Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
For: Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Western Australia
March 2018
Version Date Author Reviewed Issued by Wayne Tingey Jim Kelly Final March 2018 Jim Kelly Jim Kelly Adrian Dahlenburg Jeremy Badgery‐Parker
Bld 11b, Gate 2c Hartley Grove URRBRAE SA 5064 Created by Arris Pty Ltd t 08 8313 6706 f 08 8313 6752 ACN 092 739 574 Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Western Client Australia Name of
Organisation Name of Project Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation Name of Document Project Number Document Version Final Cover This document and the information, ideas, concepts, methodologies, technologies and other material it contains remain the intellectual Sensitivity property of Arris Pty Ltd. The document is not to be copied without the express permission of at least one of the above parties. This report is presented “as is” without any warrantees or assurances. Whilst all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the information Disclaimer provided in this review is current and reliable, Arris Pty Ltd does not accept any responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents. Arris Pty Ltd provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. Arris considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s convenience and Arris Pty Ltd requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should Document Delivery at a minimum comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2000.
Where an electronic only version is provided to the client, a signed hard copy of this document can be provided by Arris Pty Ltd if requested by the client.
Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... ii List of Tables ...... v Table of Figures ...... vi Abbreviations ...... viii Acknowledgements ...... x 1 Executive Summary ...... 1 2 Investigation in Brief ...... 5 2.1 Background ...... 5 2.2 Objectives ...... 5 2.3 Specifications ...... 6 2.4 Additional Relevant Reference Materials ...... 7 2.5 Why Greenhouses ...... 7 2.5.1 Efficiency Advantages ...... 7 2.5.2 Market Advantages ...... 7 2.5.3 Quality Control ...... 8 3 Location ...... 9 4 Regional Assets Evaluation ...... 11 4.1 Climate ...... 11 4.2 Water Resources ...... 13 4.3 Energy ...... 14 4.3.1 Collie Region ...... 14 4.3.2 Brunswick Region ...... 15 4.4 Mining ...... 15 4.5 Labour and Expertise ...... 16 4.6 Services ...... 18 4.7 Infrastructure and Logistics ...... 19 4.7.1 Roads ...... 19 4.7.2 Rail ...... 19 4.7.3 Ports ...... 19 4.7.4 Airports ...... 20 4.8 Regional SWOT Analysis ...... 20 5 Crop Selection ...... 23 5.1 Environmentally Adaptable Crops ...... 23 5.2 Greenhouse Production Adaptable Crops...... 23 5.2.1 New and Alternative Crops ...... 24 5.2.1.1 Cherries ...... 25 5.2.1.2 Table Grapes ...... 25 5.2.1.3 Medical Marijuana ...... 26 5.2.1.4 Native Bush Tomatoes ...... 26 5.3 Existing Market Research Summary ...... 27 5.4 Market Opportunity Analysis ...... 28 5.4.1 Export Market Opportunities ...... 29 5.4.1.1 China Market Opportunity ...... 29 5.4.1.2 Crop Summaries – Tomatoes, Strawberries, Blueberries and Capsicums / Chillies ...... 31 5.4.1.3 Market Access and Import Protocols for Selected Crops ...... 33 5.4.1.4 Access to New Markets ...... 35 5.4.2 Domestic ...... 37 5.4.2.1 Australian Domestic Market ‐ Melbourne ...... 37
Page ii
5.4.2.2 Western Australian Domestic Market ...... 43 5.4.2.3 Interstate Quarantine ...... 44 5.4.3 Summary Table of Domestic and Export Market Prices ...... 45 6 Greenhouse Requirements to Meet Crop Needs ...... 47 6.1 Greenhouse Water Model...... 47 6.1.1 Collie Water Balance – 10ha ...... 47 6.1.2 Brunswick Water Balance ...... 49 6.2 Water Treatment ...... 49 6.2.1 Water Treatment Plant ...... 51 6.3 Energy ...... 53 6.3.1 Collie Energy Options ...... 53 6.3.2 Northern CRID Farmlands Options ...... 56 7 Regional Operational Resources ...... 57 7.1 Water ...... 57 7.1.1 Water Treatment Requirement and Technology ...... 57 7.1.2 Greenhouse Water Demand ...... 58 7.1.3 Water Balance Model ...... 59 7.1.4 Water Resource Options and Strategies ...... 59 7.1.4.1 Strategy 1 – Unregulated Water Resource Options ...... 59 7.1.4.2 Strategy 2 – Regulated Water Resource Options ...... 59 7.1.4.3 Strategy 3 – Purchase Industrial/Agricultural Water ...... 60 7.1.4.4 Strategy 4 – Wastewater Reuse ...... 60 7.1.5 Description of Local Water Resources ...... 60 7.1.5.1 Strategy 1 – Unregulated Water Resources ...... 60 7.1.5.2 Strategy 2 – Regulated Water Resources ...... 61 7.1.5.3 Strategy 3 – Purchase Water ...... 66 7.1.5.4 Strategy 4 – Wastewater Reuse ...... 68 7.1.6 Implications and Recommendations ...... 69 7.1.6.1 Collie Region ...... 69 7.1.6.2 Collie Greenhouse Expansion – Water Supply Analysis ...... 70 7.1.6.3 Scenario 1 – Abstraction from LCREB and Runoff from 200ha Rehabilitated Mine ...... 71 7.1.6.4 Scenario 2 – Increase in Rehabilitated Mine Site Area to 300ha ...... 71 7.1.6.5 Scenario 3 – Increase in Rehabilitated Mine Site Area to 400ha ...... 72 7.1.7 Brunswick Region ...... 72 7.2 Cooperative and Collaborative Partnerships ...... 72 8 Greenhouse Site ...... 75 8.1 Environmental Impact ...... 75 8.2 Stage 1 ‐ Site Options ...... 76 8.3 Stage 2 – Evaluation Criteria ...... 76 8.4 Stage 3 – High Level MCA to Identify Preferred Site ...... 77 8.5 Site SWOT Analysis ...... 78 8.6 Preferred Sites ...... 79 8.6.1 Collie – Bluewaters‐Ewington 1 (Bluewaters) Site ...... 79 8.6.2 Brunswick Region ...... 81 8.7 Site Resources Matrix ...... 83 9 Infrastructure Requirements for a 10ha Greenhouse Project ...... 87 9.1 Site Preparation ...... 87 9.2 Greenhouse ...... 88 9.2.1 Infrastructure and Other Capital Requirements ...... 88
Page iii
9.2.1.1 Greenhouse Specifications ...... 88 9.2.1.2 Screening System ...... 91 9.2.1.3 Heating system (conventional system) ...... 92 9.2.1.4 Cooling System ...... 92 9.2.1.5 Irrigation and Fertigation System Production Greenhouses ...... 92 9.2.1.6 Electrical System and Computer Controls ...... 93 9.2.1.7 Other Capital Equipment Requirements ...... 93 9.3 Greenhouse Support Infrastructure ...... 93 9.4 Packing and Grading ...... 94 9.5 Transport and Materials Handling ...... 94 9.6 Labour Force Amenities ...... 94 9.7 Waste Management and Recycling ...... 94 10 Economic Analysis Summary ...... 97 11 Stakeholder Register ...... 109 12 References ...... 111 12.1 Reference Document Summaries...... 114 Greenhouse Structure Comparative Assessment for Specific Crops ...... 121 Site Selection Multi Criteria Assessment...... 129 International Market Assessments for Greenhouse Produce ...... 131 Berries ...... 131 Capsicum ...... 141 Tomatoes ...... 152 Strawberries ...... 163 Considerations for a Greenhouse Development ...... 181 Monthly Perth Wholesale Market Prices (2011 to 2017) for Selected Lines of Blueberries, Strawberries, Capsicums and Tomatoes ...... 189 Collie and Bunbury Wind Roses ...... 193 Map of the Tomato Potato Psyllid Quarantine Area ...... 201 Example Output for the Brunswick Water Balance Model ...... 203 Support Correspondence ...... 205
Page iv
List of Tables Table 1 Executive summary of site information ...... 2 Table 2 Production / yield efficiency of protected propping systems ...... 7 Table 3 Summary climate data for the Collie, Brunswick and Virginia SA Regions ...... 11 Table 4 Prevailing wind direction in the Collie and Brunswick Region ...... 13 Table 5 Positions created for a 10ha sophisticated greenhouse facility ...... 16 Table 6 Greenhouse crops screened for suitability for economic analysis ...... 24 Table 7 Market access / protocol (for WA produce) from MICoR Database ...... 34 Table 8 Interstate quarantine pests and diseases protocols ...... 44 Table 9 Domestic and export market price summary (AUD$/kg) ...... 45 Table 10 Crop coefficients for greenhouse crops grown in Mediterranean climate ...... 47 Table 11 Modelled water balance for Collie Site ...... 48 Table 12 Modelled water balance for Northern CRID Farmlands ...... 49 Table 13 Classes of irrigation water ...... 57 Table 14 Desirable level of nutrients and other components of irrigation water .... 58 Table 15 Water supply proposal for the Collie Region ...... 69 Table 16 Water supply proposal for the Brunswick Region ...... 72 Table 17 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 1 ...... 73 Table 18 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 2 ...... 73 Table 19 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 3 ...... 73 Table 20 Constraints map ...... 76 Table 21 MCA ranking for each site ...... 78 Table 22 Site Resources Matrix ...... 83 Table 23 Regional resource comparison quick reference ...... 86 Table 24 Sources of greenhouse information and costs ...... 97 Table 25 Price and yield sensitivity for the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands (tomato) ...... 99 Table 26 Price and yield sensitivity for the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands (strawberry) ...... 100 Table 27 Collie Site economic model summary ‐ tomato ...... 101 Table 28 Summary of costs for the Collie Site ‐ tomato ...... 102 Table 29 Collie Site economic model summary ‐ strawberry ...... 103 Table 30 Summary of costs for the Collie Site ‐ strawberry ...... 104 Table 31 Northern CRID Farmlands Site economic model summary ‐ tomato ...... 105 Table 32 Summary of costs for the Northern CRID Farmlands Site ‐ tomato ...... 106 Table 33 Northern CRID Farmlands Site economic model summary ‐ strawberry . 107 Table 34 Summary of costs for the Northern CRID Farmlands Site ‐ strawberry ... 108 Table 35 Stakeholder Register ...... 109
Page v
Table of Figures Figure 1 Map of the Greater Collie Region inclusive of the Collie, Brunswick, Northern CRID Farmlands and Myalup‐Harvey Areas ...... 10 Figure 2 Plot of average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures and average monthly rainfall for Collie, Brunswick Regions and Virginia South Australia ...... 12 Figure 3 Organisation chart for a 10ha greenhouse ...... 17 Figure 4 Average monthly international airfreight tonnage (excluding mail) uplifted from Perth Airport and the monthly average number of destinations for airfreight (23) ...... 20 Figure 5 Greenhouse cherries, soil cultivation ...... 25 Figure 6 Greenhouse table grapes in China ...... 25 Figure 7 Greenhouse marijuana ...... 26 Figure 8 Bush tomato ...... 26 Figure 9 World food demand by region ...... 27 Figure 10 Asian food imports by region ...... 28 Figure 11 Average strawberry market price 2012‐2017 (250g punnet) ...... 37 Figure 12 Change in average monthly rank of price for strawberries 2012‐2017 ..... 38 Figure 13 Average yearly maximum price, average price and lowest price for strawberries 2012‐2017 ...... 38 Figure 14 Average gourmet tomato market price 2012‐2017 (10kg carton) ...... 39 Figure 15 Average cherry tomato market price 2012‐2017 (250g punnet) ...... 39 Figure 16 Change in average monthly rank of price for cherry tomatoes 2012‐2017 ...... 40 Figure 17 Average gourmet truss tomato market price 2012‐2017 (5kg carton) ...... 40 Figure 18 Average yearly maximum price, average price and lowest price for gourmet truss tomatoes 2012‐2017 ...... 41 Figure 19 Change in average monthly rank of price for gourmet truss tomatoes 2012‐2017 ...... 41 Figure 20 Average blueberry market price 2012‐2017 (125g punnet) ...... 42 Figure 21 Average capsicum all varieties market price 2012‐2017 (10kg carton) ..... 42 Figure 22 Average capsicum all varieties price 2012‐2017 (5kg carton) ...... 43 Figure 23 Change in average monthly rank of price for capsicum all varieties 2012‐2017 (5kg carton) ...... 43 Figure 24 Schematic of a hydroponic greenhouse water system ...... 50 Figure 25 Schematic of the Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant ...... 51 Figure 26 Monthly energy requirements for the Collie and Brunswick 10ha Greenhouse Project generated from Greenhouse Energy Tool (47) ...... 54 Figure 27 Heat pump heating operation ...... 54 Figure 28 Heating operation with power station off line ...... 55 Figure 29 Combined heating and cooling operation ...... 56 Figure 30 Groundwater sub areas UCWAP ...... 62 Figure 31 Surface water sub areas UCWAP ...... 63 Figure 32 Surface water sub areas LCSWAP ...... 65 Figure 33 Synergy SDP route ...... 68
Page vi
Figure 34 Site selection process ...... 75 Figure 35 Collie Bluewaters Site SWOT Analysis ...... 78 Figure 36 Northern CRID SWOT Analysis ...... 79 Figure 37 Bluewaters Power locality map ...... 80 Figure 38 Key features of Collie Region ...... 81 Figure 39 Northern CRID Farmlands locality map ...... 81 Figure 40 Key features of Northern CRID Farmlands Site ...... 82 Figure 41 Schematic of a greenhouse layout ...... 87 Figure 42 Example of the chapel style greenhouses with netted twin roof venting ...... 88 Figure 43 Contrasting temperature variation between low and high volume greenhouses ...... 89 Figure 44 Schematic showing increase in greenhouse volume through use of wider spans ...... 89 Figure 45 Richel patented system for recladding greenhouses externally without crop removal ...... 90 Figure 46 Dual skin cladding can increase energy savings ...... 90 Figure 47 Schematic showing greenhouse ventilation showing how deflectors improve ventilation efficiency ...... 91
Page vii
Abbreviations Abbreviation Explanation $ dollar % percentage A annum AWE annual water entitlement CID Collie Irrigation District CO2 carbon dioxide CREB Collie River East Branch CRID Collie River Irrigation District DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia DoW Department of Water DPIRD Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Western Australia dS/m Electrical conductivity in deci siemens per meter DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation EGRC Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation EOI Expression of Interest ESY ecological sustainable yield FTE full time equivalent GL gigalitre g gram ha hectare HID Harvey Irrigation District hr hour IPM integrated pest management IT information technology k thousand kg kilogram kL kilolitre km kilometre L litre LCSWAP Lower Collie surface water allocation plan LIA Light Industrial Area m million MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge MCA Multi Criteria Analysis MeBr methyl bromide Mg milligram MIAP Myalup Irrigation Agriculture Precinct MICoR Manual of Importing Country Requirements min minute ML megalitre NZ New Zealand PPE personal protective equipment RiWI Rights in Water and Irrigation SA South Australia SDP Saline Disposal Pipeline SIA Strategic Industrial Area SWGAP South West groundwater areas allocation plan
Page viii
Abbreviation Explanation t tonne TDS Total dissolved solids TPP tomato potato psyllid TPS Town Planning Scheme UAE United Arab Emirates UCL Unallocated Crown Land UCWAP Upper Collie water allocation plan UN United Nations WA Western Australia WSP Water Service Provider WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Page ix
Acknowledgements Arris acknowledges the voluntary contribution and input of other people and organisations to this project. Their contribution has added significant value to the output of this greenhouse pre‐feasibility study.
Many thanks to the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, specifically Richard George, Rohan Prince, and Manju Radhakrishnan who attended progress meetings, undertook international market analysis and made their time available to meet with key stakeholders.
Power Plants, AIS Green Works, Apex Greenhouses, Richel and Royal Brinkman who provided valuable greenhouse information, furniture requirements for greenhouses and insight into capex costs. They provided information on the energy requirement of current greenhouse projects for comparative analysis.
