ridge approximately 1.5km away, which offers good gradients but also potentially earlier access to stone for construction of the road for at least part of the route, without this being in sight of Stanley.

Option 2: will divert west from Moody Brook and essentially follow the route of the Two Sisters Road/Murrell Road up Wireless Ridge although the road may require realignment to reduce the gradient. Once over the crest of the hill the road would run due east.

Topographic surveys along the proposed routes were carried out to the peninsula where the port will be located. Following this, Option 1 was highlighted as the best engineered route offering the least gradient resistance for what is regarded as the most acceptable, direct route. Option 1 is also a shorter route and is expected to be the cheaper of the two options as well as offering shorter travel distances to and from the port over its whole life. Depending on how the port and other infrastructure to support it develop in the future, a spur road leading to the west, on the north side of Wireless ridge can be constructed at a later stage to open up more land, with this being lengthened as needed. ExCo have endorsed Option 1 as the preferred route.

Q5. Do you agree that Option 1 is the best Road access route now?

Yes 64 No 36

Comments:

Figure 3:Port William Access Route Options PORT WILLIAM ANCILLARY RELATED USES

There will be a requirement for laydown/industrial/storage facilities to serve the industries using the new port. These require relatively flat land for industrial type development in the form of an industrial park (or Parks) similar to the types of oil related space in Gordon Lines. This will be particularly necessary if more than one oil field is developed.

Whilst some uses will clearly benefit from close proximity to the port, others are likely to be more flexible, and could perhaps be located more beneficially elsewhere (e.g. somewhere around Stanley, potentially closer to where most of the workforce seem likely to reside). There is however, very limited capacity to extend the footprint of Gordon Lines beyond that already allocated for industrial and commercial development. Having facilities further from the port, particularly where these require the movement of heavier goods or materials, will result in less efficient working, higher operating costs for users of the port and greater impacts on roads, leading to other roads needing to be upgraded between the port and Gordon Lines, and increased maintenance to these.

Q6. With regard to planning for the future and the below ancillary uses, where do you think any new industrial zone should be located for the below services?

Oil and gas industry

Somewhere around Stanley 9 As close to the Port as possible 107 Doesn’t matter 8

Fishing industry

Somewhere around Stanley 14 As close to the Port as possible 79 Doesn’t matter 9

General Service Traffic

Somewhere around Stanley 28 As close to the Port as possible 56 Doesn’t matter 15

Other Industrial and Commercial Businesses

Somewhere around Stanley 30 As close to the Port as possible 39 Doesn’t matter 23

Comments:

OIL AND GAS SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT AT GORDON LINES

The oil industry is considering requesting permission to build a similar sized facility to FIPASS to the east of the existing FIPASS facility. This facility, if built, would remain in place until a permanent port is completed at Port William. No proposals for any such development have been received by FIG at this point, although planning permissions have been submitted for onshore elements. It is thought that the facility is proposed to be located here because:

a) it can be constructed quicker than a permanent port in Port William and b) to take advantage of the existing industrial/commercial area of Gordon Lines.

Executive Council has expressed strong concerns about the impact a permanent oil industry would have on the local community if allowed to grow in and around Stanley Harbour – hence the decision to build a permanent port in Port William. The Government’s stated policy is that it will not allow a permanent oil industry presence in and around Stanley Harbour. It is also important to recognise that, most Ports are reliant on ancillary services (laydown / industrial space) for the majority of their ongoing income. The future financial viability and success of the new Port will therefore be compromised by any restrictions to locate and control ancillary uses within its area of operation.

Q7. What is your preferred location for supporting new oil related development?

Option 1: Let the market determine its preferences for oil related development in either Gordon Lines or the Port William area 37

Option 2: Restrict new oil related development to the Port William area, when scope (and the new port facility) exists 23

Option 3: Allow no further expansion at Gordon Lines, and actively encourage relocation of all current activities to the Port William area. The future rationalisation of land around Gordon Lines, together with possible alternative land uses, would then need to be considered 29

Comments:

PORT WILLIAM ANCILLARY RELATED USES

Q6. With regard to planning for the future and the below ancillary uses, where do you think any new industrial zone should be located for the below services?

Oil and gas industry

Somewhere around Stanley 9 As close to the Port as possible 107 Doesn’t matter 8

Fishing industry

Somewhere around Stanley 14 As close to the Port as possible 79 Doesn’t matter 9

General Service Traffic

Somewhere around Stanley 28 As close to the Port as possible 56 Doesn’t matter 15

Other Industrial and Commercial Businesses

Somewhere around Stanley 30 As close to the Port as possible 39 Doesn’t matter 23

Comments:

OIL AND GAS SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT AT GORDON LINES

a) it can be constructed quicker than a permanent port in Port William and b) to take advantage of the existing industrial/commercial area of Gordon Lines.

Q7. What is your preferred location for supporting new oil related development?

Option 1: Let the market determine its preferences for oil related development in either Gordon Lines or the Port William area 37

Option 2: Restrict new oil related development to the Port William area, when scope (and the new port facility) exists 23

Comments:

FUEL SUPPLY

A key element of infrastructure for our economy as a whole, and for the operation of the port, is the supply of fuel. All fuel is imported into the Islands and the vast majority of fuel is actually brought into Stanley by road from Mare Harbour.

The storage at Gordon Lines is mainly used for domestic fuel supply, but also has a small bunker of Marine Gas Oil (MGO). This facility is served by fuel tanker docking at FIPASS. Supply of fuel to vessels from the Gordon Lines tanks is likewise achieved through FIPASS, and by utilising other vessels supplied from these tanks to provide offshore bunkering (e.g. to fishing vessels in Berkeley Sound).

There are 3 options for how fuel could be stored in the future:

Option 1: Retain current storage at Gordon Lines only – then transfer necessary bunker fuel to Port William via under water pipeline (although some safety concerns have been expressed about this) or by road;

Option 2: Create new fuel storage capacity and relocate all fuel storage (including domestic fuel) to Port William (which could include the Camber storage tanks) – and convey necessary fuel back to Stanley by road (or by under water pipeline). It may be possible as part of this approach to utilise moveable tanks—capable of relocation if necessary (e.g. from Gordon Lines to Port William), as demand and the operation of the new Port required;

Option 3: A mixture of both options – new facilities at/near Port William for the New Port (bunker fuel), whilst retaining existing facilities at Gordon Lines to serve the wider community (domestic fuel) potentially via a fuel supply buoy.

Q8. Subject to safety/practical/commercial considerations, which option do you prefer for the future storage of fuel?

Options: 1. 4 2. 20 3. 75

Q9. In the longer term, how do you think fuel for Stanley should be brought into the Falkland Islands?

Through Mare Harbour 5 Through Port William 87

SOUTH SIDE OF THE CAMBER

Two substantial oil tanks are located a short distance to the west of the disused dock. These are disused, and whilst substantial in construction are unlikely to be in a fit state to store fuel as they stand – but views have been expressed that with some treatment (e.g. insertion of liners) might provide a cost effective fuel storage solution in relatively close proximity to the new Port William facilities (and potentially connectable via pipe line through or over the ridge to the new port). Supply to these tanks might be achieved via tanker berthing at a refurbished Camber or perhaps by pumping from a berth in the new port, a short distance over the ridge to the north. Equally, the tanks could be removed and the site returned to its earlier state.

Q10. Which option would you prefer for the future of the tanks?

Leave the facility untouched 21 Remove the tanks 41

Reuse the tanks for fuel storage, as part/all of the overall fuel storage solution for the Port and Islands 38

Development of the site on the south side of the Camber facing Stanley has also been proposed recently – to incorporate a level of fisheries related processing and alternatively, there may be other industry that could utilise the area.

Q11. In general, do you agree further development of the site on the south side of the Camber (in view of Stanley) should be permitted?

Yes 60 No (If no, please go to Q13) 45

Q12. If you answered yes to Q11, what type of development would you like or be willing to see on the south side of the Camber?

Comments:

TEMPORARY PORT WORKERS ACCOMMODATION

The port and associated infrastructure developments will introduce extra labour to Stanley; which could mean several hundred additional people at any given time over a period of two or three years. These extra temporary port related workers will need to be housed somewhere and will require access to utilities. Facilities away from Stanley are likely to be largely self contained while ones closer should offer greater opportunities for social interaction and trade with local businesses.

Q13. Where do you think the temporary port and infrastructure workers accommodation should be located?

Near to the port 55 Near or on the edge of Stanley 55 Doesn’t really matter 16

Comments:

Q14. Should the temporary workers accommodation where possible, be grouped in one location?