The community Focus Group, Peter Piavanini, Glyn Yates, Neil Martin and Joe Italiano for their time and the valuable insight into the Collie Region they provided over the life of the project. They provided introductions to other projects that are in the business case development phase that may positively impact a greenhouse project in the Collie Region. They also provided information into key community concerns around water and other environmental issues that the developer of a greenhouse project will need to be mindful.
Griffin Coal, a relevant landholder in the Colie Basin, specifically Brant Edwards and Paul Irving who provided time to show the project team around the Collie Basin highlighting key assets that would assist in the development of a sustainable greenhouse project in the Collie Region. Griffin Coal has committed to assist in the development of a greenhouse project in the Collie Region.
Dr Martin Bulesco University of South Australia who provided the model for heating the greenhouses using waste heat. He undertook the heating system energy balances for the Collie project and provided high level costs for the alternative heating system.
To these people the team at Arris thank you for your encouragement, time, knowledge and constructive commendations of the project and it outputs.
Page x
Page xi
1 Executive Summary This report defines the opportunity, requirements and potential benefits of an intensive greenhouse horticulture enterprise in the Greater Collie Region. A base unit of 10ha was studied but there are adequate resources available for a larger project or a number of smaller developers.
High technology protected cropping facilitates rigorous control of the growing environment to deliver optimal product quality, yield and market reliability as well as effectively managing biosecurity/quarantine protocols, labour and production inputs.
It is recognised that there is limited domestic market opportunities for increased large‐scale production of the types of crops likely to be grown in greenhouses. For this reason, the report has a significant focus on export market opportunities.
Export market access was looked at but detailed assessment was outside the scope of the project. Market access may impact on access to specific international markets.
An options analysis process has revealed two preferred sites in the region; Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands. The primary differences between the sites reflect different infrastructure and operating costs for heating and whether land needs to be purchased.
The Collie Region offers a distinctive opportunity to develop a leading, high value and integrated intensive horticultural industry utilising existing heat, power and water resources, as well as local socio‐economic and natural assets.
The Northern CRID Farmlands region also commands a distinct opportunity with valuable local socio‐economic and natural assets to support a leading, high value, clean and integrated intensive horticultural industry.
These sites are not mutually exclusive as both could be developed simultaneously or consecutively. Both locations have adequate resources for future expansion.
Energy and water are key considerations and both a greenhouse heat demand model and a water balance model have been used to populate this prefeasibility analysis. The Greater Collie Region offers a number of energy and water resources strategy options.
Costs and returns can be variable, and although based on current market data and industry costs, presented values are prefeasibility estimates, with an allowance ±30%. The market assessment has been undertaken as a desktop study, as market for produce is a critical success factor it is therefore important that further work is undertaken to establish sustainable markets.
The economic analysis, founded on a 10ha development unit, a realistic return on investment in the order of 16.05% – 18.64% can be achieved. The initial capital investment at the preferred sites is estimated to $20.5M – $23M with annual recurring costs around $8.5 – 9m. This is based on truss tomato (one of four identified benchmark crops), though a diverse range of crops can be realistically
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 1 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
considered in this region, including novel options. Western Australia is in a strong position to be a significant player in many of the regional Asian and Middle East fresh produce markets into the future.
Table 1 Executive summary of site information Issue Collie Brunswick Investment (per 10ha Tomatoes $23.047M Tomatoes $22.437M high tech. greenhouse) Strawberries $21.055M Strawberries $20.445M Payback Tomatoes: 7yr 6mo Tomatoes: 7yr 5mo Strawberries: 9yr 6mo Strawberries: 9yr 2mo Greenhouse Dual skin poly cladded, chapel style, multi span greenhouses, 12 ‐ 16 m per span wide with 6.5m high gutter height. Greenhouse cladding EFTE (F‐Clean or similar) with double continuous roof ventilation and insect screening. Environmental control systems for heating / cooling and automated hydroponic irrigation. Energy Cogenerated heat from Power Gas heating with gas from the Dampier station. No additional cost for Bunbury main. Cost of gas is in the order heating. of $1.8M per annum
Energy may be able to be banked or taken from the grid to balance energy load and cost of development Land access Low‐cost freehold land available Other competing land uses but can be purchased Power System has been costed with Grid power available renewable power generation Water A range of water resources have Water would be purchased from Harvey been identified to meet the needs Water and supplied through the CRID of this project irrigation scheme
Water identified would limit future There would be no limitation for future expansion above 100ha expansion Water treatment Reverse osmosis is required for both projects to achieve the water quality necessary for greenhouse production. When the Collie Water project is developed, then suitable RO water could be purchased directly mitigating the need for a water treatment plant Brine waste stream Access to the Collie Saline Discharge Pipeline is seen as the most likely solution for the brine waste stream. Zoning Do not see significant zoning issues, both locations will require rezoning or be developed under a non‐conforming development application. Production 60kg/m2/yr of marketable tomatoes. There is evidence of higher production rates in greenhouses throughout the world, however, the rate selected is both achievable and realistic in the first three years of operation. Green production This project could be developed off This project is likely to be a more grid with harvested storm water of conventional greenhouse development. mine rehabilitation sites and renewable energy. Markets for produce This study has been developed under the core assumption that export markets will be developed for produce. Most horticultural commodity markets are saturated within the domestic market and for this reason the market study has focused on international market opportunities.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 2 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Issue Collie Brunswick Infrastructure There are no significant public infrastructure concerns with either site and neither has any infrastructure advantage or disadvantage. Labour For each 10ha of greenhouse development a directly employed labour force of 96 persons is required. It is anticipated that the labour requirements for either site can be adequately met from local and regional resources and will be a contributor to regional development and prosperity. Training will be required for some staff and training providers / course need to be identified and implemented.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 3 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 4 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
2 Investigation in Brief
2.1 Background As part of the Myalup‐Wellington study, the State Government released an EOI that resulted in a $380m proposal by a private consortium to develop a range of land and water management systems that would result in benefits to irrigated agriculture in the Collie River Irrigation District (CRID) and Myalup Irrigation Agricultural Precinct (MIAP) areas.
In parallel with this project, the Shire of Collie and the South West Development Commission (1), with industry partners, established a proposition for economic development of the Collie Region. The “Reimagining Collie” December 2016 Report calls for investigations of options to intensify agriculture into the local economy (2). One of those ranked highly by the Report and community was ‘protected cropping and intensified agricultural production’.
The convergence of these two requests for information has been encapsulated in a new project known as “Transforming Agriculture” (3). Based in the Greater Collie area and led by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Western Australia (DPIRD), this will demonstrate opportunities to expand and intensity agriculture by utilising new resources and irrigation technologies. In the Collie Region, the focus is to target intensification by seeking to combine high value horticultural crops with Collie’s natural and socio‐economic assets built around coal and related industries.
This pre‐feasibility report was commissioned to better define the opportunity, requirements and benefits of an intensive greenhouse horticulture industry in the Collie Region. 2.2 Objectives The objectives of this report are in‐line with the requirements of the Request for Quotation – Collie futures – protected cropping prefeasibility investigation AGR 2017015 to provide a substantial amount of the data and information required for the development of a business case for investment in protected horticulture cropping in the Greater Collie Region. More specific objectives of the report are to: • Identify the potential protected cropping technologies and systems that could utilise the beneficial factors of the Collie Region and quantify the potential benefits to investors and the State, of the establishment of protected cropping production at Collie and the nearby CRID and MIAP areas. • Provide industry with key pre‐competitive advantage data when it considers the opportunity to invest in Western Australia. • Define whether and by what means the South West area offers sufficient advantage to attract business development and jobs and growth outcomes like the opportunities being delivered on the Virginia Plains in South Australia. • Assess the requirements of potential facilities, the potential crops and markets for products produced in such facilities and provide business case information for investment highlighting the economic benefits that can be used to attract commercial investment.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 5 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Investigate the opportunity of combining available, land, water, power, heat, labour and social capital to define intensive horticultural (protected cropping) opportunities for this region, specifically targeting Collie. • Consider the opportunities for intensification in the irrigation areas on the coastal plain at CRID and MIAP, especially where scale and logistics require capitalisation to support domestic and export growth. • Explore the opportunities to expand and intensity agriculture by utilising new resources and irrigation technologies around the CRID and MIAP. • Focus on intensification by seeking to combine high value horticultural crops with Collies natural and socio‐economic assets built around coal and related industries 2.3 Specifications The request specified pre‐feasibility report will address the following items: 1. Identify the suitability of Collie and nearby region for intensive protected cropping production facilities, focusing on natural and industrial derivative resources, labour requirements and distance for the labour resource. 2. Identify technologies that can be utilised for protected cropping that are cost effective and may take advantage of the region and resources identified in point 1. 3. Identify crops able to be produced in intensive protected cropping facilities that currently have: 3.1.1. Access to overseas markets 3.1.2. Are in high demand and would warrant investment into market access solutions being sort. 3.1.3. Attract a price that would make them profitable to be produced in a protected cropping facility 3.1.4. Or crops that based on the above points would warrant investment into refining protected cropping production systems of these crops. 4. Outline facility requirements for an economically viable operation including required inputs, size of development, and crop diversity of the preferred technology identified in point 2. 5. Identify the environmental, social and environmental benefits of locating the protected cropping facility in the Collie Region as opposed to other production regions (CRID, MIAP). 6. Identify gaps in production for local (intrastate supply) and the ability of produce from a protected cropping facility around Collie to compete with produce sourced from interstate or overseas. 7. Identify the transport options to support development in the area and assess different economics of option identified. 8. Identify the relevant government requirements and timelines associated with establishing such a plant in the Collie Region. 9. Identify potential barriers, social and environmental, to the successful establishment of such a facility and where possible, recommend actions or options for mitigation. 10. Provide a cost benefit analysis and return on investment analysis for three protected cropping facility options with different crops diversity. 11. Identify and estimate where possible, the direct and indirect benefits to the Western Australian economy of establishing such facilities in Western Australia.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 6 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
12. Provide project design and costings in the form of a draft Business Case that could be used to support the outcomes of this project, eg to full feasibility. 2.4 Additional Relevant Reference Materials In the process of preparing this report the following documents while not directly cited in the report were reviewed to enhance our understanding of the WA agriculture industries and regional development priorities and issues. • Collie townsite growth plans (4) • Shire of Collie Corporate Business Plan (5) • Roads to Export ‐ Greater Bunbury Infrastructure Investment Plan (6) • Water Forever: South West Final Report (7) • WA department of Health Food Access and Cost Surveys (8) (9) • Western Australia's Agrifood, Fibre, Fisheries, Forestry Industries (10) • Economic analysis of irrigated agriculture development options for the Pilbara (11) • Best Practice Guidelines for Greenhouse Water Management (12) • Hydroponic Plant Growing (13) • An Austrian farm is growing cherries in a greenhouse heated with biogas (14) • Multipliers: Western Australian Agriculture and Food Industries (15) • Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (16) 2.5 Why Greenhouses It is important to understand some of the benefits and features of greenhouses that underpin the development of this feasibility study.
2.5.1 Efficiency Advantages Being able to control the growing environment for food crops provides significant increases in production as provided in Table 2.
To look at this further taking tomatoes as an example research has shown that greenhouse tomatoes crop coefficient is between 85% and 90% of the field tomato crop coefficient. This means that in terms of water use greenhouse tomatoes are between 496% and 469% per kg of fruit more efficient than field tomatoes (calculated from Table 2).
Table 2 Production / yield efficiency of protected propping systems Crop Units Tomatoes Capsicum Cucumber Lettuce Greenhouse kg/m2 76 30 100 80 Field kg/m2 18 12 20 10 Efficiency Gains % 422 250 500 800 Source: Smith, 2016 (17)
2.5.2 Market Advantages There are annual cycles of oversupply and undersupply of fresh produce commodities that come about by normal crop cycles and climatic conditions. The use of full climate control enables year‐round production for many crops. This in turn enables the supply of product when the commodity is in poor supply generally attracting higher process.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 7 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
2.5.3 Quality Control Control of the growing environment ensure that produce is of the highest quality. In protected cropping having full control of the growing environment is one of the main drivers for the adoption of greenhouse systems. As discussed it enables year‐round production and importantly it allows growers to produce crops of the highest standard often attracting a market premium.
Climatic conditions including: wet weather, extreme heat, extreme cold, hail and rain can damage produce reducing its value and in the worst case making produce unmarketable.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 8 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
3 Location There are a number of drivers for the Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation that include: • The Reimagining Collie Project: the project was run by the Collie Industry Futures Taskforce that was formed as a partnership between the Shire of Collie and the South West Development Commission (2). Its charter was to develop an action plan for securing Collies long‐term prosperity in the knowledge that sometime in the future the local coal industry will cease operations (life after coal). It is important to note that a greenhouse development could be developed alongside of current coal mining operations. • The project recognises that the major elements of greenhouse production are: o Sustainable supply of water. This study has identified sustainable water resources during the current and post mining operations; o Access to sustainable energy. The second highest cost behind labour of greenhouses is the cost of winter heating. This provides the opportunity to explore the use of cogenerated heat form power stations to mitigate some operational costs; o Access to suitable (flat) and affordable land. Land reformation post mine closure provides an opportunity to create suitably formed land for greenhouses. o Labour force; it is recognised that the population of Collie could support a greenhouse industry. Greenhouses have a high employment requirement when compared to other forms of agriculture. Although employment will be on a lower remuneration than the coal industry it does have the potential to provide a significant secondary level of employment and post mining will help to fill the employment void. • Griffin Coal included as part of the mix of potential land use opportunities for mine closure the redevelopment of mining land for greenhouse development. Griffin Coal have made it clear that they see they have a role to play in the sustainable and economic future of Collie past the life of their operations. • There may be biosecurity benefits that arise from the location of protected cropping industries in the Collie Region due to its disassociation from other major horticultural regions in Western Australia. • Access to other resources including co‐generated heat (power stations) and carbon dioxide that can potentially be scrubbed from power station flue gasses.
For these reasons the decision was made by DPIRD to fund the development of a feasibility study into the opportunity for a greenhouse development in the Collie Region. In recognising that there are significant potential benefits that arise from the location: labour, climate, water and land availability, Collie was chosen for the study. This was then extended for the immediate Collie Region to undertake a compare and contrast study that would also look at sites below and above the escarpment.
This report has not been undertaken to rule in or out any potential sites but rather to compare and contrast sites to assist the reader of the report to formulate the best opportunity for the development of a greenhouse operation.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 9 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
For a standalone greenhouse operation, the decision was made that a 10ha development would be evaluated. This was evaluated to be the best base unit, based on domestic and international experience, where some economy of scale can be achieved without the project requiring “too many” resources and the scale becomes too large to attract investors. However, in saying that the opportunity would be there to build a larger scaled greenhouse development that could be simply multiples of the studied 10ha development. The sites examined would allow the development of an expanded project.
The project assessed the potential for greenhouse development/s in the Collie and Brunswick Regions to compare and contrast the sensibility and value proposition for Collie.
For the purpose of this report the “Greater Collie region” is inclusive of the above and below escarpment regions; “Collie Region” refers to the above the escarpment region; and the “Brunswick Region” refers to the greater Northern CRID Farmlands and the Myalup‐Harvey Area (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Map of the Greater Collie Region inclusive of the Collie, Brunswick, Northern CRID Farmlands and Myalup‐Harvey Areas
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 10 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
4 Regional Assets Evaluation A study of the regional assets including environmental and infrastructure have been undertaken for the project. Discussion of these assets is included below. 4.1 Climate Air temperature and ventilation, solar radiation relative humidity and lighting are the most important variables of a greenhouse climate that can be controlled. This section summarises regional climatic conditions and seeks to compare and contrast differences that may exist between the Collie and Brunswick Regions.
The Greater Collie Region has a Mediterranean climate that is characterised by cool winters with short day length (10 hours) and warm to hot summers with long day length (14.3 hours) (18). Rainfall is predominant in the winter months.
Holland is recognised as a leader in greenhouse production where in the literature there is a lot of discussion about light limited production. Light limits the photosynthesis process in plants and is often reported as the most important variable effecting productivity in greenhouses (19) (20). In high light environments like the Greater Collie Region discussion of light is less important. Although, crops cannot get too much light the heat associated with light is an important consideration where optimal production 17oC to 27oC and appropriate short term lower limit of 10oC and 30oC (21).
Table 3 Summary climate data for the Collie, Brunswick and Virginia SA Regions Climate Aspect Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Collie Ave Max T (oC) 30.5 30.1 27.3 23.1 18.9 16.3 15.5 16.3 18.1 20.7 24.8 28.3 Collie Ave Min T(oC) 13.2 13.1 11.5 8.7 6.3 5 4.2 4.5 5.8 7.4 9.7 11.7 Collie Rainfall (mm) 15.5 14.5 23.7 47.5 124.6 173.8 176.7 140.6 100.5 62.6 32 17.4 Collie 9.00am RH (%) 60 64 69 79 88 90 91 87 79 69 60 57 Collie 3.00pm RH (%) 37 38 42 53 61 65 66 59 54 49 40 37 Brunswick* Ave Max T (oC) 31 30.8 28.3 24.2 20.2 17.5 16.7 17.1 18.7 21.1 24 28.1 Brunswick* Ave Min T (oC) 15.5 16.1 14.8 12.7 10.6 9 8 7.9 8.5 9.4 11.4 13.7 Brunswick* Rainfall (mm) 14.5 15.7 20.9 51.4 135.3 181.2 182.1 134 96.9 57.7 36.8 15.4 Brunswick* 9.00am RH (%) 54 56 59 67 77 80 83 79 76 70 63 57 Brunswick** 9.00am RH (%) 54 56 61 71 80 83 85 82 74 67 60 55 Brunswick** 3.00pm RH (%) 44 43 46 55 59 64 65 66 64 58 52 48 Virginia SA Ave Max T (oC) 30 30 26.9 23.1 19.2 15.9 15.3 16.5 19 22.3 25.9 27.9 Virginia SA Ave Min T(oC) 16.5 16.6 14.5 11.7 9.3 6.8 6.1 6.5 8.1 10 12.9 14.8 Virgina SA Rainfall (mm) 21.9 18.4 25.3 30.6 44.8 53.3 54.5 50.1 48.3 37.2 23.7 25.7 Virginia SA 9.00am RH (%) 63 65 66 65 73 78 79 76 70 64 63 61 Virginia SA 3.00pm RH (%) 52 53 53 54 62 67 67 64 61 55 53 49 * Wokalup climate data was used for the Brunswick Region ** Bunbury climate data was used for the Brunswick Region
It can be seen that there are no significant differences in the climate averages for maximum monthly temperature and rainfall for the Collie and Brunswick Regions (Table 3 and Figure 2). However, minimum monthly temperature for Collie Region is significantly lower than for the Brunswick Region (Table 3 and Figure 2).
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 11 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
* Wokalup climate data was used for the Brunswick Region Source: BOM http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/ca_wa_names.shtml (accessed Dec 2017) Figure 2 Plot of average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures and average monthly rainfall for Collie, Brunswick Regions and Virginia South Australia The lower minimum temperatures in Collie, although providing relief from high daily temperatures in summer will require greater amount of energy to maintain required heat in cooler months. The difference in minimum average monthly daily temperature ranges from 1.7oC to 4.3oC with an average of 3.0oC (Table 3).
To understand the suitability of the Greater Collie Region climate for greenhouse production a comparison with Virginia South Australia and included in Table 3 and Figure 2. Virginia SA has the largest area of protected cropping in Australia with 825ha of greenhouse increasing at a rate of 25ha/yr (22). It can be seen that for maximum and minimum temperatures all three locations have a high degree of similarity. This comparison provides confidence with respect to the suitability of the Greater Collie Region for greenhouse development.
Relative humidity is an important factor in greenhouse systems as it impacts crop health and greenhouse cooling. High humidity increases crop disease pressure and reduces evaporative cooling efficiency. Examining the 3:00pm relative humidity for Collie and Brunswick Regions shows a variation of up to 4‐12% humidity in the Collie Region over the warmer months Table 3. This is a significant advantage for cooling and disease management. Interestingly, the Collie Region has a higher morning humidity in the warmer months, however, with respect to cooling lower 3:00pm relative humidity is important.
The alignment of the greenhouse for light and ventilation is an important operational aspect of greenhouses. For tomatoes the growing rows would be aligned in a North South direction. Alignment of the greenhouse will be with the ridges also running in a North South direction so that the roof ventilation will face East and West. This will maximise ventilation potential as the dominant prevailing wind direction is from the East (NE‐SE) and West (SW to NW) (Table 4 and Appendix F).
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 12 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 4 Prevailing wind direction in the Collie and Brunswick Region Northern CRID Collie Month Wind Direction Farmlands 9.00am 3.00pm 9.00am 3.00pm NE‐SE 64% 40% 68% 21% January SW‐NW 24% 49% 14% 63% Sub Total 88% 89% 82% 84% NE‐SE 69% 50% 74% 25% February SW‐NW 22% 38% 9% 61% Sub Total 91% 88% 83% 86% NE‐SE 66% 45% 70% 27% March SW‐NW 21% 43% 12% 63% Sub Total 87% 88% 82% 90% NE‐SE 49% 34% 65% 20% April SW‐NW 33% 51% 13% 65% Sub Total 82% 85% 78% 85% NE‐SE 37% 30% 61% 22% May SW‐NW 35% 57% 20% 54% Sub Total 72% 87% 81% 76% NE‐SE 34% 31% 54% 22% June SW‐NW 38% 57% 25% 46% Sub Total 72% 88% 79% 68% NE‐SE 32% 21% 16% 16% July SW‐NW 39% 65% 51% 51% Sub Total 71% 86% 67% 67% NE‐SE 33% 24% 48% 12% August SW‐NW 41% 66% 31% 67% Sub Total 74% 90% 79% 79% NE‐SE 37% 27% 39% 8% September SW‐NW 42% 62% 36% 79% Sub Total 79% 89% 75% 87% NE‐SE 44% 24% 46% 15% October SW‐NW 44% 66% 29% 72% Sub Total 88% 90% 75% 87% NE‐SE 50% 29% 50% 13% November SW‐NW 40% 62% 28% 73% Sub Total 90% 91% 78% 86% NE‐SE 62% 33% 58% 17% December SW‐NW 29% 54% 19% 66% Sub Total 91% 87% 77% 83% Prepared from: Appendix F Colie and Bunbury wind roses 4.2 Water Resources The water resources for each area: Collie, Myalup‐Harvey and the Northern CRID Farmlands regions were examined and fell into two distinct groups: • The Myalup‐Harvey and Northern CRID Farmlands areas would source water through the cooperative Harvey Water network. This is the simplest model that would require the acquisition of a water allocation that could be supplied.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 13 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
It is important to note at this point that water through the Harvey Water Network is not a 100% secure supply and in years of poor rainfall supply could be less than 100% of the annual allocation. It would therefore be important to work with Harvey Water to ensure that the allocation was adequate to ensure supply in dry seasons or to develop the confidence necessary to purchase temporary water (temporary trade) from other farmers in dry seasons. • The Collie project would access water from several regional resources including: o Surface runoff from the rehabilitated mine site. This may have contaminants that need consideration, however, water requires RO treatment that would alleviate water quality risks o Runoff from the greenhouse site o Licensed entitlement from the Lower Collie River East Branch o Trade or purchase water from the Lower Collie River East Branch. Water could be traded from the Harvey Water allocation in the Wellington Dam and taken from the Lower Collie River East Branch. o Currently, in the order of 4ML/day with an average salinity of 3000mg/L is being discharged through the Saline Discharge Pipeline which could provide further a water resource opportunity o There could be further long‐term supply opportunities from groundwater (post mining) and piped water from the Wellington Dam The acquisition of any licence from the Wellington Dam and/or East Collie River would be an advantage for the local river system as most years this water would not be required and would ensure environmental flows. 4.3 Energy
4.3.1 Collie Region The Collie Region provides some unique opportunities with respect to energy. One of the highest costs in the operation of sophisticated high technology greenhouses is the cost of heating where for a 10ha greenhouse project gas can cost in the order of $2M/yr.
There are extensive waste heat resources in the Collie Region at the Bluewaters Power, Collie and Muja power stations. The most likely process for accessing heat will be through the capture of heat from the power station/s cooling towers. This would include the use of heat pumps to take low grade heat (low temperature) and increase it to approximately 60oC. The temperature that is usually required to heat greenhouses. Meeting with Bluewaters Power’s Environmental Manager has indicated that there would be an appetite to have further discussions about accessing their facility.
There may be opportunity for co‐funding of a renewable energy system with the Australian Renewable Energy Authority.
There are other additional advantages of the heat pump system:
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 14 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• They can still generate heat, from the ambient air, for the greenhouse when the power station is off‐line or post decommissioning if coal fired power generation ceases in the Collie Region. • They can be used to dehumidify and cooling the greenhouse by running the heat pumps in reverse. This is an advantage that other heating systems do not have. • May provide opportunity to access different food markets based on it’s green credentials. • The system has the flexibility to be coupled with other energy systems if they should arise.
The other significant energy requirement is electricity which is required for facility services, water pumping, water treatment, equipment operation, cooling and refrigeration. There is three phase electricity available in the region.
However, meetings with two parties (commercial in confidence) indicate that they are undertaking feasibility studies into the development of photo voltaic fields in the region. This could create the opportunity to power the Collie project with renewable energy. This is commercial in confidence and are not included in this report.
The use of these two renewable resources coupled with the desalination of mine site runoff water would provide an opportunity along the lines of the Sundrop farms project in South Australia. Sun Drop Farms claim they are a global leader in sustainable agriculture, growing fresh fruits and vegetables using renewable inputs.
4.3.2 Brunswick Region The energy requirements of the Brunswick Region project would most likely be provided by grid electricity and gas. However, the Kemerton Gas Power Station has been looked at as a potential heat source to develop a system similar to the Collie model discussed above.
In review of the opportunity at the Kemerton Gas Power Station it was identified that the power station is a peak load generator. That is to say that it would not have a continuous source of heat, as such did not represent the same opportunity as is available at Collie.
It would be necessary to look at location along or near the Dampier – Bunbury or associated gas infrastructure which would be necessary for greenhouse heating.
There would be an opportunity to evaluate the installation of dedicated photo voltaic cells and solar thermal for a project in the Brunswick Region. However, this has not been evaluated and should be undertaken in the development of a business case for a project in the Brunswick Region. 4.4 Mining A review of the three power stations Bluewaters Power, Collie and Muja, shown that Griffin Coal’s operations at the Ewington and Muja sites are best located with respect to power stations that could potentially be a source of heat and carbon dioxide for greenhouse production for the Collie Region project.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 15 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
In discussion with Griffin Coal they have advised that they will be willing to make available and reform land as part of their mine closure subject to their statutory mine closure requirements. This will lead to cost savings for land acquisition and site preparation for a Collie Region project.
Part of their mining operation is on freehold land, owned by Griffin Coal, adjacent to the Bluewaters Power’s Power Station which will provide necessary land security and is ideally located if heat and carbon dioxide is to be captured and used. Further to this the final land form will become a watershed for harvesting water required for production. This is important as the use of this surface runoff is not regulated and provides a cheap alternative water resource. 4.5 Labour and Expertise A controlled environment horticulture facility, despite being technology focussed and utilising a high level of mechanisation and automation, has a significant demand for labour – requiring up to 12 full time on‐site jobs and 3 ‐ 6 fulltime equivalent positions in postharvest, servicing and management per hectare. These jobs are generational, and most can offer flexible working hours. This industry also has an employment multiplier effect of around 2.09 (15) (17). For each direct job created there will be a further 1.09 created in upstream and downstream industries. However
A 10ha sophisticated high technology greenhouse facility is expected to create 96 permanent FTE positions (Table 5 and Figure 3) for tomato production. The requirement for labour will change for other crops, tomatoes has one of the highest labour requirements for greenhouse production. The high labour requirements and associated costs are more than offset by the high returns from greenhouse tomato production.
Table 5 Positions created for a 10ha sophisticated greenhouse facility Position FTE Management General Manager 1 Accounts Manager (and office admin) 1 Administration Staff 3 Production Master Grower 1 Crop Production Managers (IPM, Agronomy, Irrigation) 2 Team Leaders 2 Crop work 60 Asset Management Asset Manager 1 Hygiene / biosecurity 1 Technical staff 1 Postharvest and Warehouse Packhouse Manager 1 Grade and Pack 20 Cool Chain / QA 1 Logistics 1 Total 96
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 16 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Note: The number next to the position title indicate the number of staff required of these skills Figure 3 Organisation chart for a 10ha greenhouse
There is a diverse range of skills and expertise required in this type of facility ‐ semiskilled, skilled and highly trained. The crop workers need basic crop management skills which can usually be developed with on‐site induction and training, though production horticulture qualifications are beneficial. Crop work is generally completed in teams. If pesticides are used, the applicator and supervisor need appropriate chemical application certificates. Several staff should have first aid training.
Appropriately skilled and licensed technical staff are necessary for day to day maintenance and operations including equipment and machinery, especially heating/cooling and the fertigation system. Equipment servicing and calibration requires appropriately skilled and licensed technical staff and may be in‐house or contracted.
In postharvest, packing line workers need basic task skills which can generally be developed with on‐site induction and training. Quality Assurance and compliance require an appropriately trained person, as does the warehouse. Staff with forklift licences are required for receivables, dispatch and internal logistics.
The grower managers are highly trained horticulturists with knowledge of crop, IPM, nutrition and greenhouse management and supervisory skills.
Greenhouses require a flexible staffing arrangement as there is significant seasonal variation in staff demand in the greenhouse as there are higher crop growth and production rates in summer than winter. Further to this in
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 17 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
greenhouse staff often seek to commence work earlier in the morning in hotter weather as conditions in the greenhouse can be unpleasant in high temperature / high humidity conditions. 4.6 Services The commissioning of a production facility requires ground works, the protective structure, environmental control systems (heating, cooling, fans, fogging, screens, sensors, motors, climate control computers), growing systems (channels, containers, irrigation pipes and fittings, fertiliser dosing, filters, pumps and control units), biosecurity and utilities (water, power, energy).
Once operational, key services include mechanical maintenance (electrical, plumbing, mechanical, heating/cooling), building maintenance, IT and telephony, equipment calibration, pest and nutrition/water diagnostics, technical consulting, marketing, research and development, freight and logistics, training and recruitment, as well as biosecurity, cleaning and waste management.
Crop production inputs include plants (seeds/nursery seedlings), growing substrates, fertilisers, water, strings, clips and plant hangers, biological control organisms, insect traps, cleaning materials, disinfectants and chemicals, gloves, coveralls and boot covers, and miscellaneous equipment and machinery (trolleys, farm transport, hand tools).
Postharvest requires grading and packing facilities, grading and packing machinery, cool stores, packaging and warehousing/storage space and freight.
Additional support activities include farm transport equipment, green waste management, used plastic recycling, and water capture and reuse.
Key services include: • mechanical servicing of tools, machinery and equipment o electrical, plumbing, mechanical pumps and filters, fans, boiler, cool room, motors, packing line, kitchen • calibration servicing of tools, machinery and equipment o sensors, scales, grading and sorting • general maintenance o structure and hard surfaces, o greenhouse cladding – repair, replacement and cleaning o landscaping and grounds management o amenities • IT and telephony; office equipment • laboratory diagnostics – pests, disease and nutrition • consulting o horticultural, IPM • marketing and selling • logistics and freight • research and development • training and induction • input suppliers
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 18 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
o plants, substrates, fertilisers, chemicals, bio‐controls, PPE, biosecurity clothes, clips/strings/hangers, trolleys, hand tools, packaging and labels, pallets, machinery parts • utilities – power, energy, water, waste management • worker accommodation / transport 4.7 Infrastructure and Logistics A review of regional infrastructure and logistics with respect to roads, rail, ports and airports has highlighted that there are no significant advantages and disadvantages for either a greenhouse development on the Collie and Brunswick Regions. It can be seen that a development in the Collie Region has longer freight distances and times over Brunswick but in the overall siting of a greenhouse development in each of these areas there is little separating them in terms of costs and convenience.