Yes 71 No 30

Comments:

POWER STATION

The provision of power to meet all future development needs (including the power needed at the new port) is a fundamental infrastructure requirement. Although the development of wind turbines now provides Stanley with approximately 33% of requirements, it is currently limited by storage technology.

The single diesel fuelled power station remains a critical resource. The now ageing power station was originally on the edge of town, but is today surrounded by development and there is a need for this to be upgraded, supplemented or replaced.

There are a number of possible options for the future provision of power:

Option 1 : Continue with the existing power station, investing in its future at its current location – and distributing power to Port William and related new developments from there.

Option 2 : Construct a new power station in addition to the existing one in Stanley – one potential location being in proximity to the new port where, if coupled with fuel storage for the port could improve the efficiency of fuel transfers. Power could be linked back to the existing station, which would potentially become a backup station; provided the site selected permits this in terms of available area, capacity could then be expanded as needed. The construction of a new station in this way, at whatever site, would spread risk as there will then be two sites from which power could be generated provided that the existing one is retained as a standby station, and total loss of power arising from a single catastrophic event is removed as a possibility. However, construction in this way would add cost to power production.

Options 3 : Construct a new power station to replace the existing one – with again the likely location being in proximity to the new port.

Option 4: Install sufficient generating capacity at or near the new port to deal with immediate needs there, whilst longer term needs and options are further examined and developed. This could still potentially be expanded and linked back to Stanley at a later date.

Q15. Which option do you feel is best to ensure future provision of power?

Options: 1. 7 2. 48 3. 19 4. 28

WATER SUPPLY

The increased demands for water supply both for a growing Stanley but more urgently to support oil and gas development is also clearly a fundamentally critical infrastructure matter.

Supply is currently taken from Moody Brook, and pumped to a treatment works and then to tanks above the town. An emergency supply is available at Mary Hill near Stanley Airport and other sites near to Stanley are also identified for short term emergency backup.

Existing supply facilities will be maintained but demand levels are increasingly becoming too high during summer relative to the amount of water available from Moody Brook so plans are being finalised for a new impound and extraction site between Two Sisters Mountain and Mount Kent, 9kms to the west of Stanley.

This will involve construction of a small barrage across a tributary of the Murrell River, then pumping to join the existing main from Moody Brook. This new source is the only realistic alternative/supplementary one for Stanley and offers both reduced energy needs for pumping relative to Moody Brook (due to much reduced pumping head) and also the potential for virtually direct supply of untreated water to the new port via storage tanks placed on the new main pumping route should this be desired.

Q13. Where do you think the temporary port and infrastructure workers accommodation should be located?

Near to the port 55 Near or on the edge of Stanley 55 Doesn’t really matter 16

Comments:

Q14. Should the temporary workers accommodation where possible, be grouped in one location?

Yes 71 No 30

Comments:

POWER STATION

There are a number of possible options for the future provision of power:

Option 1 : Continue with the existing power station, investing in its future at its current location – and distributing power to Port William and related new developments from there.

Options 3 : Construct a new power station to replace the existing one – with again the likely location being in proximity to the new port.

Q15. Which option do you feel is best to ensure future provision of power?

Options: 1. 7 2. 48 3. 19 4. 28

WATER SUPPLY

The increased demands for water supply both for a growing Stanley but more urgently to support oil and gas development is also clearly a fundamentally critical infrastructure matter.

Other options such as the creation of large reservoirs were also considered but were not felt to be cost effective, or provide alternatives in the event of the existing single source supply becoming contaminated or unusable for whatever reason.

Q16. Do you agree this is the right approach to ensure future supply of water?

Yes 98 No 3

Comments:

QUARRIES/STONE SUPPLY

The construction developments (port, roads etc.) will require large volumes of stone aggregate. Currently, whilst the amount of naturally occurring stone is not an issue, capacity to process stone is. Also different sites offer different costs, effects on existing roads due to haulage and environmental impacts depending on where the stone is needed, the type and how much. Re-opening old quarries or developing new ones may, subject to satisfactory assessment of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation and landscaping, be viable alternatives to transporting material from the existing quarry at Pony’s Pass.

Q17. Where would you prefer the large volumes of necessary stone to be sourced from?

Only Pony’s Pass 26

Consider re-opening old quarries, such as Mary Hill 13

Develop new quarries in addition to the two above at sites offering the best balance for specific projects 48

Use stone from one or more locations including on the north side of the Camber, which is close to the new road route and port and can be extracted out of view of Stanley 79

Comments:

Q18. Do you have any other comments on the new port and related infrastructure requirements?

Please continue on a separate sheet…

Thank you for taking the time to complete the consultation.

A box will be located in Stanley Post Office in which completed consultation forms can be returned.

The deadline for submissions is Friday 21st June 2013 at 4pm. If you have any queries please contact Charlie O’Horo, Tel: (+500) 28426 email: [email protected] YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Q1 Comments

R Do you agree this phased development of the new port is the correct approach?

1 It will be phased because you first require a substantial link road, portable water, electricity.

5 Not necessary yet as the oil companies do not need it, as millions has already been spent in Gordon Lines area and FIPASS will last another 10 years, plus present oil companies see no major problems with FIPASS, plus one or two new barges for the initial set-up and export of oil stage. Also any oil company wanting to ‘get ahead’ can/will use its own ‘heavy lift’ cargo vessel from anchor in Port William. To conclude no construction should be undertaken until the money is available and primarily from potential users.

10 Not needed. Oil companies are not interested as they are happy with extending a jetty by FIPASS. A great deal of investment has taken place already in the area around FIPASS. Would they want to relocate? Who else wants to travel so far?

17 I think there are 2 drivers of port development: 1) FIPASS will need replacing at some point, it will not go on forever; 2) There is additional demand for port capacity largely in relation to the oil industry. Simply replacing FIPASS berth length does not address the capacity issue. At least in the short term until all phases are completed FIPASS or another facility would most likely be necessary to take some of the non-oil related activity.

18 Should develop and use Mare Harbour.

19 FIG should think bigger, with more space Berkley Sound would provide a larger long term solution for all of these industries, apart from cruise vessels maybe.

25 I think that once phase 1 is completed and in use, phases 2 & 3 will be sat aside and not pursued with the same drive for completion as the 1 st phase. The funds should be allocated to have the port fully completed as soon as possible after works commence.

28 Phased development makes sense but the phases need to be planned far from the start. It will be important to retain the flexibility, to respond to changing needs.

29 Subject to greater restraints that above user groups have also identified its need.

30 Would see conflicts as each user has own priorities. Oil industry will have own port/dock east of FIPASS?

31 An area to the west of the new port should be reserved for potential further port expansion, 30+ years down the road we may see massive change and we need to have scope for any change.

41 Phasing can be speeded up if greater demand.

42 Government should also be utilising the existing FIPASS location and Gordon Lines which is a disgrace. Additional industrial zones are required but first of all address Gordon Lines.

43 I think it is in the wrong place, but I will continue to fill in as it’s a done thing anyway.

47 Government should fund the monumental part of the port infrastructure – roads, piers etc. This should be done in one hit to avoid future governments dilly-dallying and leaving an unfinished project.

56 We should look to facilitate the traditional industry from the outset, covering the fishing, wool and meat industries as well as import containerised cargo. The SAAS containerised service will require facilities, and there is no mention of this in the paper.

62 Phase one appears to offer less than FIPASS, so why bother – phase one and two is a significantly improved facility.

1 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

64 Oil industry funding this phase?

65 Build the lot with room for more expansion if necessary in the future. Each ‘phase’ becomes more and more expensive so build it altogether.

77 It has to be phased to allow for the high cost of the development.

85 Very sensible approach.

88 The wool warehouse is desperately short of space, would be a good move to get a port sorted for established industries ASAP.

89 It has been well handled.

91 There is still some way to go regards Port William being suitable for the oil industry and use as a port. No met/water wave data yet I believe? Until oil industry agrees they would use it long term, too early to commit to a development phase unless it goes ahead without them.

92 But are there cost consequences to phasing? Who is going to pay – why not wait until oil tax revenues start?

95 Because all the exploratory work should have been completed before a decision was taken to name the port location. The proposed site East of FIPASS may well suffice in the short term and the oil industry could fund and build its own port when they need it. Why is the tax payer funding the new port? No one else will! This is a fait accompli!

108 Presumably FIPASS will still be available to support agricultural exports.

110 Will FIPASS still be available during this process?

123 Wrong place.

Question 2

R Do you agree the port should be developed to support the following potential users?

1 We understand that planning permission is in the process of being granted, or indeed has been granted for the development to the East of FIPASS for Premier Oil is to go ahead – This is very important.

2 Cruise ship berthing. As ordinance point was my option the cost of development would be a fraction of that required for Navy Point. It would serve all purposes and leave the Blanco Bay anchorage free and Narrows not restricted by breakwater etc.

6 Whale Islands

11 Develop Stanley Waterfront to accommodate small cruise ships/recreational users. Keep tourism usage separate from commercial port.

17 Any vessel operator may wish to use the new port. However assuming oil operations proceed at the pace anticipated, there is unlikely to be much capacity at the new dock for anything other than oil vessels at least until phase 3 is constructed. General cargo use may depend on whether the MoD link remains the main import cargo route etc.

20 Not tourists – There are problems at FIPASS with other users getting very frustrated with tourists wandering around.

21 Not tourist ships.

23 Cruise industry also.

2 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

30 Tourist – As in cruise ships. Why have they been forgotten about in this?

33 Tourists from cruise ships need swift access into town or trips out of town. Dock at new port or tender in?

34 Tourism industry.

37 Space for unexpected use and for future requirements.

41 If berthing is available many of the cruise companies will use it.

42 Is this the location of choice for the oil industry? More effort should be made to utilise East Cove / Mare Harbour. Expedition cruise ships would be better suited to a berth off FIC/Public jetty area.

43 It should be available to all industries that need to use it, but socio-economically it’s not the right place for the oil industry.

45 Cruise.

46 Could be used for leisure traffic as well. A staging post for private yachts loading, heading south. Research vessels.

47 The port should be designed from the outset to accommodate large cruise ships. It is ridiculous to think that cruise ships will want to continue tenders with all the problems and risks entailed when they can dock and discharge and embark and onto buses.

48 & Tourist industry. 49

50 I believe that the port should be developed to support all users provided the demand is there and a case can be made for each additional investment to service each new sector. (Working on the basis that it is being developed for oil first, and that FIPASS continues to be operational for other users.

52 Tourism industry also.

56 The imports to the island and containerisation need to be covered by developments from the outset; otherwise others are set to gain potential unfair advantage from this. There is no reason why the development should leave traditional industries behind.

57 Cruise industry may or may not use it. Most likely normally they will not. FIG must not forget the vital port development in Stanley harbour for smaller cruise ships 50-200+ pax so they can berth in town and thus allow passenger exchanges to restart with the planned extra air link. Otherwise A) the air link will never work. B) Chile is fast developing its southern ports so we will become a backwater in future.

58 Even if large cruise vessels come alongside I think that the tenders will come in to the new port – particularly on windy days. I think the smaller cruise vessels will certainly wish to use the port.

64 Wait five years to determine what is required.

71 Cruise liners, MOD boats etc.

72 Tourism – if they want it and pay for it.

73 Tourism, fuel.

77 It should be open to as many users as possible to maximise use/profit etc.

78 Tourism.

80 Must be for all.

3 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

83 Possibly tourist ships but low priority.

85 Well probably but it is up to those industries to say if their requirements should be met, it’s not for disinterested parties to decide.

91 Wool and meat exports containerised onto SAAS vessel. MoD vessel and other charter vessels bringing supplies to the Islands.

92 Will FIPASS be removed? Will Stanley Harbour have a jetty in Stanley Harbour eventually?

94 For the use of cruise vessels as required.

95 The oil industry should develop its own port. Expansion of the proposed site East of FIPASS could support the fishing industry. Likewise general service traffic, carrier’s area and fuel storage is already there.

96 Tourist boats.

97 It would be pointless building it if you don’t use it to its maximum.

110 Wool/tourism. General cargo i.e. Concordia Bay/SAAS.

113 Some cruise ships.

123 Wrong place.

Question 4

R What factors do you think we should take into account in choosing the port option?

1 Good engineering is most important. I have strong reservations on the long breakwater having an adverse effect entering & leaving Port Stanley harbour. i.e. Backwash from both Northerly and Easterly swell from those directions.

7 Cost and possibility of future expansion are main ones. Also which model do oil, fisheries and tourism think best suits them?

11 Southerly gales bring in a heavy swell into Port William – it ‘bends’ around the coast of East Falkland. Look at the buoy data for 26-27 Dec 2012.

12 Practical issues such as including design to meet requirements of an efficient offshore supply base and other industries. Weather and water depth including siltation.

17 I think the design should be dictated by utility and cost. There may be a popular choice but it needs to be informed by customers (ship operators), and experienced port designers. There needs to be some modelling on costs and returns even if that requires some significant assumptions.

20 If we are going to do it let’s do it properly – we don’t want another FIPASS in Port William.

21 I don’t feel qualified to comment.

22 Environmental issues.

23 Dredging – Is this necessary? It seems that building a port in the mouth of a river (Murrell) is always going to hang silt/debris dub shed and dredging forever.

26 Cost should take well into account on-going expenditure eg. Dredging in the long term. Other – practicality eg. Suppose an accident on or against the causeway (which is much longer than the FIPASS one) makes it out of action the whole place grinds to a halt. Option 1 does not have the same single point of failure.

4 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

27 Need to take into account the anchoring requirements of large cruise ships. Possibly providing a mooring for them to use may overcome this problem.

28 Cost should include ongoing expenses such as dredging. At present there seems to be wildly differing estimates.

29 It’s a once and for all permanent solution, needs to be built to a standard that will last for a long time, capital cost needs to be over a long period.

30 Option 1 – without the centre pier. Make the breakwater work as berths as that centre bit would make it hard for docking ships it is not impossible to use all the space at all times depending where the ships are berthed.

36 Good use of available space and amenities.

37 More practical for everyone, users and emergency services.

42 Projected long term maintenance and dredging costs. Oil and gas industry suitability, view of industry.

43 I’m not an engineer. It has to do the job, no point in doing it on the cheap if it doesn’t provide the right service.

46 Please consider ongoing costs – how often will dredging be needed? What will the dredger do when it isn’t dredging? Do not go for the cheap initial, high maintenance option.

47 Surely the usefulness and practicality of the port should be number one. ie. Is it fit for purpose?

52 Flexibility for all intended and required users.

55 1. Depth, 2. Weather 3. Operational constraints, 4. Light pollution. They are all priorities of equal measure.

56 Length of time is critical and then cost which can be managed accordingly.

57 Industry needs are most important! They are the ones who will pay to use it and need it. How in prevailing Westerly’s would you access the long causeway. Needs to be planned here and not 8000 miles away. A daft idea.

59 Impact on other use in area – cruise ship mooring and its potential impact on the ease of access for tenders.

61 Best value for money e.g. Spend more for a longer life. Suggest cruise vessels moor there to reduce risk to life in small vessels (like Mediterranean parts).

62 Need to consider on-going dredging requirements as this may be substantial. Need to consider usability under all weather conditions here. Need to consider environmental impact on Murrell estuary.

66 Environmental impact. Services available to users, probably opportunity to private sector, eating, shop, lounge area.

68 What environmental impact dredging will cause if option 1 is chosen? Realistically how much does it cost to dredge? How much does it cost to hire dredging equipment? Would it need to be re-dredged if tidal current pushes the silt back against the shore?

69 Will the breakwater so close to the narrows cause problems with usage of the Narrows due to wave and current.

71 Function and how many needs it can fill in the future.

72 Maritime safety.

75 Environmental impact should be highest priority.

77 Aesthetics are important. Visibility from Stanley and Port William (for visiting tourists). Can it move further West? Current plans show it’s very close to Narrows. Can there be an attractive plan/costing for moving ½ km to the west?

5 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

78 Impact on Stanley.

80 If it works.

82 Functionality.

85 This is a random list, what about environmental factors, amenity value, service provision, land for post services, navigation, vulnerability to weather etc. The factors that need to be taken into account need to be determined by the project managers. It is worrying that a very short list like this is being offered out for the public to express opinions on.

86 Location should be at Mare Harbour.

88 Cost benefit long term.

90 Practicality of design/functionality. Meets the needs of the users.

91 Right place for industry to use. Still unknown. Far too early to select options. Need to wait until temporary oil facility constructed in Stanley Harbour and Sea Lion oil field developed and cash coming in. Then make choices. It may be better at Mare Harbour.

92 Will there be a consultation on alternatives? Impact of visual, light, noise on Stanley community. Have all industries committed to use this?

94 As required as surely cost will determine the time necessary and vice versa.

95 Mare Harbour should be really ‘tested out’ with MoD, they do go’ hot and cold’. This would require hard topping the MPA road and we can afford to do this, over a period of years.

99 Need facility ASAP from what I hear for oil industry.

101 How it will affect the animal life around that area.

106 Impact on the Islands and people.

108 Effectiveness of final port would be my biggest priority.

113 Evolving expectations of H&S and ability to effectively segregate different industries and organisations.

123 Wrong place.

Question 5

R Do you agree that option 1 is the best road access route now?