4.7.1 Roads The Collie and Brunswick Regions are serviced from Perth with good roads that would allow for easy and fast access to Perth airport, the Perth wholesale markets, retail distribution centres and Fremantle Port and potentially to the Busselton Airport. The Forrest Highway is a dual carriageway road from Bunbury and links directly with the Kwinana Freeway to Perth. Example travel distances and times are: • Collie to Perth Airport: 208km (2hr 12min); • Brunswick to Perth Airport: 169km (1hr 42min); • Collie to Freemantle Harbour: 202km (2hr 17min); • Brunswick to Fremantle Harbour: 157km (1hr 43min); • Collie to Bunbury: 56km (45min); • Brunswick to Bunbury: 22km (20min); • Collie to Busselton: 105km (1hr 13min), • Brunswick to Busselton 72km (57min).
Existing public road transport infrastructure to service both the greenhouse sites proposed in this study is capable and suitable to meet the expected needs. Funds will be required for the construction of onsite private access and service roads, parking areas, etc.
4.7.2 Rail Bunbury, Collie, Perth and Freemantle are all on the existing Western Australia rail network. This rail service also provides connections to the regional ports and the intercontinental rail services. It is unlikely that rail services will be required in this project because of the short distances from production sites to markets or market services.
4.7.3 Ports Fremantle, the main port for the city of Perth, is approximately two hours road freight transit time from the proposed production sites and has all the facilities to efficiently and effectively handle refrigerated shipping containers. While the port of Bunbury is closer and has the capacity to handle large freighter vessels, there are no reefer handling facilities at the port.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 19 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
4.7.4 Airports International airfreight exports will be a key component to the success of any large intensive greenhouse operations in Western Australia. Perth and Busselton International Airport are approximately two hours and one hour driving time respectively from the proposed greenhouse sites which is a very workable distance for efficient transport logistics for the air freighting of fresh produce. Perth is the only international airport in Western Australia that is close to the greenhouse sites and has international flights capable of uplifting fresh produce freight.
Total international air‐freight volume uplifted from Perth Airport has risen from a monthly average of around 2,500 tonnes to more than 5,000 tonnes over the last six years (Figure 4). The proportion of this uplift as fresh produce freight was not recorded on the data set used for this summary, however this does indicate there is an increasing airfreight capacity available from Perth Airport. There is also no indication of the proportions of airfreight uplifted in freighter aircraft or passenger flights. The highest monthly destinations in any one year over the same period have remained static at 15 to 20. Additionally, the Busselton Airport could handle both domestic and international freight in the future.
Figure 4 Average monthly international airfreight tonnage (excluding mail) uplifted from Perth Airport and the monthly average number of destinations for airfreight (23) 4.8 Regional SWOT Analysis The SWOT analysis evaluates general requirements for greenhouses against the environmental and other regional assets and liabilities that impact development and production.
Regional Strengths There are significant regional assets that support the development of greenhouses in the Greater Collie Region. • Climate well suited to efficient greenhouse operations (well balanced heating and cooling requirements) • Ready access to both skilled and casual labour that is not likely to be limited
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 20 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Good natural light conditions • Access to reliable water supply • Access to range of energy and heat sources • Access to land at a reasonable cost – high salinity sites possibly available for use at low cost • Access to flat land, albeit the Collie site will be reformed to be flat as part on mine site closure • Professional trades for construction and servicing in the region • Established quality infrastructure in roads, transport and ports available for immediate use • Short travel distance to air and sea freight facilities and services for export markets • Separation between greenhouse precincts and other growing regions • Regional political climate supports the development of new economic and employment opportunities in the region • Western Australia’s fresh produce export market experience and market development capacity within DPIRD
Regional Weaknesses There were limited barriers that would negatively impact the development of greenhouses in the Greater Collie Region • Saline water management by not being directly connected to ocean outfall or other potential discharge body i.e. salt lake. • Limited national and domestic markets for greenhouse outputs (more of a State and National issue) • Light, imbalance between summer and winter day length
Regional Opportunities Greenhouse • Creating new employment opportunities in the region. Off‐set regional impact of future mining operations, down scaling and / or closure • Development of educational and training facilities to meet protected cropping skilled labour requirements (School of Intensive Horticulture) • Development of new food processing and food technology business
Regional Threats • Climate change may affect source water quality and availability • Energy and heat cost and availability
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 21 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 22 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
5 Crop Selection
5.1 Environmentally Adaptable Crops The Collie Region has a Mediterranean climate with dry, warm to hot summers and wet, cool to cold winters (Section 4.1) with gradual season changes throughout the year. A wide range of sub‐tropical to cold winter adaptable crops can be economically grown in the region in the open. Niche environmental variations offered by the climatic variation from the coastal plains to the hills further inland offer a significant variation in the types of crops that can be successfully produced. Citrus as a sub‐tropical fruit crop are grown on the plains and the cool temperate fruit crops such as apples and cherries are produced in the adjacent hills. Mediterranean climate vegetable crops including potatoes, carrots, lettuce and crucifers (Brassicas) are produced on the plains in the region.
The climatic environment of this region means there is a wide range of environmentally adapted crops that could be successfully produced under greenhouse conditions. An initial scan of most of the possible crops that could be grown was undertaken and reduced to a screening list through elimination because of the most obvious factors including: • tree crops unsuitable for greenhouse production (apples, pears, citrus); • high volume and efficient field production already in place (lettuce, crucifers, carrots); • very low market growth/opportunity potential. 5.2 Greenhouse Production Adaptable Crops The first phase screening potential crops for greenhouse production in the region was to pull together a range of crops that could / would be suitable for protected cropping cultivation. Fifteen crops were assessed based on data quality, information and knowledge, with respect to greenhouse production and were reviewed for their relative cost benefit using gross margin analysis and greenhouse (Table 6). For each crop a gross margin table was developed from data accessed from a wide range of Australian sources including personal communication with experts. This analysis albeit high level immediately eliminated some crops as being not viable from a production cost point of view in high technology greenhouses and were considered no further in the analysis.
The remaining crops were considered further in combination with the market research undertaken as outlined below to determine the top four crops for consideration and recommendation for inclusion in this feasibility study.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 23 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 6 Greenhouse crops screened for suitability for economic analysis Relative Crop Greenhouse Technology Return Tomatoes High High technology with full climate control Medium to high technology with full climate Cucumbers Negative control Capsicums Medium High technology with full climate control Strawberries High Medium with full climate control Eggplant Low Medium with full climate control Long beans Negative Medium with full climate control Bok and pak choi Low Medium with full climate control Herbs High Medium with full climate control Medium to high technology with full climate Cherries Negative control Lettuce Low Medium with full climate control Different growing structure with full climate Mushrooms High control* Chillies Medium Medium with full climate control Melons (rock, Medium to high technology with full climate Negative honeydew) control Medium to high technology with full climate Blueberries High control Medium to high technology with full climate Gerberas Low control
Important Note! From this analysis it was determined that the top four crops for consideration and further analysis would be tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries and capsicums / chillies, with a particular emphasis on tomatoes and strawberries as they potentially provide the best economic outcomes.
Although other crops demonstrated that they had the potential for high returns when produced in greenhouses they were not examined further in this report. That does not mean that they do not warrant further investigation. However, tomatoes and strawberries we selected for more detailed assessment based on the gross margin analysis (Table 6) and the quality of information about these crops in greenhouse production. Quantity and quality of information within the literature provide a greater level of confidence with respect to greenhouse design operation and economic modelling.
5.2.1 New and Alternative Crops There are a wide range of crops that can be grown in greenhouses, virtually any crop at any time depending on the sophistication of the infrastructure. Although many different and varied crops could be grown in greenhouses the economics need to be carefully considered.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 24 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
This section highlights alternate crops that may be grown in greenhouses. It is outside of the scope of this project to economically assess the potential of these crops. However, they are included to inform of other potential opportunities for greenhouse crops. All information in the “New and Alternative Crops” section will need to be validated and reviewed by the reader before any commercial decisions are made.
5.2.1.1 Cherries For example, fruit trees can be grown in greenhouses. Greenhouses can be used for table grapes and fruit trees which are grown in pots and moved in and out of the greenhouse or the grower raises the sides of the greenhouse in winter to get the required chill hours. However, by moving the crop in and out of the greenhouse during the dormant period (trees out of the greenhouse), additional short cycle crops may be grown.
Figure 5 Greenhouse cherries, soil cultivation
5.2.1.2 Table Grapes Commercially farmed table grapes are being grown in soil and in tubs within greenhouses in China (Figure 6). Research has been undertaken in USA (24) and Italy for potted greenhouse table grapes with yields achieving 20‐30t/ha (25).
Figure 6 Greenhouse table grapes in China
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 25 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
5.2.1.3 Medical Marijuana A non‐traditional crop of high value would have to be medical marijuana where there is a promise of high returns. In the US 29% of wholesale growers are saying they are very profitable (26). This crop would fit well with hydroponic greenhouse production where the greenhouses are part of the security requirements.
There is a lot of information on the web regarding the licenced production of medical marijuana under the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967, and as of August 2017, 22 licences have been issued in Australia. There is now one licenced company in production (27). Licence information can be sourced from https://www.odc.gov.au/sites/default/files/guidance‐completing‐downloadable‐ licence‐applications.pdf.
Figure 7 Greenhouse marijuana
5.2.1.4 Native Bush Tomatoes Bush Tomato is a native food of a species of Night Shade, Solanum sp (Figure 8). There are over 100 species of wild tomatoes in Australia but only 6 are known to be edible. The fruit can be eaten when dried but are generally ground and used as a spice and flavouring. In 2012 it was estimated that the annual production of bush tomato spice and flavour was 15t with a farm gate value of $540,000 (28). The report went on to say that Bush tomato has been described as one of the most marketable products emerging from the Australian native foods industry.
Figure 8 Bush tomato
Clarke (2012) states that the farm gate value of Bush Tomatoes has risen from $15‐$20/kg in 2001 to $32‐$45/kg in 2011. The dried or ground product retails for between $55‐$80/kg with small volume retail sales at $11 ‐ $19.50/100g.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 26 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Currently Bush Tomatoes are either wild harvested with some being cultivated in South Australia and Northern Territory. The AFA report highlights demand out strips supply. To meet growing demand Rider et al (29) felt that there could be potential for greenhouse production of Bush Tomatoes. Greenhouse production rates have not been established and will need further evaluation.
Australian Native Food & Botanicals report that under cultivated irrigation the fruiting cycle of bush tomatoes has been expanded from two to eight months. This would better suit greenhouse growing where long fruiting cycles better fit intensive production. High density plantings could be achieved with suspended movable growing trays. One of the problems highlighted for Bush Tomatoes trade is the high variability in quality, greenhouse production may well be able to mitigate this variability. 5.3 Existing Market Research Summary The global demand for high quality food into the foreseeable future will continue to grow as the world population expands, and many of the rapid population expansion countries have limited ability to expand their food production base through land and environmental constraints. The increased demand for food is provided in Figure 9 there Asia’s demand will increase by approximately 100% and the rest of the World by approximately 150% by 2050. Further to this is the increase in imports to meet this increased demand for Asia is approximately 450% (Figure 10) and China, the largest market, is approximately 880%.
While this increasing demand will primarily be reflected in a growing demand for grains and animal protein, there will be concurrent increasing demand for fruits and vegetables. The buying power of middle income and affluent consumers in Asian countries is increasing, and this increases the demand for food items beyond the staple foods and for higher quality produce. For many of these consumers, the fear of food contamination and food safety concerns are further driving the demand for high quality foods of assured food safety status. Australian based market researchers and economists believe that Australia is in a strong position to be a significant player in many of the regional Asian and Middle East markets into the future.
Source: ABARES Figure 9 World food demand by region
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 27 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: ABARES Figure 10 Asian food imports by region
Market research was undertaken primarily with a review of existing export market opportunities for the range of greenhouse adapted crops highlighted earlier. A strong emphasis has been placed on export markets as production from the proposed greenhouse could not be readily absorbed into the domestic market without selling price impacts. In addition, the current interstate quarantine issues surrounding the movement of some produce out of Western Australia to the Eastern States increases the cost and difficulty. (Section 5.4.1.4.1).
Documents and data resources evaluated in relation to the review of export market opportunities are included in the References (Section 12) and key findings from these reports are attached in the Reference Summaries (Section 12.1).
Further more detailed analysis of market opportunity was undertaken for tomatoes, strawberries, blue berries and capsicum / chilli. This work was undertaken by DPIRD (2017) and included in Appendix C.
While the crops above have been selected for further analysis in this report, any of the crops included in Table 6 and others suitable for greenhouse production could be developed as part of a viable enterprise. Viable enterprises are primarily dependant on finding a secured market for a product at an acceptable price that delivers a positive cost/benefit analysis. Niche and specialist products can also be included in any considerations as the possible production from even a greenhouse complex greater than 10ha is not likely to be sufficient to meet demand in many international markets. 5.4 Market Opportunity Analysis There is a widely held belief that there is domestic market saturation within the Australian produce markets. In a 2015 Call for Tender by SA Water for the development of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme tenderers were advised as part of their proposal they would need to look at international markets for produce. This was to ensure that a development of this nature would not negatively impact the markets of local growers following advice from PIRSA.
Although accurate information about markets for greenhouse produce is poor because it is often reported as a commodity line which is not broken down into sub‐categories. This is a problem with both domestic and export market data.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 28 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
However, Protected Cropping Australia (17) provide the farmgate value of the greenhouse industry to be $1.3billion (AUD) and growing at a rate of 4‐6% per year. This growth is in line with a 2015 report for the Virginia Irrigation Association that showed a growth in greenhouse production area of approximately 4% per year, on the Northern Adelaide Plains, from 1999 to 2014 (30). For tomatoes what has been seen within the industry is that high quality greenhouse tomatoes have negatively impacted markets for field tomatoes.
For these reasons both domestic and international markets have been evaluated for consideration.
5.4.1 Export Market Opportunities The produce outputs from the proposed greenhouses for all the crops identified are most likely to be sold on international markets to achieve viable returns and not create significant disturbances and impacts in the Australian domestic market. The Western Australian domestic market is unlikely to be able to absorb the volumes of produce likely to flow from a 10ha or greater greenhouse complex for any of the crops proposed. The Australian market may be able to cope with out of season production of blueberries, but less likely to achieve viable prices for the other crops even with out of season production. Production volumes per unit area, quality improvements and operational efficiencies may provide some flexibility and opportunities for lower returns to be viable.
The crop summaries presented below are without regard to market access issues. Market access issues and protocols are discussed later in the section.
5.4.1.1 China Market Opportunity A declining export demand coupled with the declining consumer growth expected in Japan, coupled with importation barriers, suggests that Australian exporters may be better served by looking to capitalise growth in other areas of Asia with a rapidly increasing demand, such as China. There are number of opportunities for Australian growers to capitalise on, with 83% of Chinese middle‐class consumers reportedly willing to pay more for safe food products, such as those with Australian branding (31). To date, lack of market access and import protocol requirements for export of fresh produce to China and the often massive supply contract volumes has led to many growers avoiding ventures into China at this point. Hence, limited fresh vegetable exports have been undertaken while processed vegetable exports have risen 721% since 2008‐09. However, the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between China and Australia on 15 June 2015 means that many of the financial barriers to horticultural export have been eliminated and Australia has improved market access under the agreement.
Australian products are seen within the Chinese market as having a high standard of food safety, quality assurance and low pesticide use, with all food produced in Australia required to comply with the code set out in The Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand Act 1991. Australian growers are in a position to possibly leverage higher premiums for products given the perception of quality surrounding Australian food and the willingness of the Chinese consumers to pay for quality. Given Australia will never be able to compete with China in terms of production and labour costs, the focus moving forward should be on high quality, niche products, that will allow Australia's entry into the marketplace to be one not
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 29 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
based solely on price. Australia is seen as one of the most efficient horticultural producers in the world, with the ability to provide agricultural produce to world markets, despite not having the high levels of financial support and protection policies offered by other countries. Australia has counter‐seasonality to many regions in China giving us a prime advantage to supply out of season produce to the marketplace.
A report by Port Jackson Partners commissioned by ANZ in 2012 (32) predicted that Australia and New Zealand could become food bowls for Asia, given the land, water, skills and proximity to the region. The report states that the relative scarcity of agricultural land and water available in growth areas in Asia could afford Australia and New Zealand the opportunity to capitalise their land and water assets to more than double the real value of annual agricultural exports by 2050.
An investment must be made to create a strong branding strategy for Australian produce to the Asian market. While price is a determination in vegetable exporting, a key factor in export success is how well we can capitalise on our premium, safe and high quality produce. However, in order to establish a successful export business into China (or any other nation) it is imperative that significant effort is made to understand Chinese culture and the importance placed on good business relationships.
Port Jackson Partners (32) reported that international competitiveness in agriculture is dependent on much more than access to good land and rainfall. It is essential to build efficient supply chain systems, top research and development capabilities, innovative financing, clear strategic visions and build productive farms with the required scale, organisation, funding and skills (32).
The growing global demand for vegetable products, rising global population, and increased incomes of Asian countries have simultaneously combined and present Australian growers with unprecedented opportunities.
Why Australian greenhouses to meet increased global food demand? • Greenhouse high production capability to meet large market demand essential to market penetration • Australia’s reputation for ‘clean green’ production meeting some of the World’s most stringent food safety standards. In 2014 survey in China 80% of respondents expressed concern about food safety (33). • Increasing middle income throughout Asia with a willingness to pay for high quality imported food • Australia’s high production period coincides with the northern hemisphere period of low production
Yongmin (34) states that: “the government classes the following current risks relevant to food safety in China as “very serious”: 1) Food‐induced illnesses remain the supreme danger for public health; 2) New biological and chemical pollutants in food; 3) New food technologies and materials (such as transgenic food) raise new challenges; 4) The capacity for self‐management among food producers is weak; 5) Food terrorism; 6) Slow food safety supervision by government organs”
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 30 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
“Asian markets have an appetite to buy high quality higher cost food produced in Australia” (pers. comm. Ian McLeod Dole Asia, Asia Diversified Sourcing Senior Development Specialist).
5.4.1.2 Crop Summaries – Tomatoes, Strawberries, Blueberries and Capsicums / Chillies The opportunities for these crops have primarily been extracted from the research work provided by the Western Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (Appendix C). For all the proposed crops, the Australian cost of production combined with international transport costs means that to achieve viable enterprises, the target market must be premium quality products that can demand a high market price.
Strawberries (35) • The global import value of strawberries is $3.2 billion with 877,489 tons traded. • Australia has a 0.8% share of this global market worth $24.5M at an average unit price of $8.31/kg. • The major export markets for Australian strawberries in 2016 were Singapore (975t), UAE (742t), New Zealand (554t) and Thailand (415t). • Western Australia supplied more than 25% of the strawberries into the Singapore market. • In the Middle East, South East Asian and East Asian markets of interest in this study especially in the third quarter as there are low levels of competition. • The Chinese market is not open to fresh strawberry imports from Australia. • Japan has the highest average unit value of import, but Western Australia does not have access to Japan. Moreover, competition is low, with United States being the main supplier during the July to September quarter which is the main Western Australian export season. • Western Australia has issues in the supply side, mainly availability of quality runners and labour. • In most of the potential countries, United States is the only competitor from July to September, which is the main export season for Western Australian strawberries.
Summary: Good Opportunity. There are opportunities for new and expanded markets for premium products and there is considerable local expertise and understanding in the handling of export strawberry shipments in Western Australia. Low level of competition in target markets is an advantage.
Tomatoes (36) • The global import value of tomatoes is $11.6 billion with more than 7m tons traded. • Australia has an insignificant share of this global market. • The major export markets for Australian tomatoes in 2016 were Singapore ($0.8M total value @ $5.72/kg), Hong Kong ($0.3M @ $4.60) and Indonesia ($0.3m @ $6.65). • The average unit export price of Australian tomatoes is $4.15/kg compared to $1.47/kg globally.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 31 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• UAE and Saudi Arabia are heavy volume importers but at a price less than $1/kg. • Japan is a premium importer paying on average $4.82 /kg. • All countries have a positive compound annual growth rate in price, for five and two year periods except for Singapore. • All the countries of interest in this report have reasonably high competition and most of the supply seems to be from neighbouring countries. • Information is not available for separate categories of tomato which is a limitation of this analysis.
Summary: Fair to Good Opportunity. Further category analysis is required to clearly define opportunities. Positive market growth rates and overall high‐ volume imports in particularly UAE and Saudi Arabia are potential indicators of possible premium market expansion. The export market growth challenge for Australia including WA is to identify premium segment of the market, as we cannot be price competitive at current global market prices. Further research required to quantify benefits and opportunities for pursuit of closed Japan, Korea and China markets before committing time and resources to market access negotiations.
Blueberries (37) Data in this market analysis is for the grouping of cranberries, bilberries and other fruits of the genus Vaccinium which includes Blueberries. Cranberries and blueberries both have a similar level of world production, so the interpretation of these results globally needs caution as it cannot be assumed that the majority of this data is related to blueberries. Data relevant only to Australia is likely to be predominantly blueberries. • The global import value of the group is $3.37 billion with 431,000 tons traded. • Australia has a very small 0.3% share of this global market. • The major export markets for Australian blueberries in 2016 were Hong Kong ($4.15m @ $23.34/kg), Singapore ($1.7m total value @ $21.26/kg) and Thailand ($0.94m @ $25.37/kg). • Australia is a net importer of blueberries (1048t in 2016) with the highest global unit value ($20.59/kg), importing almost 100% from New Zealand. This provides opportunity for import substitution. • Japan is the second highest unit value importer ($17.10/kg) but is a closed market for WA blueberries. However, a phytosanitary protocol would be required to be negotiated for entry, this would provide future export opportunity. • China is the major Asian importer with good growth in both price and quantity. • Prices in most markets are significantly higher in October to December period. • Australia enjoys a tariff free status in all Asian countries of interest except China, which will reduce to zero from January 2019 under ChAFTA. • China and South Korea are low competition markets with Chile almost the sole supplier in China. Chile (84%) and US (16%) are the suppliers in South Korea. Chile is not a high‐end market supplier.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 32 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• There is a high level of competition in Singapore which is WA's major current destination. • WA has a shipping distance advantage in all the Asian and Middle east countries compared to current major suppliers.
Summary: Fair to Good Opportunity. Market competition, distance advantages and premium product offer important market development opportunities for Australian produce. As an importer of premium blueberries, the Australian domestic market may be an opportunity, even as a secondary market, however market volume data needs to be analysed. High value and volume European markets should be investigated as sea freight options may be possible. Pursuit of China market access is likely to be more beneficial for strawberries and blueberries than tomatoes.
Capsicum and Chilli (38) • The global import value of the group is $7.13 billion with 3.3m tons traded. • Australia has a negligible share of this global market. • The major export market for Australian capsicums in 2016 was New Zealand ($1.08m @ $3.94/kg). All other exports were very small and valued at less than $150,000 for any market. • There may be an opportunity for importation replacement as 1,894t were imported into Australia in 2015 (39). • The global average export price is $2.03/kg. • Among Asian Countries Japan is a premium importer with high volume ($194m pa / 41,000 ton) at a premium price of $4.74/kg. Malaysia is also a high‐volume importer (56,000 tons pa @ $1.44/kg). • However, for Japan, a phytosanitary protocol would be required to be negotiated for entry, this would provide future export opportunity. • Imports in Japan and Malaysia are predominantly from neighbouring countries. • There are many competitors in the market and there is no seasonal advantage for Australia as most of the competitor’s supply throughout the year. • South Korean export price is 6.3% higher than Australian average. South Korea exported capsicum worth $128 million and is the seventh largest exporter in the world.
Summary: Fair Opportunity. There are opportunities at the premium markets for high value product, but market penetration will be difficult.
5.4.1.3 Market Access and Import Protocols for Selected Crops A market access review for the selected short list crops into markets in the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania Regions was completed by Arris using the resources of the MICoR Database (40). The results are summarised in Table 7. Those markets requiring only a phytosanitary certificate would be readily and immediately accessible for export once the market arrangements are established. All the Middle East countries fall in this category along with Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Some may require an import permit which would be issued as part of the market arrangements between exporter and importer.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 33 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
The second tier of ease of access markets are in the category where imports are permitted under adherence to a prescribed protocol which is generally focussed on the application of postharvest treatments (on shore or in‐transit) to eliminate the threat of fruit flies.
The third category of markets is those where there is currently a full ban on imports. Some of these countries do accept produce from declared fruit fly free regions in Australia (predominantly Tasmania and Riverland of SA) and as such provides established protocols that under different circumstances could be used to enhance a case for market access.
Table 7 Market access / protocol (for WA produce) from MICoR Database Region / Tomato Strawberry Berries / Rubus sp. Capsicum / Chilli Country Access Reqm. Access Reqm. Access Reqm. Access Reqm. Middle East Bahrain Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Kuwait Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Qatar Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Saudi Arabia Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto UAE Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto Yes Phyto South Asia India Yes No No Protocol No (BlueB) South East Asia Singapore Yes Open Yes Open Yes Open Yes Open Indonesia Yes Yes Protocol Yes Protocol Protocol (BlueB) Malaysia Yes Open Yes Open Yes Open Yes Phyto Thailand Yes Yes Protocol Phyto (BlueB) Vietnam No No No Philippines No No No No East Asia China No No No No Hong Kong Yes Open Yes Open Yes Open Yes Open Taiwan No No No No South Korea No No No No Japan No No No No Oceania New Zealand Yes Yes Phyto Yes Protocol Phyto (Caps only) Notes: 1. Protocol requirement is usually the need for cold storage / vapour heat / sterilisation treatment for fruit fly from areas outside recognised fruit fly free regions (usually Tasmania and Riverland of SA). 2. NZ Strawberry protocol is MeBr fumigation from outside fruit fly free zones. 3. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain have no fruit fly restrictions on Phyto. 4. Workplan and protocols in place for some fruits into Taiwan, eg grapes, stone fruit. 5. Thailand: Strawberries from WA require MeBr treatment. 6. China, Philippines: None of these crops have a specific listing in the general MICoR database, however both countries have quarantine protocol requirements in place for other fruit fly susceptible crops. Yes Open access to the market Yes Access to the market with suitable documentation, phytosanitary certificates No Currently no market access
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 34 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
5.4.1.4 Access to New Markets
5.4.1.4.1 International / Certified Production Environment Protocol Australia is a signatory to the FAO Agreement (ISPM 10) “Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites” (41). This document specifies the conditions and protocols required to establish a pest free production site for fresh produce. The intensive greenhouse production environments in this feasibility study will, as part of a high quality and high‐ performance system, already have in place some of the requirements of the FAO agreement. However, to fully implement the agreement would impose additional procedures and infrastructure requirements that are not included in the costing model.
While some of the key high value export markets considered in this study are also signatories to this agreement, the requirement for government to government bilateral agreements with accepted handling protocols overrides this FAO agreement. It is our understanding from enquiries made to various sources that full compliance to the FAO protocol will not allow exports to countries with existing import restrictions as per the MICoR database (40), e.g. tomatoes or strawberries to Japan.
The 2017 discovery of tomato potato psyllid (TTP) in Western Australia, while it has impacted interstate trade it has had little or no impact on existing international export sales of the four targeted products in this study.
It could however become an issue of concern if export protocol development to currently unavailable markets was to be implemented in the future.
5.4.1.4.2 International Market Access Protocol Obtaining access to markets that are currently closed can be a long term and difficult process. Access must be negotiated and agreed at a national government level between the exporting and importing country. For both Australia as the exporting country and the respective importing country, there are at any one time a large range of products on the table for discussion and protocol development which slows the process due to human resource limitations on both sides. Furthermore, the negotiations and dealings are further impacted by a range of overarching agreements like signatories to UN documents and free trade agreements that need to be considered.
In Australia, negotiations on market access for horticultural products are undertaken at the federal government level by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources who are in turn primarily acting on behalf of and advised / supported by the Trade Assessment Panel and Trade Unit operating under Horticulture Innovation as the representative body of the horticulture industries in Australia. Further information can be obtained from the Horticulture Innovation website http://horticulture.com.au/trade/trade‐and‐market‐access/ and details of the assessment and prioritisation process are also available on this web site (42).
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 35 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Key relevant information from this website includes: “The Trade Unit is responsible for establishing an objective market access and market maintenance prioritisation mechanism, and designing a new cross‐horticulture Trade Strategy, incorporating all aspects of these priorities.”
“Hort Innovation Australia manages export market access and market improvement proposals on behalf of the Australian horticulture sector. We provide advice to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Department) on sectoral priorities for market access and market improvement. The Department in turn considers this advice in determining the market access priorities it negotiates on behalf of the Australian horticultural sector. Hort Innovation’s trade unit develops this advice through its Trade Assessments Panel (TAP). The TAP evaluates proposals and provides advice to the Department via a prioritised list for the horticultural industry as a whole. The Department requires prioritisation advice to place emphasis on evidence‐based, export‐ready, broadly supported proposals stemming from agreed industry export strategies.”
Any drive to obtain market access for a selected product into a selected market would have to obtain the crop industry sector support and endorsement with approaches to the Horticulture Innovation Trade Unit for market access negotiations coming from the industry peak body. Enquiries have not been made of the peak industry bodies for tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries and capsicum / chillies about their interest, intentions or progress in relation to market access of their products into specific markets.
Tomatoes The Australian tomato industry has no formal peak industry body and is currently represented through Protected Cropping Australia (PCA). There is currently no representation from the industry for access into any international markets. A representative voice for the industry through agreement and support from a number of key producers in Australia would be needed to progress any application for the government to negotiate access to new markets.
Strawberries The strawberry growers in Australia are represented by their peak body, Strawberries Australia Inc. (SAI). There are currently no targeted market access activities by the industry, but they recognize the need for export markets to be available and developed as alternate markets to relieve the pressure on the fully/over supplied domestic market. However, Western Australia is seeking market access to China (DPIRD). It is anticipated that SAI will be developing improved market access strategies over the next year and some background work to support market access is being undertaken.
Blueberries Blueberry growers are represented by the Australian Blueberry Growers Association (ABGA). Blueberries are on the list of products for negotiation for access to China.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 36 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Capsicums AusVeg is the peak industry body representing the capsicum industry. There is no formal market access request in place for capsicums and it is not on any priority list for future consideration as it is likely to be a difficult candidate because of its susceptibility to a wide range on known quarantine pest and diseases, e.g. Tomato Potato Psyllid, Queensland Fly, Mediterranean Fly.
5.4.2 Domestic
5.4.2.1 Australian Domestic Market ‐ Melbourne Market wholesale prices for the four selected crops in Melbourne have been analysed for the years 2012 to 2017. The Melbourne market data has been selected as representative of the Eastern seaboard cities and is the closest large market to Western Australia.
Crop summaries for the Melbourne market below are based in monthly sale price data for the years 2012 to 2017 from Market Information Services.
Strawberries There are no apparent annual trends in average price for strawberries, however seasonal availability does cause a significant price increase during the winter months (Figure 11). Winter season prices are more than double summer season prices.