1 However I would suggest the road would be best sighted to the South of the Ridge thereby reducing costs.

2 Option one with modification to continue down the harbour edge to cross over at Fairy Cove.

5 Any potential road should follow existing track/old rail line to Fairy Cove then to the back of the Ridge. However, again, who pays for it and also the matter of compensation to the existing householders in area. Also, Tumbledown is a major water catchment area for Moody Valley reservoir ie. Contamination risks.

7 Would prefer option 2. What about a road all way along the harbour edge on North side, cross to port at very low ridge opposite secretariat. Seeing the road from Stanley is not a problem.

10 ExCo are asking the people for these options but have already made up their minds that option 1 is preferred. Is that democratic?

6 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

11 It is the best between the options presented, but below pen mark would seem more logical on cost & construction considerations.

12 This decision is best left for quantity surveyors / road / highway designers, not for Members of the public (irrespective of public opinion).

14 Why not use Fairy Cove?

16 Crossing at Fairy Cove must be a more cost effective solution.

17 No strong views.

19 The best route will be to veer right early on from option 1 and follow the shore line until Fairy Cove. This will ensure no hill to climb and a good hard surface with the availability of good quarry material.

20 Neither – We should be avoiding the higher ground – in some cases it might be longer and possibly more difficult – in the short time we have had roads in the camp we have had to go back and re-route them to avoid errors of route planning and attempting to mark the gradients less.

21 Avoid all high ground where possible.

22 Bring road through between Tumbledown and 2 Sisters, minimising influence on town, allowing road to reach north side of Wireless Ridge at easier gradient. Gives access to all mountains (tourism), more space to build wind turbines, water install, etc.

24 Take the road along the harbour shoreline to Fairy Cove – Flat, Hard and the Easiest route. I do not think it will matter if it is visible from Stanley.

28 Little in it although it is questionable whether it is sensible to ignore the Murrell route until some point in the future. This effectively doubles the impact.

29 Needs to be well instructed and landscaped to fit into the land form.

31 It would be better to take the road along the harbour to the point at Fairy Cove then go through. It will not impact on the town view and indeed would be rather nice to see the traffic passing. The road should be black topped to avoid dust columns wherever it eventually goes.

33 Build road as option 2 now to maximise development areas – add option 1 at later date if required.

35 Why not use existing Murrell Road which has already cost thousands?

36 Route 2 would be better as it passes the potential development areas and bypasses the houses at Moody Brook.

37 Option 2 – New road will be completely out of sight and away from residents at Moody Brook.

39 The road should follow the seafront to Fairy Cove not over Wireless Ridge.

43 No point wasting money if it doesn’t work/becomes a white elephant.

45 No consideration has been given to the houses at Moody Brook with heavy vehicles going in front of their houses.

47 Surely a better option would be to extend the bypass as indicated below – a much shorter route to Stanley with better gradients, similar ground conditions to the prospect long way round, probably less peat.

50 On the basis that option 2 can be built later to open up more development land.

57 Best route for gradient is via Fairy Cove as no hills! And probably a few metres shorter and cheaper. Where is the rock source you mention? Can it be accessed from Fairy Cove or not? If so this is the way to go. Silly story about ‘impact’ on residential West Stanley, 1/3 – ½ mile across harbour and we will not have 6-10 40 lorries a minute, 24

7 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

hours a day for ever! Maybe 1 or 2 a minute with longer intervals between them anyway = 10-15 an hour.

58 The new road should go along to Fairy Cove then turn North, avoiding any hill climbs. I have always envisioned Stanley expanding to North shore of harbour. A road near the coast will allow eventual building of dwellings between road and hills.

59 Providing shortest route whilst balancing impact on Stanley visually with that. If area to west is developed maybe housing and having port road route pass through or by this will be negative.

61 Due to bad weather the road with the least gradient would be better. Irrespective of choice consideration needs to be given of response times for fire, ambulance and police resources.

62 Prefer to keep major roads away from Stanley Harbour.

68 I personally wouldn’t like to see development north of option 2 and west of Watt Cove.

72 Provided it is as stated above, without being in sight of Stanley”.

75 People have built down there for a reason. The Wireless Ridge is a common ground for horses. If option 1 is used we lose more land and the less you can see of the road from Stanley the better.

77 Option 2 is better linking with existing road and avoiding need to go down north side of harbour.

78 The road needs to come up through the gap at Fairy Cove, the other two proposals will be hazardous for HGV’s in Winter. If further development to the west of the port is required in future years then a spur road could be built then to access that area.

80 South side looks cheaper and less hills.

81 Option 1 is flatter while option 2 goes up hill (not good in winter).

83 I also like the spur road and if more infrastructure is built west of the port then option 2 would make sense to build it at a later date.

85 A very subjective question, “best” will mean different things to different people. The project managers should be able to clearly justify their choice and the public can have their say at the planning permission stage.

88 Considerable consideration needs to be taken on the visual impact of the road.

89 Probably a route cutting across at Fairy Cove should be considered.

91 Option 2. Once a road is built it never goes away. Moody Brook families should not have a road running in front of their properties, nor should Stanley see the traffic 24 hours a day. It costs the most but better in the long run.

92 What is the difference in costs?

93 Going to Fairy Cove would take away any climbs for heavy lorries.

94 I am firmly of the opinion that the road should be routed East from Moody Brook to Fairy Cove and then North turning East at Watt Cove. This route would not be affected by any significant gradients thus saving vehicle fuel costs etc. and the visual impact from Stanley is not a great problem I believe.

95 Not applicable but if this road is planned to be hard topped there will be widespread disquiet because of the state of the MPA road.

97 We would like to see the road following the Camber railway line to Fairy Cove over to the back of Wireless Ridge avoiding steep roads for winter traffic.

98 The route should take into account the well being of the people who live on the north side of Moody Brook.

8 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

99 But please give consideration to those who already live at Moody Brook near the route.

101 It is quicker and much cheaper.

108 This road is going to be around for the long term. It is going to see major heavy traffic. Think option 2 could be built to ensure gradients are not taxing or prohibitive. Think it would be much better aesthetically.

109 Option 1 is the best out of those 2 options but surely it would be built a lot faster and more cost effective if using the old rail bed down the north side of Stanley Harbour and went over the ridge at Fairy Cove where there is the least gradient.

110 Think for the future, reduce gradients on option 2. FIG pay a lot for design engineers/civil engineers. Make them do some work. Don’t build option 1 out of short sightedness.

113 Full length of road will need to be surfaced from the beginning. Currently unclear why route crossing the ridge at Fairy Cove has been discounted – appears to offer least gradient.

123 Wrong place.

Question 6

R With regard to planning for the future and the below ancillary uses, where do you think any new industrial zone should be located for the below services?

1 The Camber is where the Port really should be. If this was dredged and refurbished as mentioned previously this would utilise the historic breakwater to form part of the New Port.

2 Too late for fishing industry when considering the cost of the golden yard, FIPASS road/Gordon Lines but any additional expansion should be near the port. General service traffic – if this is retail goods, warehousing near Stanley outlets makes sense. Industrial and commercial near the labour pool.

5 As yet Q6 does not apply as for now FIPASS and existing area/Gordon Lines is aplenty big enough area.

11 Engage Stanley in the development.

12 Offshore equipment and cargo is more likely to arrive and depart by sea. Other cargoes may be stored elsewhere – from a more practical viewpoint.

17 No strong views – it should reflect the requirements of the users as much as anything. Ultimately that is likely to be as near to the port as possible. That need not negate investments already made elsewhere although that may be the end result. Any industrial zone should be slightly apart from the town which was the planning concept for Gordon Lines.

25 Other industrial and commercial businesses should be allowed the choice of where they would prefer their facilities to be located. Businesses such as the oil industry/fishing and other heavy users of the shipping link should be encouraged to take their business out of Stanley.

26 Although most staff may live in Stanley, personal transport (bus/minibus/private cars) will be less wearing on the Stanley access roads than HGV’s.

28 The distances involved are not wildly different. Not sure that it is a great issue.

31 Businesses will develop in areas best suited to their needs and it would be wrong to push any business in any given area. We want to encourage not discourage.

33 Development concentrated around port will allow ancillary industries to have greater chance of success with wider customer base eg. Catering to workforce.

9 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

41 It makes sense to have laydown, warehousing and cold stores as near as practicable to the port. Other businesses may have different requirements.

42 The existing Gordon Lines needs to be managed properly and there is a role for the existing FIPASS location for port usage.