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 11 Average strawberry market price 2012‐2017 (250g punnet)
Price data analysed by examining the average rank of the monthly prices in each year shows there is a small increasing price trend for the average punnet price over the six years of data collected (Figure 12). This same trend was not evident for the market maximum price for strawberries.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 37 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 12 Change in average monthly rank of price for strawberries 2012‐2017
For strawberries, the price premium possible for high quality produce and/or quality market presentation (using maximum market prices as an indicator) is significantly above the average price (Figure 13). For the years 2012 to 2017 this was approximately a 300% increase, which indicates that the economics of the greenhouse operations for strawberries could be significantly impacted by produce quality and presentation. Peak production times for strawberries can be varied in a greenhouse production environment (43). This may present an opportunity for greenhouse production by targeting high market prices during periods of supply shortage.
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 13 Average yearly maximum price, average price and lowest price for strawberries 2012‐2017
Tomatoes – Gourmet 10kg Cartons There were no apparent yearly price trends for gourmet tomatoes, however there were large seasonal and yearly variations in the average price (Figure 14). A further in‐depth analysis of these variations may give an indication on the origin
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 38 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
and nature of the more profitable lines to be translated into controllable production and marketing factors ensuring a continued high market price.
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 14 Average gourmet tomato market price 2012‐2017 (10kg carton)
Tomatoes ‐ Cherry 250gm Punnets Average cherry tomato price was also variable (Figure 15) and there was a slight trend in the data towards improving average prices over the years 2012 to 2017. However, this trend outcome was most likely due solely to the low prices in the first year (2012) (Figure 16).
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 15 Average cherry tomato market price 2012‐2017 (250g punnet)
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 39 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 16 Change in average monthly rank of price for cherry tomatoes 2012‐2017
Tomatoes – Gourmet Truss 4kg Carton Like the other types of tomatoes evaluated, the average price for gourmet truss tomatoes were seasonally and yearly variable with the best monthly average price in most years being at least twice that of the cheapest price. Typically, $10 ‐$12 rising to $20 ‐$25 per 5kg carton (Figure 17).
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 17 Average gourmet truss tomato market price 2012‐2017 (5kg carton)
The price differential between the best prices and average prices across the years 2012 to 2017 are quite significant and would indicate there is good opportunities for improving producer returns through the marketing of high quality produce in top range packaging and quality presentation (Figure 18).
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 40 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market)
Figure 18 Average yearly maximum price, average price and lowest price for gourmet truss tomatoes 2012‐2017
Examination of the average monthly rank of the price for gourmet truss tomatoes as an indicator of market price trends across the years 2012 to 2017 shows there is a positive trend in average monthly market price but a decline in maximum monthly price (Figure 19).
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 19 Change in average monthly rank of price for gourmet truss tomatoes 2012‐2017
Tomatoes – Summary • Seasonal and year to year price variations indicate a more detailed study and understanding of price trends and contributing factors to market price could provide good indicators to produce quality, marketing, packaging, etc that will ensure market prices that are well above average. • There is some evidence of a trend for improved market prices for cherry and gourmet truss tomatoes in the Melbourne market over the years 2012 to 1017.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 41 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Blueberries The monthly average price for blueberries in the Melbourne market from 2012 to 2017 has been similar on a month by month basis particularly for the first six months of the year (Figure 20). Prices coming out of winter and into spring have been more variable. There is a consistent seasonal price increase of more than 200% from the lowest prices in January (~$2.50 per 125gm punnet) to the peak May price (~$6.50 per 125gm punnet). Environmental manipulation in a greenhouse can be used to achieve out‐of‐season production (43).
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 20 Average blueberry market price 2012‐2017 (125g punnet)
Capsicum There are no price trends either yearly or seasonally for capsicums (all varieties) at the Melbourne wholesale markets from 2012 to 2017 (Figure 21 and Figure 22. However, there was a significantly better average price per kilogram for capsicums marketed in 5kg cartons compared to 10kg cartons ($6.26 and $3.42 respectively (average monthly price 2012 ‐2017)). Price trend analysis for the years 2012 to 2017 indicates that for 5kg cartons the average monthly price has decreased (Figure 23).
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 21 Average capsicum all varieties market price 2012‐2017 (10kg carton)
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 42 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 22 Average capsicum all varieties price 2012‐2017 (5kg carton)
Source: Market Information Services for the (Melbourne Wholesale Market) Figure 23 Change in average monthly rank of price for capsicum all varieties 2012‐2017 (5kg carton)
5.4.2.2 Western Australian Domestic Market Monthly wholesale prices in the Perth market were analysed for the selected crops (44). For all the crops and product types analysed, there are seasonal variations which would be attributable to produce supply and availability (Appendix E). However, none of the products show any trend in price across the years with variations more likely to be linked to seasonal supply / environmental impacts on production variations rather than any trends in consumer preferences or changes in buying habits. This data provides no sale volume information and market volumes may be trending in a direction, but the market suppliers must have responded to these changes to maintain stable market prices.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 43 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
The conclusion from this data is that the Western Australian domestic market for all four selected greenhouse crops is stable and adequately supplied. Any output from intensive greenhouse production will need to find alternate market outlets unless a depressed price is economically feasible. The option for the supply of whole of Western Australian requirements through one of the supermarket chains at a contract price should be explored once a decision is made on the crop(s) to be grown.
5.4.2.3 Interstate Quarantine Quarantine restrictions and produce handling protocols (growing and postharvest) are in place on the movement of many types of produce from Western Australia to South Australia and the Eastern states. These prevent the transfer of pest and diseases into regions where they currently are not present, and it is an essential component of the international recognition of area freedom status for particular regions. The interstate quarantine requirements required for Western Australian produce to be shipped to any other part of Australia are more restrictive since the discovery of the TPP in the Perth region in 2016.
TPP quarantine requirements are applicable to tomatoes, strawberries and capsicums / chillies from our selected crops group. The Greater Collie Region is within the TPP quarantine (Appendix G). Any quarantine requirements are to limit the risk of TPP movement to regions where the pest has not been detected, currently, there are no WA growing regions that have area freedom status for TTP.
Pest and diseases of concern to one or more other Australian States and for which treatment protocols are in place to permit interstate trade for the selected crops are listed in Table 8.
Table 8 Interstate quarantine pests and diseases protocols Crop Pest / Disease Capsicum Tomato Strawberry Blueberry /Chilli Med. Fruit Fly Yes No Yes Yes TPP Yes Yes No Yes Blueberry Rust No No No No Green Snail Yes Yes Yes Yes
The Schedule of National ICA Documents is a complete list of Interstate Certificate Assurance (ICA) documents (past, present, and being developed) (45).
This schedule is used by the state quarantine regulators in all Australian States as the basis for treatment protocols for the pests and diseases of concern. For interstate shipments, the onus is on the grower, packer, shipper to ensure the conditions of the ICA are met prior to shipment interstate and the required documentation is prepared and presented with the shipment.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 44 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
5.4.3 Summary Table of Domestic and Export Market Prices Table 9 Domestic and export market price summary (AUD$/kg) Tomato ‐ Tomato ‐ Tomato ‐ Tomato ‐ Red Capsicum ‐ Capsicum ‐ Commodity Strawberries Blueberries Gourmmet Gourmet Truss Cherry Truss Red Green [2] $9.76 ($5.20 ‐ [2] [3] $26.24 [2] $1.66 ($0.97 ‐ [2] $4.20 ($3.40 ‐ [2] $4.89 ($3.75 ‐ [2] $3.40 ($2.75 ‐ [2] $2.59 ($1.50 ‐ Perth $14.84) ($18.40 ‐ $37.76) $2.51) $6.68) $7.50) $4.13) $3.52) [4] $7.40 ($2.00 ‐ [4] $34.72 [4] $3.33 ($0.20 ‐ [4] $3.29 ($0.60 ‐ [4] $6.04 ($2.00 ‐ [4] 10kg Ctns: $4.20 ($1.00 ‐ $9.00) Melbourne $24.00) ($12.00 ‐ $64.00) $5.50) $8.00) $12.00) 5kg Ctns: $6.91 ($2.00 ‐ $9.00) [1] UAE $5.80 [5] UAE $13.26 [7] UAE $0.95 ($0.29 ‐ $12.09) [8] UAE $1.24 ( $1.04 ‐$1.40 ) ($5.70 ‐ $8.10) ($11.78 ‐ $13.50) Saudi Arabia $0.66 ($0.34 ‐ $6.36) Saudi Arabia $1.11 ( ?? ) Saudi Arabia Kuwait $0.65 ($0.59 ‐ $0.77) Kuwait $1.10 ($0.90 ‐ $1.25) Middle East $4.30 ($2.30 ‐ $3.40) Wholesale Market Kuwait $6.40 Price in AUD$/kg ($5.10 ‐ $7.90) [RED = No Market [1] Singapore [5] Singapore [7] Singapore $1.02 ($0.99 ‐ $1.09) [8] Singapore $2.11 ($1.90 ‐ $2.30) Access] $9.50 ($8.00 ‐ $13.54 ($12.43 ‐ Malaysia $1.05 ($0.85 ‐ $1.22) Malaysia $1.44 ($1.30 ‐ $1.80) SE Asia $10.50) $14.84) Malaysia $5.70 Malaysia $6.59 ($3.10 ‐ $8.20) ($8.72 ‐ $13.00) [1] $10.5 ($7.50 ‐ [5] $9.25 [7] $1.34 ( ?? ) [8] Hong Kong and China $2.68 (??) Hong Kong $13.50) [1] $8.30 ($6.40 ‐ [5] $15.07 [8] $0.87 ($0.80 ‐ $1.19) Taiwan $20.00) ($13.00 ‐ 17.00) [1] $12.60 [5] $17.10 [7] $4.82 ($4.59 ‐ $5.13) [8] $4.74 ($3.83 ‐ $6.04) Japan ($12.00‐$13.00) ($15.00 ‐ $20.00) Australia $5.14 $20 $7.60 $3.50 $6.32 (Farmgate) Previous Arris Adelaide [6] $1.80 [6] $2.50 [6] $2.60 Greenhouse Wholesale Studies Average $4.20 $6.30 Wholesale VMO Wholesale [9] $1.33 Hong Kong Market [1] For each country listed: Average Unit Price (2005 ‐ 2015) / Average quarterly unit price range. Source: DAFWA Market Reports extracted from International Trade Centre data. [2] Year Ave & Monthly Average Range for 2016. Source: Market West Market Price Reporting [3] Assumed punnet weight of 125gm [4] Monthly Average & Lowest ‐ Highest Monthly sale price for Year 2016. Source: Ausmarket Consultants with data collected by Fresh State [5] Data for Cranberries, bilberries and other fruits of genu Vaccinium (includes Blueberries). For each country listed: Average Import Price (2011 ‐ 2016) / Average quarterly import price range (2016). Source: DAFWA Market Reports extracted from International Trade Centre data. [6] Ten year tenth percentile prices of Adelaide crop wholesale market prices for 2006‐2015, less 15 per cent commission and packaging costs. [7] For each country listed: Average Unit Price (2011 ‐ 2016) / Average quarterly unit price range. Source: DAFWA Market Reports extracted from International Trade Centre data. [8] For each country listed: Average Unit Price (2011 ‐ 2016) / Average quarterly unit price range. Source: DAFWA Market Reports extracted from International Trade Centre data. [9] Indicative average daily price for week (14/12/2017 to 20/12/2017) at Vegetable Marketing Organisation (VMO) Wholesale Market in Hong Kong
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 45 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 46 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
6 Greenhouse Requirements to Meet Crop Needs A tomato crop has been selected for the water balance model because of its relatively high water requirement due to its high crop coefficient (Table 10) and length of growing cycle. For this reason, water balance modelling has been undertaken for tomatoes and used as indicative demand.
Table 10 Crop coefficients for greenhouse crops grown in Mediterranean climate
Species Initial Kc Maximum Kc Final Kc Supported Crops Sweet pepper 0.2 1.3 0.9 Tomato 0.2 1.4 1.0 Melon 0.2 1.3 1.1 Cucumber 0.2 1.2 Eggplant 0.2 1.2 0.9 Green beans 0.2 1.4 1.2 Non supported crops Melon 0.2 1.1 1.0 Watermelon 1.1 1.0 Zucchini 0.2 1.1 Source: Gallardo et al (46) 6.1 Greenhouse Water Model To assess the water requirements of the 10ha greenhouse, 60 minute temperature model has been integrated into a 40 year daily step model (see Appendix H) to calculate the daily water requirements. Assumptions made include: • The model has been developed for tomatoes with a crop coefficient of 1.25 • Use of the Dutch model of 3mm/J/m2 • 85% of rainfall is captured and reused as part of the water balance. • Any rainfall less than 1 mm has been discounted as it likely to be lost to evaporation • There is a linear relationship between maximum temperatures above the threshold temperature and hours of cooling required • A linear cooling use model has been used, that for time the temperature is above the threshold temperature cooling is operated 100% of that time. This is a conservative approach (requires more water) • Light transmission is 80% • The greenhouse area is 10ha i.e. 2x5ha units • Crop production water is a mixture of RO and rain water to lower inflow water sodium level. It is assumed that all other water used will be RO water • RO efficiency, product water is 80% of inflow water • The crop water system is twice the peak daily water demand and that it will require 40 flushing’s of 50% of the volume per year
6.1.1 Collie Water Balance – 10ha The model calculates that for a 40 year period the peak yearly water demand is 210ML/a (21ML/ha), average is 188ML/a (18.8ML/ha) and the minimum requirement is 161ML/a (16.1Ml/ha). This demand is inclusive of all crop and crop production water. Total peak annual water demand including amenity and washdown water is 220ML/a (Table 12). This volume is exclusive of the rain water capture.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 47 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
To meet the demand a 1.1ML/day RO plant will be required (Table 12). The system design includes a 10ML RO storage (Table 12 to balance RO plant production and peak crop demand. Brine waste from the RO plant will be 64ML/annum and a strategy will be required for this water, discussed in 6.2.1.
To maintain crop nutrient solution water quality, it will require between 26 and 34 discharges of 50% of crop water per year to remove accumulated salts. The volume to be discharged ranges between 26 and 35ML per annum (Table 12). This water will be high in essential crop nutrients and can either be recycled (RO) treated reducing water requirement by between 21‐28MLper annum or used for additional horticultural activities say field crops. The recycling of the water is not without problems because: • The treated reuse water waste stream is high in nutrients and could cause off site impacts associated with eutrophication. • The cost of high grade soluble nutrients is high.
It is important that a long term sustainable solution be fund for greenhouse waste water. A good outcome is to find a beneficial use which could include field crops to reuse this water on site.
Table 11 Modelled water balance for Collie Site Property Value Greenhouse area 10.0 ha Crop Tomatoes Crop coefficient 1.25 GH/Field Factor 90.0 % Salinity Ratio (Na salts/total salts) 75.0 % Mixing Ratio Rain Water 23.5 % RO water 76.5 % RO Treatment Plant Capacity 1.1 ML/d RO Storage 10.0 ML Rain water storage 25.0 ML Total RO (inflow) + amenity and washdown 220.0 ML/y Brine Waste 44.0 ML/y GH Discharge Waste 40.0 ML/a* Crop nutrient solution capacity 2.0 ML * Although this is too high salinity for greenhouse tomato production it will be ‘excellent’ with respect to field crop production (Table 13) and will be suitable for most horticultural crops.
Myalup Wellington Water Corporation Pty Ltd (MWWC) is developing the Wellington Dam Salinity Project study for funding from the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund that will include the production of potable water through RO treatment of saline water from the East Collie River. MWWC have been approached about the potential to supply fit for purpose RO treated water to the greenhouse project. This would negate the need for RO infrastructure and brine wastewater management strategy.
Although MWWC would not in the first instance be producing water that is fit for purpose for greenhouses as potable water is a lower quality than water that is required for greenhouse production. In discussion with MWWC about a higher quality water they advised that they would have the technical capability and the capacity to deliver water of the appropriate quality and quantity.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 48 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
6.1.2 Brunswick Water Balance The model calculates that for a 40 year period the peak yearly water demand is 300ML/a, average is 274ML/a and the minimum requirement is 251ML/a. This demand is inclusive of all water required for the site. Total peak annual water demand including amenity and washdown water is 280ML/a (Table 12). This volume is exclusive of the rain water capture.
To meet the demand a 1.3ML/day RO plant will be required (Table 12). The system design includes a 10ML RO storage (Table 12 to balance RO plant production and peak crop demand. Brine waste from the RO plant will be 64ML/annum and a strategy will be required for this water, discussed in Water Treatment Plant.
To maintain crop nutrient solution water quality, it will require between 30 and 41 discharges of 50% of crop water per year to remove accumulated salts. The volume to be discharged ranges between 30 and 41ML per annum (Table 12). This water will be high in nutrient and can either be recycled (RO) treated reducing water requirement by between 24‐32MLper annum or used for additional horticultural activities say field crops. The recycling of the water is not without problems because: • The treated reuse water waste stream is high in nutrients and could cause off site impacts associated with eutrophication. • The cost of high grade soluble nutrients is high.
It is important that a long term sustainable solution be fund for greenhouse waste water. A good outcome is to find a beneficial use which could include field crops to reuse this water on site.
Table 12 Modelled water balance for Northern CRID Farmlands Property Value Greenhouse area 10.0 ha Crop Tomatoes Crop coefficient 1.25 GH/Field Factor 90.0 % Salinity Ratio (Na salts/total salts) 75.0 % Mixing Ratio Rain Water 22.4 % RO water 77.6 % RO Treatment Plant Capacity 1.3 ML/d RO Storage 10.0 ML Rain water storage 25.0 ML Total RO (inflow) + amenity and washdown 280 ML/y Brine Waste 56.0 ML/y GH Discharge Waste 41.0 ML/a Crop nutrient solution capacity 2.0 ML
6.2 Water Treatment For greenhouse production water quality is an important consideration. To gain a better understanding of water quality tomato crops will be discussed as an example. For a closed hydroponic system, it is important that water be recycled for as long as it can to maximise the production to water use ratio (minimise waste) and to maximise the use of high value nutrients for crop production. Figure 24 shows a schematic of the water system, including recirculation and reuse of water as salts that are not used by the crop
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 49 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
increase in concentration due to the addition of more water and fertilisers. It can be seen that in Table 11 and Table 12 that the greenhouse discharge water for both Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands are approximately 40ML/yr.
Figure 24 Schematic of a hydroponic greenhouse water system
However, this cannot go on for ever as salts, including sodium chloride, increase in concentration as water is recycled. These salts are added primarily from two sources: 1. Through the addition of fertilisers depleted by plants. Although high quality nutrients are purchased there will always be some salts that are not required by the crop; and 2. Including the feed water which has been desalinated but is not without salt, target treatment salinity is <100mg/L.
It is therefore important that the highest quality feed (fresh water into the greenhouse) is as low salinity as practically possible. To achieve this rainwater is captured for mixing with other treated water resources. The native source water will be treated through a reverse osmosis treatment plant to achieve a salinity of <100mg/L.
The Water balance models for the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands (Table 11 and Table 12) show a RO treated water demand of 220ML and 280ML per annum respectively. To achieve the production of the required volume of water the model discussed above has been developed to enabled the optimising of treatment plant and storage facilities. For Collie a 1.1ML/d RO treatment plant and 10ML covered storage facility meets the water demand for a 10ha tomato greenhouse development. Similarly, Northern CRID Farmlands a 1.1ML/d RO treatment plant and 10ML covered storage facility meets the water demand for a 10ha tomato greenhouse development.
The storage enables the use of a smaller treatment plant by providing buffering to meet peak daily demand. RO plant and covered dam has been costed in budgets and included in the economic analysis.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 50 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
6.2.1 Water Treatment Plant The source water for the Collie project will come from a range of sources that include different surface runoff (Table 11) whereas the Northern CRID Farmlands water will come through the CRID network where the allocation can be obtained from Harvey Water.
The RO treatment plant treatment chain is as in Figure 25.
Figure 25 Schematic of the Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant
The treatment chain proposed for this site would include: • Disc filters to remove suspended solids • Chemical dosing to control algae and adjust pH (if necessary) • Pre‐treatment through Deep Bed Media Filtration • Multi stage brackish membrane RO treatment plant water • Mineral dosing system (Remineralisation of RO water) • Tanks (Feed, Balance, and Product) • Aeration in tanks
Every RO water treatment plant needs substantial pre‐treatment. RO membranes have the ability to remove sodium ions from water; when they encounter certain types of metals, silicon, or biological particles they foul up, scale and clog. Membranes that experience certain types of biological and inorganic clogging have reduced product water flow. Membranes can be cleaned through a clean in plane (CIP) process but this should not be used in replacement of appropriate pre‐treatment. Membrane replacement is an expensive process and it frequently occurs because of insufficient pre‐ treatment.
The inflow water quality is the main determinant for the pre‐treatment. The source water has two main risks with respect to water quality, salinity and algae that will develop in source water storages. Algal particles can cause substantial bio‐fouling on RO membranes.
It is important to control the amount of light entering the pre‐treatment process and to add anti‐algal chemicals into the tanks. Calcium and magnesium concentrations are also likely to be high enough to allow for inorganic scaling on the RO membranes. The
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 51 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
calcium and magnesium mean that a deep bed media filtration process is required to lower the concentration of these metals.
RO Water treatment plants produce product (permeate) water and brine water. A single stage RO plant will typically produce somewhere around 50% product and 50% brine water. The use of a multi‐stage RO plants will be required and can produce up to 90% product water and 10% brine. The smaller volume of brine the easier it is to handle but very expensive to manage in an in‐land area where disposal at sea is not an option.
The RO system will require 3‐phase power. Including standby pumps the total draw of the combined motors would be approximately 100kW. It is important to consider head losses from storages when calculating energy demands.
Reverse Osmosis (RO) is not considered to be a cheap form of water treatment. It is recognised both as a capital and operational expensive form of water treatment. It is however one of the relatively few forms of water treatment that is effective at reducing sodium concentrations and salinity. Greenhouses that use RO water treatment technologies usually mix and/or shandy the RO treated product water with rainwater water to produce a larger volume of relatively low sodium and salinity water. The mixing ration for RO product water to rain water is 76.5%:23.5% and 77.6% to 22.4% for Collie and the Northern CRID Farmlands projects.
The energy consumption for the RO Plant is likely to be 0.7 to 1.0kWhr/kL. The standard industry rate for chemical costs of an RO water treatment plant is $0.001/kl. The plant suggested for the site is on the smaller scale for RO water treatment plants which tend to have slightly higher costs per kL treated; on average around $0.0015/kL. This is because larger plants have economy of scale savings. The chemicals required for this type of RO plant are: • the Clean‐in‐Place (CIP) membrane cleaning unit o Organic fouling cleaning chemical o Inorganic scaling cleaning chemical • Anti‐algal chemicals for feed‐tanks • Flocculation/coagulation chemicals for feed tanks (possibly required)
The CIP cleaning chemical rate depends on the quality of in‐flow water and the effectiveness of the pre‐treatment technologies. Investment in higher quality pre‐ treatment technologies reduces the operational cost of membrane cleaning (less chemicals used) and increases the life of the membranes. For the water balance modelling it has been factored that the plant will decrease to 80% of design performance over year with membrane replacement in the third year.
For brine waste from the RO treatment plant it is proposed to access the Synergy SDP for both the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands projects. There are competing interests in this pipeline as it has a finite capacity where Synergy and Bluewaters Power power stations currently discharge brine water. There is also a head of agreement between Synergy and Collie Water for the redundant pipeline capacity (pers. comm. Peter Fogarty). However, if the Collie Water project doesn’t proceed then there will be pipeline capacity to handle the treatment plant brine waste stream. In the event that the Collie project is successful then there will be the option to buy RO treated water directly from Collie Water.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 52 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Important Note! No approach has been made to Synergy at this time for access to the Saline Disposal Pipeline. This should be under‐taken during the engineering study and business case development phase.
6.3 Energy Energy is a key input to a high technology greenhouse facility. Heating accounts for almost all the energy required, as it is critical to maintain minimum temperature thresholds for the crop being grown. The energy required for heating is based on replacing heat lost from the facility and so is directly related to the ambient conditions. The type of cladding used on a structure has a significant impact on energy demand.
The estimates assume a multispan, gutter connected structure with a floor area of 100800m2 consisting of 21 x 16 metre spans, each 300 metres long. It is clad with an air inflated double layer of EFTE and a thermal screen is fitted internally. The minimum temperature set point is 18°C and target relative humidity is 75%.
In a median year (based on the most probable conditions over the last decade), the annual heat energy demand is estimated to be 67,105 GJ and 99,182 GJ at Bunbury and Colie East sites, respectively.
In an expected ‘cold year’, the annual heat energy demand increases to an estimated 74,070GJ (up 10.4%) and 102,194 GJ (up 3%) at Bunbury and Colie East sites, respectively (Figure 26).
The highest peak daily heat energy demand is expected to occur in early July and is 594GJ and 713GJ at Bunbury and Colie East sites, respectively. This increases to 658 GJ and 804 GJ at Bunbury and Colie East sites in a ‘cold year’, respectively.
The maximum peak daily heat energy demand for these sites, based on the minimum temperature experienced in any year over the last decade is 740 GJ and 844 GJ at Bunbury and Colie East sites, respectively.
6.3.1 Collie Energy Options The Collie site provides an opportunity to develop an off‐grid greenhouse for energy. This will include having a solar energy system for electricity and using waste heat from the Bluewaters Power’s power station.
The electricity would be supplied from a 2MW Photo Voltaic (PV) field array. This would be adequate energy to power the electricity requirements for the greenhouse and operations and the heat pumps that will convert low grade heat to high grade heat for heating and cooling the greenhouses.
It is noted that the PV field is unlikely to generate adequate electricity in days of peak demand, however by using the electricity grid as a bank then in periods of high PV production and low greenhouse demand electricity will be supplied to the grid. Vice versa, in periods of low PV production and high greenhouse demand electricity will be taken from the grid.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 53 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Figure 26 Monthly energy requirements for the Collie and Brunswick 10ha Greenhouse Project generated from Greenhouse Energy Tool (47)
There are three operational scenarios for the Collie greenhouse site: • Scenario 1, cool ambient temperature operation (predominantly Winter) • Scenario 2, moderate ambient temperature operation (predominantly Autumn and Spring) • Scenario 3, high ambient temperature operation (predominantly Summer)
Scenario 1. The heat pumps will take heat from the power station cooling tower and be used for heating the water storages to 60oC, the temperature required to heat the greenhouse (Figure 27).
Figure 27 Heat pump heating operation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 54 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Key operational aspects: • Cooling loop of heat rejection provides heat source for heat pump • Heat pump with tanks provide reliable heat source • Heat pump charges hot water tanks at 3 times cheaper than gas • Tanks provide heat capacity, buffering and backup • Heat pump electricity usage supplemented by solar PV • Tanks plus heat pump 2 times cheaper with twice the life of large battery
Scenario 2. If the power station is not functional due to servicing and maintenance. The heat pumps will be able to take heat from the air, heating the water storages to 60oC, the temperature required to heat the greenhouse (Figure 28). This is an important aspect as this will be the process when the power station is decommissioned in the future.
Figure 28 Heating operation with power station off line
Key operational aspects: • During times when power station off line heat pump is air sourced • Heat pump charges hot water tanks at 40% cheaper than gas • Heat pump electricity usage supplemented by solar PV
Scenario 3. Heat pumps can be reversed to cool water. As the daily temperature increases and cooling is required then standard greenhouse evaporative cooling systems will be used. However, these systems can be ineffective in periods of high humidity and extreme temperatures that exceed the greenhouse cooling capacity.
The heat pumps can be reversed to cool storage water which can be used to cool the green house and in humid conditions reduce greenhouse humidity (Figure 29). Reducing greenhouse humidity will have two significant benefits: improves the effectiveness of evaporative cooling; and reduces risk of fungal diseases that are prevalent in high humidity conditions.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 55 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Figure 29 Combined heating and cooling operation
Key operational aspects: • During mild times when both heating and cooling are needed heat pump provides both. • This represents the most efficient operation • Heat pump charges water tanks at 4 times cheaper than gas • If solar PV offsets usage, charge costs are to be determined • Provides the additional benefit of cooling and dehumidifying over standard systems
It can be seen in Figure 29 that one storage facility is still used for heating. As the greenhouse needs to maintain a night time temperature of greater than 18oC in summer where there can be cool nights that require heating, while in the day time temperatures in the greenhouse can increase to a point where cooling is required.
6.3.2 Northern CRID Farmlands Options For the Northern CRID Farmlands site, a more conventional approach to the energy requirements is available. This would include securing gas and electricity from the respective grids. As a consequence, the siting of the greenhouse will have to be strategic so that it can access water from the CRID Irrigation Scheme and electricity and energy from existing networks.
However, there is still the option to use alternative sources of energy that would include the construction of a photo voltaic field for renewable electricity and solar thermal for greenhouse heating.
There are several options that would be available for the heat energy that include solar thermal systems and alternative fuels such as coal and biomass. In the business case for the development of the Northern CRID Farmlands project all energy opportunities can be explored.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 56 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
7 Regional Operational Resources
7.1 Water
7.1.1 Water Treatment Requirement and Technology Both water quality and quantity are critical for greenhouse production. Water is used for plant production, cooling, amenity and washdown purposes. It is very clear that not having adequate water to meed the crop demand and for cooling on hot days is critical and getting it wrong can have devastating impacts on crop production.
The characteristics that describe irrigation water can be divided into three main groups: • Physical; temperature and suspended solids • Biological; algae, bacteria, and other micro and macro organisms • Chemical; pH, EC (soluble salts), hardness, sodium and chloride concentration ….
It is important to understand the chemistry of the source and target water quality as it impacts the water treatment process and use of water. Salinity is arguably the most important water quality parameter when irrigating food crops in hydroponic production systems.
Salinity classes of irrigation water are included in Table 13. Salinity can lead to three main problems: • Osmotic effect, effecting plant (reducing uptake) uptake of water, particularly of recirculating solutions where the salinity of water will constantly be increasing, • The effect of water chemistry on the substrate, and • Phyto toxicity associated with elements increasing in concentration until they become toxic to plants.
Table 13 Classes of irrigation water Concentration, total dissolved solids Class of Water Electrical conductivity Total soluble salts (mg/L) (dS/m) Excellent < 0.25 175 Good 0.25 – 0.75 175‐525 Permissible 0.75 ‐ 2.0 525‐1,400 Doubtful 2.0 ‐ 3.0 1,400‐2,100 Unsuitable > 3.0 2,100 Source: (48)
Water sampling and analysis is an important component of greenhouse hydroponic production. Hydroponic systems are more susceptible to poor water quality than other agriculture systems as growing substrate has a very low buffering capacity and there is no nutrient important from surrounding soil. It is therefore important to understand water quality throughout the water system: • Source water: this water is the raw water prior to any treatment. It is important to understand inflow water quality to ensure the treatment train is able to produce the desired water quality; • Post treatment: this is the raw source water for the greenhouse and it is important to understand water quality as it will impact water mixing ratios and potentially impact other nutrient concentrations;
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 57 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Recirculating water: this water is the water that comes back and is mixed with post treatment water to meet the greenhouse demands. As for post treatment water, this water quality will impact mixing ratios and the re‐nutrification of the crop water; • Further, sampling and analysis of water should be undertaken throughout the greenhouse to ensure that adequate nutrient supply is being maintained throughout the hydroponic system.
Frequency of water sampling and analysis will depend on the sampling points and understanding of the greenhouse for temporal variation. It is important to note that different nutrient requirements of the crop due to; development stage, and seasonal variation will impact water quality and temporal variation and hence impact water sampling frequency.