43 I don’t think it should be so close to Stanley, particularly for the oil industry.

46 Stanley will expand and so will industry. I suggest industry is put on an industrial site not in the midst of residential. The airport road already looks a mess, one giant scrap yard. Articulated lorries, cars, horses, pedestrians do not mix.

48 & General traffic – local ships. 49

50 My view is that new O&G development should take place around the new port, light industrial/commercial locally owned O&G support services could remain at Gordon Lines as well as using some of the land vacated by Premier/Noble assuming that Byron/FIC lease land is used as short term support prior to the new port being commissioned.

If fishing vessels are to use the new port for containerisation then the SAAS yard will probably be required to move or at least have yard there due to axle load design restrictions on the bypass. A clear and binding decision on post new port future of FIPASS and any temporary port is needed as historically nothing temporary has ever been so. Therefore businesses will assume FIPASS/Gordon Lines will continue to have a role to play in the economic infrastructure and invest accordingly.

Generally I believe that economic activity will go where it is best suited (at the new port, or at Gordon Lines, but the correct decision form many businesses will depend on whether Stanley will continue to keep a port in the harbour for launch small vessels or fishing vessel use. My assumption is that Gordon Lines can be developed into a far more visually attractive area more cheaply than relocating everything to the new port. There is no reason why commercial activity in Gordon Lines can not contribute towards the commerciality of the port.

My general observation is that ports such as St Johns, Aberdeen, Marin etc. have had their waterfronts lost to the community that live in those towns. I fully support the choice of Pt William, but I am not so convinced by the decision to have no port in Stanley harbour. My preference would be to see continued use of the FIPASS area for a smaller port as contingency against any loss of use of the main port and allow commercial activity to continue to grow naturally in that area, but for it not to 'creep' into town. Thus leaving access to the water front unobstructed for private access. From a planning perspective a limit will have to be put on the footprint of Gordon Lines Industrial Estate so that users and potential users are aware of its long term limitations.

52 For general service traffic maybe these could be combined for reasons of practicality, some near Stanley and others close to the new port.

55 East Cove or Berkeley Sound where there is actually deep water.

57 Where it makes sense to them.

59 Depends on nature of industry and business, some may sit well with the port, some not.

61 Assuming Port William goes ahead. The further any lay down areas or ancillary work is located the greater the vehicle usage. The greater use of vehicles the higher likelihood of transport problems eg. Roads, accidents, etc.

62 Stanley has enough to contend with, with housing and other issues.

65 Majority should be as close to port as possible. Obviously some facilities may be located elsewhere closer to Stanley – related ‘spin-offs’.

10 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

68 I would not like to see these facilities built north side of Wireless Ridge.

69 Land to the north of wireless ridge and navy point.

72 Stanley would benefit from more office accommodation.

77 If the Port William deep water port goes ahead much laydown, industrial, storage should go with it.

80 Don’t mess up Stanley area east or west some modest development ok.

83 No more mess at Gordon Lines. I am talking about the local businesses. The oil yard is neat and tidy and efficient.

85 Again this is not for lay people to opinionate on. The project managers need to do their homework and produce a clearly justified decision. What value is the man-on-the-streets opinion of where oil and gas facilities should be placed?

88 Needs to take industrial/unsightly storage areas away from Stanley.

91 Too early to say. This assumes the port will be built in Port William. Further information is needed before this should be agreed, not least where the money will come from to pay for it. There won’t be cash for it until after 2017 when Sea Lion field starts producing oil.

92 If Port William is going to be built, why would we want trucks going back and forwards from Stanley?

93 Most lay down area’s could be located at New Haven. Fabrication areas down Gordon Lines.

95 Of course having the proposed port in Port William is very convenient as regards industrial zones, presumably another justification. There is plenty of land around Stanley which could be developed when necessary.

97 Not sure what the other industrial and commercial businesses are, therefore no comment for this one.

108 Wherever it is located it should be a designed ‘industrial zone’. Lay down areas would be best located close to the port.

113 Heavy industry clearly needs to be located at the Port (lay down/pipe yards). Some light engineering and support services for oil and gas could utilise Gordon Lines area.

123 Wrong place.

Question 7

R What is your preferred location for supporting new oil related development.

2 With laydown yards already developed at Gordon Lines and at Stanley Services highlights the extravagance of choosing Navy Point as the deep water port. Ordnance point will haunt planners and budgets for years to come.

5 Gordon Lines area is quite adequate for at least 10 years+.

10 Gordon Lines area is perfectly adequate.

12 If they start at Gordon Lines it will be a long term stay.

17 Some ongoing port facility in Port Stanley is likely to be attractive to some users and some residents. If a new ‘temporary’ port is developed near FIPASS with a significant anticipated life span it might make sense to adopt that as the Stanley port and sell FIPASS in due course (it probably has significant metal value if not port value, although that will be reduced due to location).

23 Other than established laydown facilities near Gordon Lines, further expansion in this area should be for existing,

11 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

non-oil company, and businesses.

24 If it means the disgusting mess at Gordon Lines would be tidied up, it would be all for the good.

25 Stanley is starting to look like a large industrial estate. It’s ugly and dirty and not something I personally feel particularly proud of.

28 With a few exceptions Gordon Lines does not demonstrate that businesses are aware, or care, about their impact on local environment.

31 Again best business practice will dictate best use.

33 Industrial eyesore of Gordon Lines should be cleared away and more purpose built areas around port – hopefully less unsightly.

41 It is unfair to expect existing businesses to be forced to move but any additional fishing and oil related cold stores warehousing and laydown should be near the port. Business will naturally gravitate there if sufficient space is made available.

42 Gordon Lines is already an industrialised area, if better managed it could support increased oil industry operations.

43 I think the oil industry will do what they need to do, be it Port William or elsewhere.

46 The oil industry is looking at an interim solution because FIG has spent too long thinking about a replacement for FIPASS without actually doing anything. Please don’t procrastinate again. Be decisive and invest. Do something.

47 Build the port in a place with more suitable land adjacent and concentrate related industries nearby. An example from Aberdeen would be mud silos ranged alongside one dock; not trucking involved, its pumped right into the supply vessels.

48 & When this development closes this area should be used for housing. 49

50 Option 3. What about relocation of Lookout Industrial Estate activity to Gordon Lines? That would make more sense visually. If proposing to relocate Gordon Lines for visual/activity reasons then Mega bid should be part of the same operation.

55 No point answering due to the leading question, a decision appears to have already been made.

57 FIG needs to be sensible! Many companies have heavily invested in Gordon Lines already! So leave to the common sense of those concerned! That common sense says that some facilities may move once new port built and some will stay.

58 The appalling mess at Gordon Lines is an eyesore and should be removed. It is shameful that FIG land should have been allowed to become a scrap heap.

61 Concentrate on Port William; leave Gordon Lines available for domestic development.

62 The land at Gordon Lines has already been developed, or is an eyesore, so it may as well be used.

65 Get the new port development started now for oil related development and then encourage relocation from Gordon Lines area.

66 Cannot decide between 2 & 3. Once Port William facility is well under way then option 3.

68 I would agree to any location around Stanley except for the area north side of wireless ridge.

12 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

69 Urgency is the key word. Has that been considered and decisions made rather than continuing consultation (talking) which delays the hard decision.

72 Option 3 to ensure viability of new port and limit industrial encroachment on the town.

77 I think a temporary facility in Stanley Harbour is appropriate in the short term but when a DWP is constructed all industry should move to that location.

85 This is clearly a leading question designed to allow FIG to hide behind “public opinion” when they block the temporary facility concept. If FIG doesn’t want it to happen then it should have the courage to say that. Engineering public consultation feedback to give a pre-text or justification for a pre-conceived decision is very underhand.

88 If further expansion at Gordon Lines only on the proviso of moving to the new port facility once it is completed.

91 Industry needs to use Gordon Lines with temporary jetty to get the Sea Lion oil field on stream. We should support this and then consider options when we have funds.

93 New Haven and develop Goose Green.

94 Despite ExCo’s concerns I have not heard from any members of the community regarding concerns about the oil industry growing in and around Stanley Harbour.

95 It is scandalous to consider restricting the options open to the oil industry. Provided they follow planning rules let them get on with it.

99 Option 1 could be allowed short time with time limited contracts to move when Port William and surrounding area is ready.

108 I don’t see how this question differs from the above. I think most should be by the port. I think Gordon Lines is an exceptionally ugly and ill managed industrial area but given its current status it would make sense for it to continue.

109 Mare Harbour became operational very quickly so with good will and good contractors (rule out the Falklands factor) it should be possible to get an operational port in a sensible time.

110 Why build a port out of sight, though allow all the crap to be ‘stock piled’ just outside Stanley.

123 Wrong place.

Question 13

R Where do you think the temporary port and infrastructure workers accommodation should be located?

1 This would reduce wear and tear on transport. Also fuel costs and excessive use of our already very bad road surfaces in Port Stanley.

2 Near the port as this is where the work will be done and it will reduce time and transport.

7 Strict rules need to ensure sensible behaviour. “1 strike you are out” rule should apply. If misbehave should be sent back home.

12 FIC site is excellent place for this.

16 The FIC site is ideal.

17 It depends on scale and numbers. If significant then setting it apart from the town may be preferable.

13 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

19 Moody Brook would be a good location, power, water and control to the road works and close to the port.

23 Temporary port East of FIPASS. Workers accommodation to the south or Arbet Road.

25 As far from Stanley as possible.

26 Either way there are pro’s and con’s, like possible reduction of spending in local outlets if the workers are isolated but the possible increased noise if they are near Stanley. The longer term users of the accommodation should also be considered as should impact of infrastructure/utilities (electric supply, water supply, sewage disposal).

28 Transport of workers to the work site would be an extra point.

31 Near to the port is best practice because their accommodation could then be used for future port operators.

33 Traders in Stanley benefit from more potential customers. Integration preferable to segregation.

42 Staff should be part of the community, not living in an industrial camp.

46 The port is industrial, accommodation is residential. Why should workers be isolated? Also it isn’t far from the port to town. It is no big deal to commute.

50 Isolating a workforce from the community is not a positive thing at a social level or probably at a cost level. We have historical experience with MPA whilst isolated from Stanley vs. Hillside/Hospital/Crown Agents camps were in town.

59 Temporary could be almost anywhere, but near to work site seems to be more efficient. If more permanent should not be near to Stanley unless south of bypass or East of Market Gardens.

61 Experience of building MPA and the new airport at St Helena is to have construction workers in a compound away from the main town and with their own security. If they are in town considerable police and vehicles will be required (based on other countries).

62 Less road impact, like the coastal.

65 Workers – particularly those here for some time need to be included into the resident population.

66 Avoid ‘them’ and ‘us’.

68 So they can benefit from local services and local business would benefit as well.

72 Integrate workers into the community. Encourage them to spend money on local businesses.

75 Stanley is already being overdeveloped and crowded. Accommodation for 200 plus men should be kept as close to the port as possible or expand Lookout Lodge, that is what it is there for.

77 Camber should not be developed, too visible from Stanley.

85 Subject to planning permission for goodness sake. That is where public opinion is sought, not in some random FIG questionnaire.

89 Ideal site is FIC dairy Paddock development.

91 Still too early to say as port location may change. It is critical that port construction does not occur when Premier Oil are developing their field because the economy will over-heat and Stanley will be swamped. It needs to be phased.

92 Don’t know what number of people will come into Stanley. Shouldn’t an impact assessment be done?

95 The port at Mare Harbour.

14 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

99 See Q12. Some longer term people should be located in Stanley and allowed to bring their families.

113 A bit late to ask this now.

123 Wrong place.

Question 14

R Should the temporary workers accommodation where possible be grouped in one location?

2 On or near the site.

12 No preference but would suspect that RFIP may have a view.

16 The site behind the power station Is ideal.

25 One large complex with its bar facility.

26 Not necessarily in one location but yes in one or two groups.

27 A few smaller work camps are likely to make less impact than one big one.

28 Seems more practical but could lead to ghetto mentality.

31 This makes financial and economical sense to have workers based on or near the site. This will reduce traffic to and from the work place.

33 No need to provide purpose built ghettos. Hopefully local labour will reduce need for all imported labour requirements.

43 Not unless it was a total separate town.

46 Whether one, two, three or four camps are set up it doesn’t matter. We must ensure there are no ghettos or no- go zones however.

50 Where possible workers from different projects should be spread around in order to avoid a feeling of segregation amongst them.

52 Not necessary.

55 Easier to police.

57 As best suits location and land availability.

59 If scattered then impacts and ghetto effect should be less pronounced.

61 For reasons of above, the employing companies need to vet and police their workers to reduce the impact on the mineral resources of Stanley.

65 No – better to be ‘pepper potted’ within community to avoid ‘them’ and ‘us’ situation.

66 Encourage integration but for overnight only accommodation before flying out, some accommodation near the port with private sector facilities in place would be good.

69 No restraints on workers choosing where they want to live if they can find accommodation.

72 Don’t want to create a ghetto. Smaller developments in several locations give more scope for reuse.

77 Not necessary. But should be thought through to minimise impact on Stanley residents.

15 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

85 Maybe but again is a planning permission issue.

88 Won’t integrate with community otherwise.

89 As above an excellent location.

91 Doesn’t really matter.

92 It would be good for the community to have the extra business from them.

97 Not necessary.

99 Not necessary although it might be more cost effective and easier to manage.

101 It doesn’t matter if they stay in Stanley.

108 Probably not. We want integration not a mini housing estate for oil workers.

123 Wrong place.

Question 16

R Do you agree this is the right approach to ensure future supply of water?

2 When planning the route of the road to Murrell farm, I submitted suggestions for the road to continue up two sisters’ old track, cross over Wireless Ridge west of the old stone crusher, over the shoulder of Mt Longden to Murrell Estuary. Then the road would be near to the corner pass, when the time comes to dam the river for additional water supply for expanding town of Stanley.

5 Just remember the Murrell river is salt/tidal ¾ mile above drunken rock pass. Present holding area in urgent need of expansion, ditto for treated water. Perhaps a new treatment plant plus storage near supply area than existing plant building used for extra power supply etc.

7 Oil companies do not need all their water to be fit to drink and they should have access to an untreated supply.

17 Power: Having 2 power stations is likely to be inefficient, although having alternative capacity is a serious issue. Having a second generator shed near the current facility but with a good barrier might be worth a thought.

Water: May impact on the Murrell in terms of fishing and amenity value.

18 What about foul water/sewage disposal – that needs to be taken into account also.

28 In view of paragraph 4 of this section the question seems redundant.

29 Once pumped over the watershed, Moody Brook itself could take the water to the current – i.e. minimal construction within Moody Valley itself.

31 Excellent idea and will open up further development potential in the area.

43 Something has to be done but I am not an engineer.

46 If Mary Hill quarry is reopened and enlarged it will create a larger reservoir.

52 Yes initially but the issue of water supply is something which clearly has to be monitored closely and planned in advance, with significant development taking place.

57 Go with common sense and advice of the professionals – ok a bit of FIG ‘steerage’ but Falklands will get a hopelessly over priced and unaffordable place with industries scared off to other countries if we have too much Government bureaucratic control.

16 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

61 Need specialist advice but an area for consideration is water for the fire service both to deal with Stanley airport, the new dock and an expanded Stanley. Sea water ruins the fire service equipment and a strong supply of clear water is needed through hydrants spread throughout the town.

65 This project should also be started now. It will need sorting regardless of oil and related industries.

68 I would agree to the option that has the least environmental impact on the Murrell.

72 Don’t really have enough information/knowledge to make an informed decision.

77 Agree a second supply is needed. Murrell / Mount Kent is a good location.

80 Proper care about trout and impact on area.

81 The Murrell River is the only sound option (I actually surveyed the 4 mile and river for the Kelfico in 1976).

85 You, FIG tell us which option is best, we don’t know the technical details etc. to make the decision and given that the decision has been made, is it really worth asking public opinions?

86 Reservoirs must be built; surplus water runs on Harbour during wet season. Murrell river has risk of oil pollution as shown this year. There is very little water in area selected during dry season, so it won’t work.

108 No other options offered so yes.

Question 17

R Where would you prefer the large volumes of necessary stone to be sourced from?

1 Please, Please let’s put the port back into Stanley.

2 Make use of material from McKay’s old quarry. 2 nd Wireless Ridge for road construction. Just west of Murrell Road (Lickers Hill). On no account disfigure the present skyline profile Camber Ridge or Wireless Ridge.

4 Cut haulage down it will save a lot of money.

5 Given the present situation, Pony’s Pass should cope, for eventual port development try the back of the ridge stone run as requirement would be ‘short term’ with mobile crusher plant.

7 Would seem sensible to source stone from the port on the south side of the camber if possible, saves damage to roads.

17 Any new quarries would need to be looked at on their merits, scale, potential to landscape, benefit etc.

18 Mary Hill may be hazard for Stanley Airport users if re-opened.

20 The rocky ridge should be left untouched and any extraction taking place only below the ridge line.

24 No rock should be taken from Mary Hill or any where in that vicinity – it is in a nature reserve.

28 The Mary Hill quarry is already an eyesore close to Stanley.

31 There is plenty of stone near the site that could and should be used. It would put too much demand on the Pony Pass quarry which is ideal for the main towns needs.

43 This is a question for engineers.

46 Get stone where it is easiest to quarry. But think of uses for the quarry once finished. A reservoir for water, a lake for sailing, boating, windsurfing or a land fill site. Utilise it, thus reducing costs and increasing benefit.

17 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

47 Depending on where the port is located use stone from a nearby quarry. Our roads probably won’t handle the traffic from an existing quarry.

52 It would seem sensible to find suitable stone near the new port if possible, for that purpose and to continue using stone from Pony’s Pass for requirements near and in Stanley for other requirements.

55 Seriously, FIG is asking the general public where the stone should come from…

57 Allow cost effective and common sense but also take in environmental impact yes.

58 Mary Hill Quarry is a National Nature Reserve and should not be re-opened. The area is already badly degraded by dumping of clay being permitted.

59 Re-opening Mary Hill opens up potential to improve this site whilst offering reduced haulage distance for temporary port if developed. Developing new sites as needed could be cheaper and offer lower environmental impact overall.

61 As many places as possible to reduce the environmental impact on one site.

65 Use whatever is needed to get the job done.

68 I disagree about urban developing and quarrying stone north of the proposed port road.

77 As long as quarries are land dredged and opened to minimise visual impact could use existing and Camber area.

78 The use of stone from the north side of the Camber would be prudent to help keep port/road costs down during the port construction. After which just keep Pony’s Pass quarry as the main source.

81 Very wide experience in support of FIG and LMA in quarry operations.

85 If Pony’s Pass has the stone then just up the production, why start asking about other sites?

88 Out of sight of Stanley.

89 What is most cost effective?

92 Do what we need now and close some when construction is finished.

95 If capacity to process stone at Pony’s Pass is a problem, increase capacity. Setting up cruising facilities and hauling to Pony’s Pass doesn’t make sense.

110 Only open Mary Hill quarry to annoy the tree huggers as they will start spouting about how it’s such an important nature reserve.

113 Sites for bulk stone need to be selected to minimise haulage and therefore cost. Both the options selected would make sense to explore for different projects but option 4 to provide bulk stone for Port William.

Question 18

R Do you have any other comments on the new port and related infrastructure requirements?

1 Re: the power station – option 2 is preferred. One of the reasons for building a new Power Station on the Camber Site is the direct transfer of fuel from the existing (refurbished) tanks. If intermediate fuel oil was used this would reduce generating costs and the waste heat could then be used to pre-heat the IFO.

2 Re: question 3. Option 2 - the shore base must be positioned further West, likewise the breakwater should

18 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

not impinge on the approach to the Narrows. Biro outline on diagram.

Constructing a substantial heavy duty road from MPA road crossing between Sappers Hill and Mount William (from old site Browning Farm woolshed/dip) to Navy Point over mainly deep peat is going to be a high cost element in developing a deep water port facility at Navy Point. Regrettably, with continuing high cost in haulage time giving extra wear and tear on vehicles, in particular the heavy weight trucks over distance more exposed to winter road traction problems.

5 Re: question 3, option 1 - with phase 1, then 2. Option 2 – No use to man or beast and exposed. Tourist vessels small/medium will use Stanley as now, this is their preference for large vessels 1/2000 pax , no safe room/depth to manoeuvre. Also large costs in transport to Stanley. Also, number of coaches/buses not available to cater.

6 Hope the camp is not forgotten in the excitement.

7 Be firm with the ‘oilies’ – it is our oil.

10 Mary Hill should not be used for supply of stone. FIG needs to remember it is in theory a protected area.

12 Excellent idea to consult.

16 Time is going to be the issue to get such a large number of major projects going.

17 The new port generally but particularly in the ‘semi enclosed’ areas is likely to require tug support for vessel movements. There appear to be a number of aspects of the new port which have not been fully considered such as Biosecurity and waste reception facilities. Unless these are designed at the outset there is a risk that they become a long term handicap on port operations, and a long term handicap in doing those operations well.

The financial aspects need modelling; operating costs will be significant, see reference to costs above. If dredging is necessary then environmental impact of disposal of material needs consideration in a timely manner.

18 Berkley Sound.

22 Town should feel as little upheaval as possible.

23 Dredging is a concern, not only for environmental reasons but also of cost. How will FIG/Oil companies deal with any unexploded ordnance? Applies especially to any dredging activities in Stanley Harbour.

24 No building around the new port should be visible from Stanley. No rock should be taken from the top of the ridge, and no buildings put on top of the ridge.

26 I hope that tidal electricity generation is being considered. Tides being much more predictable than winds and with the complexity of the islands there are points not that far from Stanley/Port William with tides by bows, these offer a good opportunity to generate clean electricity.

27 I don’t view the proposed site as being ‘out of Stanley’. Parts of it will be in full view by looking out of the Narrows. However personally I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Some of the world’s most attractive cities are built around harbours. People like seeing ships come and go.

28 It is important that this is a PPI with FIG monitoring long term social and aesthetic issues. Industry rarely does so unless compelled by legal instruments.

29 This will be a permanent feature, i.e. with us for 100’s of years. It must be subject to higher environmental and landscaping standards, (even at extra cost), so future generations are not left with an eyesore which will need remediation at a later date.

19 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

30 I do not believe this is the best site for the new port, but if it is the only option then get on with it.

31 I can visualise once the port is built many new businesses developing and they would be constructed along the main haul road from Moody Brook to the dock. It will open up huge new development areas in and around Moody Brook and even the two sister’s area if a new water supply road is built in that area. Most important is getting it right by black topping the roads.

35 I take it that Mare Harbour, an existing port has been considered. Why does the new harbour have to be in/close to the only settlement of any size?

39 The idea of a new deep water port should be postponed in favour of another facility in Stanley harbour to the East of FIPASS. This facility could be jointly funded between FIG and oil companies. In perhaps 10/15 years the concepts/understanding of what is required from the new port will be far greater and then this can be progressed.

You already have the fuel facility/some oil yards in this area and with good management this is the prime location.

41 Should get on with it. Patching up FIPASS is at best a temporary fix.

42 Make sure the industry stakeholder consultation is as thorough as possible, not just the fishing industry. Be sensitive to the environment and make the best use of the mis-managed existing industrial areas (Gordon Lines).

43 I think I have said enough as a person with no engineering background.

46 I worry that this paper says things like “a breakwater (if required)” It is either needed or it isn’t. It is light on facts and heavy on guesses. That is not a good way to make decisions. Also to even consider using 70 year old abandoned tanks designed for heavy bunker oil is madness. It shows FIG mentality of on the cheap, using unstable equipment and lodging. Even if offloading oil and storage, safely and cheaply are ideal. Pipe oil for Stanley for the port. It happens in the rest of the world. Put wind turbines on the breakwater to get additional use from it. Develop Stanley airport and oil flights.

For many years there has been a reluctance to improve the main transport artery in the Islands (the MPA road). With the development of the port it has already been publicly stated that the improvement of the MPA road will go down in priority. However MPA is still the main international air gateway. I believe the oil exploration companies regarded travelling by helicopter as safer than on the MPA road.

With a port development there will be two transport hubs. Why not develop Stanley Airport to take the LAN flight, oil flights, private charter flights, the Aerocardel flights and the Miami flight (if it happens). It would remove the conflict of civilian/military (MPA is a military base not an international airport), save huge amounts of dangerous travel, reduce costs to passengers and staff and remove the Argentine argument that the Islands are one big garrison and we are all prisoners.

Development will have to take place for the oil helicopters so it would seem sensible to cost a development to take international traffic. If not save money and make it just another airstrip. In its in-between state Stanley Airport is not really viable.

47 I believe Port William is a good option for a new port but it should be located to the east of the Narrows extending from the area ordnance point to York point. It is simply the best site. More exposed but a breakwater is likely necessary for the proposed location anyway. Yes Cape Pembroke is a nature reserve but plenty of animals will be disturbed on the camber, there are penguins there too, they are simply out of site in their burrows.

51 I do not agree with any of this. We have no say. It will all go ahead as planned. Our town is very small and our recreation area is at the end of Stanley. What will be left for us when, if ever, all the building is over. People are trouble and they are what you are going to get. On your head be it.

20 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

52 Just to say that it is a very positive step that this project is going ahead at this time.

55 I find it disturbing that councillors/government officers with no maritime or shipping experience are making decisions on a port facility that they have no practical knowledge or experience and whose views are being fuelled by personal agendas. Wasting funds on public consultation, when the majority of the general public has little or no idea what is needed is perplexing to say the least. With a port authority being created in the near future should these decisions not be left to those who work in the industry rather than the clueless public? FIG officers and “politicians” with their own schemes and plans of grandeur.

57 I am very worried by the rapid increase of silly policy suggestions/recommendations coming out of the Secretariat and FIG in the last 12 months or so. We are not in the UK and folks need to look out of the window and realise it. Things are done a bit different here – priority is practical and cost efficiency and meeting demand etc. Yes planning, environment and HSC have to be considered and worked in as appropriate but we do not want all the costly bureaucracy and over spec and over cost of UK and EU.

58 Ref. Stone for road etc. Both Pony’s Pass quarry and new quarries on the north side of the Camber and rise going west should be permitted to supply, as the quantities required will be large.

59 The deep water port will be a very long term site use, asset and long term land opening up offered by the road route is likely to open up areas for housing north of Camber ridge – I would suggest this could be served well by using route 1 and taking a road west along part of phase 2 route.

60 On discussing this with a range of people I found the following:

• No one willing to put forward a case for going ahead with the port development.

• I found many who thought FIG has already decided and this is an ass covering PR exercise.

• I firmly believe that the Port IF we need, should be lead by the private sector not by FIG.

• The oil industry know what they need and where and should be encouraged to finance it. FIG’s role is to facilitate and ensure that the Islands obtain maximum benefit from the industry as it develops.

• With that in mind I think FIG should wait and see how things develop rather than building at huge public cost something that may be unnecessary. Remember Seamount? It could happen again.

• Work with the oil industry, listen to the private sector and let’s wait for a few years to ensure that we invest public money wisely in the correct infrastructure.

61 Consideration needs to be taken on the effect this will have on the emergency services not only in relation to distance to response times but also new equipment such as heavy lifting capacity and turntable appliances for dealing with large fuel tanks.

62 This whole exercise concerns me. The FIG bias towards options is obvious. The amount of information provided is scanty and in some aspects wrong. Using a consultation exercise to justify decisions already made is very poor governance.

63 I am aware that the term consultation meant listening to interested parties before making any decisions. So why add questions about the water supply when FIG has already made a decision on a course of action?

In fact, why ask questions that hardly anyone is qualified or can try to answer without seeing estimated costs, plans, etc.

My personal point of view is that the new port should be at Mare Harbour where a deep water port already exists, military yes, but ‘bolt’ on a civilian side, there is more than enough land available for storage, fuel etc, etc, and you could tarmac the MPA road at the same time killing two birds with one stone.

You would be able to have an all-weather deep water port, not a giant concrete white elephant costing

21 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

what? 150, 200, 250 million? Let alone the cost of the roads and infrastructure. The current proposed position for the deep water port makes it a slightly deeper port than FIPASS but as long as we don’t have an easterly swell, and since we occasionally have an easterly swell, will the proposed not so deep water port have to close while there is a swell? Since there are already issues with the nasty brown sludge in the harbour and the narrows, building the proposed port in the positions shown will require dredging the narrows/harbour frequently?

Is it true that the oil companies have suggested bringing down their floating dock to service the oil support vessels? Why have we not considered this?

FIPASS does need to be replaced, but could simply be replaced with the same sort of barge as is. I have heard rumours that you can buy the same sort of barge for approx £1,000,000 each? So if this is the case, you could replace FIPASS for approx 6-10 million, enforce a one way system, one causeway on, and one causeway off, and position the barges in a straight line instead of being in doubles, thereby, doubling the berthing capacity at FIPASS, and the land immediately behind FIPASS could be covered in concrete and turned into storage, warehousing, cold stores etc, thus keeping the 95% of sea traffic as is with all the existing infrastructure.

I am not in any way against constructing a deep water port, however, the current position in my opinion is the wrong place, it will, even after millions of pounds have been spent, only ever be a slightly deeper water port than FIPASS, by approximately 2 metres on a high tide, is this really a cost effective way of spending the islanders money?

64 Costs - the oil industry should be funding part of this development if this is what they need.

65 Sooner rather than later.

66 Always keep in mind that rapid change frightens people so there is a need to keep community services, health, especially mental health, education facilities, recreation and leisure, including the arts (not just sport). These will aid integration and help to minimise the effects of rapid change.

68 I would like the Murrell water, Watt Cove and the land surrounding these waters to be left free of urban and industrial development.

75 The port is exciting for the Islands. Just hope that the wildlife and people living around the new port are taken into consideration when plans go ahead.

78 The new port also needs a ro-ro ramp to cater for all forms of shipping systems and would be a benefit to local small boat owners to retrieve vessels for repair and launching with safety and ease.

81 As happened in the fishing world, FIG have already handed over all the land south of FIPASS to just 3 outfits, Morrison’s Construction, FIC, Byron McKay.

83 Be advised that I am just a member of the public living in Stanley. I hope the local industry will provide you with lots of valuable input on how best to proceed.

85 There was a total lack of assessment of the Port William site before the decision was made to construct it there, despite there being alternatives. Now that pride and regulations have been invested in Port William FIG will drag the Islands blindly down that single road, regardless of what obstacles and costs come up. No amount of public consultation will make up for an earlier decision that was made with no proper information.

89 It has been a positive stand for the future of Stanley to decide on Port William than allow development at FIPASS.

91 Yes. Collect all the data regards wave/tide/weather conditions; rock type seabed conditions. Produce a full costed report and then consider if this is the best place to build a port after consulting potential users. If it is agreed that the location would be suitable, evaluate the cost against say, Mare Harbour/Port Harriet and then embark on fund raising/JV’s etc. If FIG is to bank roll it, it should not be funded until oil revenue money

22 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

is available.

92 What is the overall cost? Who is going to pay? Has Government got enough money now? What about waiting until tax revenues from oil production start?

93 The new port needs a ro-ro facility.

94 I believe that a breakwater will be absolutely necessary in either port option in Port William.

95 It looks like this Assembly wants to get the new port set in stone before it’s dissolved. I think it will be an election issue.

97 Seeing the new port is to be used for tourism I would like to see the following facilities available:

1) Tourist board office (keep one in Stanley for land based tourism). 2) A good size toilet block area. 3) Shelter for tourists waiting for coaches/going back to their ship. 4) A good parking area for vehicles taking their customers on tours. A big ask, but necessary.

98 As visits to FIPASS will reduce, mission facilities at Port William must be considered.

99 The Lighthouse Seamen’s berth (known as the mission) is well used by the fishermen and Seafarers, looking after their needs when in part and at times of need due to accident/injury/crew change or just needing time to relax and contact family and friends at home. I think a facility of similar nature needs to be part of the new development at Port William.

110 Most important, seek the opinion of those it will affect most, the power station, water, quarries, captures those that currently use FIPASS. A ‘wish list’ but with advice on things not to do. Do not employ Morrison’s FI to help in construction as they will once again rip the Falklands off.

113 All port and infrastructure must be managed by an integrated port authority including facilities at Gordon Lines/FIPASS and Stanley Harbour.

114 I don’t want it.

115 The bold subtitle is completely false; you have technically decided our future for all of us. Take that into consideration.

116 No.

117 I do not want it in Stanley.

118 I don’t want it in Stanley.

119 I don’t want it in Stanley.

120 I don’t want it in Stanley.

121 I don’t want a deep water port near Stanley. What’s so wrong with FIPASS? And it is not our say you have decided it for us.

122 I don’t want a deep water port anywhere near Stanley. I think that it should be up near Cape Dolphin way.

123 Not in Stanley.

124 I don’t want it. It’s our future our say.

125 I don’t want a deep water port near Stanley. Put the port up near Cape Dolphin way.

126 I don’t want a deep water port it’s a waste of money.

23 YOUR FUTURE – YOUR SAY CONSULTATION COMMENTS

127 No.

128 We do not have a say about our future because these questions ask us what we want the port to look like and where the road should go. You have not asked us if we want the port or where we want it. This questionnaire is a waste of time and you won’t do what people want because your minds are made up already. We have not decided our future you have.

129 I don’t want it because it brings good and bad things e.g. more money. But where will it go? (to the people/places that need it). And will it bring in more people. If yes we will need a new/bigger reservoir to provide water for Stanley and the possible income of people due to the water port.

130 I do not want the oil industry in Stanley. It will ruin the beauty of the Falklands.

131 No.

132 I am not sure about the whole oil thing.

133 This is not right for Stanley. No to the Port William development.

134 I don’t want the deep water port.

135 No.

137 I do not want a deep water port. It’s a waste of money.

138 I do not want a deep water port it is a waste of the Governments money. I have not spoken to anyone that wants this to happen. FIPASS is perfectly fine. It’s our future and you have made our decision for us.

139 I do not want it.

140 I don’t want it. It is bad.

141 I do not accept.

142 I don’t want it.