Greenhouse feed water quality is an important factor as it impacts the nutrients that are added to the water and the length of time that the water can be recycled before discharged and topped up with fresh water and nutrients. Simplistically, the best quality water that can be provided either directly, say rainwater, or through source water treatment, should be the target. Pasquale et al (2013) (48) and Bailey et al (1999) (49) have provided the desirable level of nutrients and other components in irrigation water in Table 14
Table 14 Desirable level of nutrients and other components of irrigation water Water Quality Parameter Desirable Range* Desirable Range** pH 5.8‐6.0 5.4‐7.0 Alkalinity 0.75‐2.6 meq/L CaCO3 100mg/L (CaCO3) Electrical conductivity (EC) <1.5 dS/m <1.0dS/m Electrical Conductivity (TDS)*** <960mg/L <640mg/L Hardness 100‐150mg CaCO3/L <150mg/L (CaCO3) Calcium (Ca) 40‐100mg/L <120mg/L Magnesium (Mg) 30‐50mg/L <24mg/L Sodium (Na) <50mg/L <70mg/L Sulphate (SO4) <50mg/L <90mg/L Chloride (Cl) <100‐150mg/L <70mg/L Boron (B) <0.5mg/L <0.5mg/L Fluoride (F) <0.75mg/L < 1mg/L Iron (Fe) <0.5mg/l Source: * (48) ** (49) *** Calculated from dS/m
7.1.2 Greenhouse Water Demand The design water demand for a 10ha greenhouse development is 220‐280ML/year allowing for approximately 11‐16ML/ha per year for crop demand, 20‐60ML for cooling and 50ML per year for cleaning and operational uses, calculated from the water balance model. While the greenhouse requires a salinity of less than 100mg/L the quality and salinity of the raw water supply is not critical as a water treatment and desalination plant will be designed for the project.
On the premise that the raw water supply will be desalinated and the expected efficiency of the plant is 80%, then additional water will be required to cover the treatment losses. Therefore, the total demand for raw water supply is 250 ML/year.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 58 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
As a result, the treatment process will produce in the order of 50ML/year or about 140kL/day (0.14ML) of brine for disposal or secondary treatment.
7.1.3 Water Balance Model The critical factors for a water supply are: • resource security including: o the regulatory conditions; and o the monitoring and compliance; • the reliability of supply; and • the risks to supply and contingent alternatives.
7.1.4 Water Resource Options and Strategies Most water supplies in the south west are rainfall dependent except for seawater desalination. Whether the proponent plans on a self‐supply water supply or to purchase water from a Water Service Provider (WSP), the reliability of supply and the risks of an interrupted or partial water supply needs to be analysed.
In order to meet the water demand in all years the water supply plan must consider primary and contingency water supplies.
In addition, most waters in Western Australia are regulated to some extent and the approval pathway must be considered as well as the management and compliance requirements.
The primary water legislation in Western Australia is the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RiWI), however water management can be controlled through the Environmental Protection Act 1986 if there is an environmental impact or if wastewater is to be discharged.
7.1.4.1 Strategy 1 – Unregulated Water Resource Options These options are not proclaimed under RiWI Act but may be regulated under other legislation: • groundwater/deep sand storage outside the proclaimed area; • runoff from rehab sites; • overland flow; • surplus mine de‐water (State Agreement)*; • mine drainage (Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) approvals); • hardstand and roadway catchments; • seawater; • rural drainage if not part of a Proclaimed Area (regulated).
7.1.4.2 Strategy 2 – Regulated Water Resource Options These options require approval and a licence issued under RiWI S5C (DWER) and cover: • groundwater including void water component; • surface water – the main sources under consideration are: o Collie Lower East >950ML remaining in the Allocation Limit; o Collie Mainstream >400ML remaining in the Allocation Limit; o Wellesley River – approximately 3,000ML remaining in the Allocation Limit; o Lower Collie River – approximately 1,000ML remaining in the Allocation Limit;
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 59 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
o Brunswick River – approximately 300ML remaining in the Allocation Limit; • surplus mine de‐water (may be part of State Agreement)*; • drainage (if part of Proclaimed Area); • water licence trading – see Strategy 3 purchasing water.
7.1.4.3 Strategy 3 – Purchase Industrial/Agricultural Water These options include water transactions with a WSP or the purchase of entitlements – either as a trade or transfer with the purchase of land and include: • WSPs: o Harvey Water; o Collie Water; o Power Stations; o Water Corporation – Mungalup Dam 500ML; • trade relinquished water from Harvey Water – surplus from Wellington Dam; • trade entitlements from existing licence holders: o transform from broad acre to glasshouse; • purchase land and water licence entitlement.
7.1.4.4 Strategy 4 – Wastewater Reuse These strategies identify opportunities to optimise the use of existing water resources. • Collie, Kemerton, Harvey, Burekup and Brunswick Junction WWTPs – reuse of treated domestic sewerage – operated by the Water Corporation (DWER regulation and conditions). Note: Kemerton WWTP has not been considered as Aqua Ferre has recently reached agreement with the Water Corporation for use of this water to supplement the MIAP. • Industry wastewater (mining, power stations) – usually contaminated as a result of exposure to the mines or cooling water. • Synergy Saline Disposal Pipeline (SDP) – if nearby can be accessed to mine wastewater if the pipeline salinity is less than 25,000mg/L so that the final salinity after the brine is reinjected stays within Synergy’s disposal criteria – 32,000mg/L.
7.1.5 Description of Local Water Resources The water resources identified above have been evaluated describing the reliability, security and volumes to satisfy the greenhouse demand. Each water resource was evaluated for either the primary water supply or as a contingency water supply for the Collie and Myalup sites. Regulatory pathways, risks and constraints have also been described.
7.1.5.1 Strategy 1 – Unregulated Water Resources Collie Region Unregulated water supply options focus on rainfall/runoff scenarios or surplus mine water – either mine de‐water (uncontaminated groundwater) or mine pit water (contaminated).
There is some potential to investigate deep sand areas (valley floors) upstream of the Collie Groundwater Area (see Figure 30), however this groundwater is moderately saline (~10,000mg/L) and more remote. This option will not be considered further as proving this water supply will require a major and expensive investigation that is not warranted at this stage.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 60 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Seawater is also an option but the infrastructure to pump seawater to Collie (>80km) and return the brine is very expensive (>$120M) and is not warranted for the scale of this development.
Based on the review of the rainfall trends in the Collie Region, rainfall‐runoff options are adequate to satisfy the immediate demands for a 10ha greenhouse (220ML) (Table 11) and ultimately a greenhouse development of 50ha (1,100ML), allowing for losses due to reverse osmosis treatment of source water.
The most obvious options include runoff from rehabilitated mine sites, roadside catchments and the hardstand area of the greenhouse itself.
Griffin Coal has confirmed runoff from the Muja rehabilitation site with drainage to the Pit Z (closed Muja Mine). Current Griffin estimates show about 500ML per year of storage in Pit Z that could be used for a greenhouse development (P Irving 2017, personal communication, 8 September).
Surplus mine de‐water is also an option but is dependent on mining operations and neither security nor reliability will be guaranteed by the mining companies. In addition, it is understood that Collie Water has entered into arrangements to handle this water on behalf of the mining companies as part of the Collie Water total water balance.
Conclusion: Runoff from the mine rehabilitation sites is considered a primary water supply depending on the area of rehab that can be harvested. This water resource will be secure depending on legal access, however the reliability will be dependent on the winter‐fill rainfall. As a result, major contingency water supplies will be required.
Brunswick Region Unregulated water supply options focus on rainfall/runoff scenarios or drainage water. Most of the drains in this area are regulated and managed either by Harvey Water or the Water Corporation.
Seawater is an option with the maximum distance from the sea to the Waterloo site at 23km. This option has a moderate infrastructure cost and while the proposal may be cost‐effective, there are more readily available and cheaper sources and this option will not be considered further.
Based on the review of the rainfall trends in the Brunswick Region, rainfall harvesting from the greenhouse and hardstand area is adequate to satisfy a portion (25%) of the demands for a 10ha greenhouse.
Conclusion: Other than the rainfall harvested from the greenhouse hardstand area, no unregulated water resources are considered feasible in this area and other cheaper, more reliable sources are nearby.
7.1.5.2 Strategy 2 – Regulated Water Resources Collie Region This review will only consider groundwater and surface water resources in Strategy 2.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 61 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
7.1.5.2.1 Groundwater The groundwater resources at Collie are restricted to the Collie Coal Basin and are regulated within the Collie Groundwater area – see Figure 30 below which is Figure 3 p7 of the Upper Collie Water Allocation Plan (2009) (UCWAP) (50).
The allocation policy objectives set in the UCWAP (50) have a priority for groundwater recovery after years of extended mine de‐watering. The allocation limits have been set at limits less than current licence entitlements (ie over‐allocated) and no further groundwater entitlements will be considered by the DWER.
Groundwater will not be considered as a supply option for the greenhouse development regardless of the current situation or groundwater level trends.
Source: UCWAP Figure 3 (50) Figure 30 Groundwater sub areas UCWAP
7.1.5.2.2 Surface Water The 2009 UCWAP (50) identifies a range of surface water sources (Figure 31), however the challenge in this area is that the surface water needs to be captured during the winter wet season and stored for the dry summer irrigation season.
The terrain can probably support medium size in‐stream or off‐stream storage dams (but not on the Collie River itself) and a range of innovation will be necessary to utilise the local surface water. The likely method is a diversion on the Lower Collie River East Branch and piping to storages in the nearby terrain or creek profiles.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 62 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
The allocation plan sets allocation limit objectives for the plan area based on the ecological sustainable yield (ESY) and current use (50). Where there is water available for consumption within the ESY, the allocation limit was set as a percentage of the ESY.
Review of the allocation limits Table 2 Section 1 p19 (50) indicates the following sub‐ areas have potential for reliable abstraction: • Lower Collie River East Branch – 5% ESY at 100% reliability – allocation limit set at 1,000ML with about 950ML remaining; • Collie River South Branch – 30% ESY at 91% reliability – allocation limit set at 5,020ML with about 1,500ML remaining; • Central Collie River mainstream – set at 1,000ML with about 400ML remaining.
Source: UCWAP Figure 2 (50) Figure 31 Surface water sub areas UCWAP
The allocation limits for the Lower East and South Branches were set well below the ESY to keep the abstraction risk at a low level and there is scope for an increase in the allocation limits in these sub‐areas if further studies describe the flows and impacts to be acceptable.
While primary or contingency raw water supplies could be captured from the natural river systems, both the East Branch and the South Branch are moderately brackish and would need desalinating before suitable for horticulture.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 63 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Conclusion: No groundwater will be considered for this proposal. The Lower Collie River East Branch can be considered reliable for both a primary and contingency water supply to supplement water harvested from the greenhouse hardstand area and the mine rehab areas.
Brunswick Region This review will only consider groundwater and surface water resources in Strategy 2.
7.1.5.2.3 Groundwater The groundwater resources of the Brunswick Region are regulated within the policies and allocation limits outlined in the South West Groundwater Areas Allocation Plan, 2009 (SWGAP) (51).
Across most of the area, there is still Superficial (water table aquifer) available, however the general experience is that it is difficult to abstract large volumes of water from the Superficial unless using an excavation into the water table or a network of small bores. The Wellesley sub area for example still has about 2,200ML available.
The deep Leederville and Yarragadee aquifers underlie this area and are widely used for town water supplies, agriculture and industry. The SWGAP shows that the Leederville and Yarragadee resources are fully allocated in the Brunswick Region.
The Cattamarra Coal Measures is a deep aquifer underlying the Kemerton area and the “depth and salinity of this aquifer restrict its utilisation for consumptive use ...” (51) . The salinity in the Kemerton area is brackish (<1,500mg/L) but there is over 8,000ML still available within the allocation limit for the Kemerton North and South sub areas.
7.1.5.2.4 Surface Water The surface water resources of the Lower Collie River Catchment in the Brunswick Region are regulated within the policies and allocation limits outlined in the Lower Collie Surface Water Allocation Plan (2009) (LCSWAP) (52).
The LCSWAP identifies a range of surface water sources, however the challenge in this area is that the surface water needs to be captured during the winter wet season and stored for the dry summer irrigation season.
The terrain in this area is unlikely to support medium size in‐stream or off‐stream storage dams and a range of innovation will be necessary to utilise the local surface water – primarily a Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme (MAR). The Lower Wellesley, Lower Brunswick and Lower Collie Rivers offer the most likely diversion points with piping to storages in the nearby terrain or suitable groundwater system – see Figure 32 below.
The LCSWAP sets a hierarchy of allocation limit objectives for the plan area based on the current use and ecological and social values (52) based on a diminishing reliability of supply. The three objectives from the plan (Table 1, p11) are: 1. important to agriculture; 2. important for agriculture, industry and the environment; and 3. important for the environment.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 64 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Source: LCSWAP Figure 2 (52) Figure 32 Surface water sub areas LCSWAP
This study focussed on the resources identified for the first two resource groups to maximise the opportunity for consumptive use.
Review of the allocation limits Table 2 Section 3.2 p16 (52) indicates the following resource group 1 sub areas have potential for reliable abstraction: • Wellesley 1 (Mangosteen Drain) ‐ allocation limit set at 648ML with approximately 600ML remaining; • Lower Collie Trib 9 – allocation limit set at 493ML with approximately 400ML remaining.
Resource group 2 sub areas also offer moderately reliable flows from the following sub areas: • Wellesley 2 (Marriott Road) ‐ allocation limit set at 3,928ML with over 3,000ML remaining; • Lower Brunswick Tribs 8, 9, 10 and 11 – combined allocation limits set at 582ML with approximately 500ML remaining; • Lower Collie Tribs 5, 6, and 7 – allocation limit set at 1,297ML with approximately 1,200ML remaining.
Most of these streams are within stream reserves or drainage reserves and while they may be considered contingency water supplies, the diversion will require legal access to the reserves and off‐stream storage infrastructure.
Conclusion: Groundwater in most of the Brunswick Region is not an option unless for small local water supplies based on the Superficial water table aquifer. While groundwater is still available in the Kemerton sub areas, this area is fully within the
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 65 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Kemerton Strategic Industrial Area and the entrance criteria for new industries is strictly controlled.
Significant amounts of surface water are available across the whole Brunswick Region, however diverting this water will be severely constrained as diversions will likely need to be taken during the winter‐fill period (15 June to 15 October) and then stored for use during the rest of the year. Storage in a dam is problematic in this flat terrain and the project will need to investigate sites for MAR infiltration to the groundwater system.
Surface water could be considered for direct use during the winter‐fill period but will not satisfy the reliability requirements for a primary water supply.
7.1.5.3 Strategy 3 – Purchase Water Collie Region Purchasing water for the greenhouse development from a Water Service Provider (WSP) is the preferred option for reliability and security, however the economic viability of the development will be sensitive to the price per ML charged and the capacity and ability of the WSP.
In the Collie Region, a WSP will have the same issues as a self‐supply development in securing a reliable raw water supply. As the WSP will have to carry the risks and factor in any liquidated damages for failure, the price will most likely be high reflecting the uncertainty.
At the moment there are no WSPs in the Collie Region, however Myalup Wellington Water Corporation is in the final feasibility stages of commissioning a WSP in this area. Current planning indicates that Myalup Wellington Water Corporation will be able to supply water to industry at the end of 2019 (B Hamersley 2017, personal communication, 27 September). Recognising that Myalup Wellington Water Corporation has not completed the final design for financial close as well as their water security and reliability issues, it would be prudent for this project to consider resource security for its own needs.
The main WSP is Harvey Water and while able to confirm water is available from Wellington Dam, has no supply main to supply the water the 30km to the Collie Region. There is however potential to offset Harvey Water licence entitlements by diverting water from the Collie Region (Lower Collie River East Branch) and reducing their entitlement by an equivalent quantity at Wellington Dam.
The LCWAP, 2016 defines a restriction policy for the take from Wellington Dam that considers the impacts of reduced runoff balanced by the large storage capacity of the reservoir. DWER is currently discussing the reduction of the highly reliable entitlements based on remodelled flows (from 86GL to 53GL) however the restriction policy already allows for this.
This solution would be a structural issue for Harvey Water and need regulatory consideration and approval from the DWER and would be considered problematic as a primary source. Harvey Water has indicated that up to 500ML/year could easily be accommodated after current (40GL for CID) and proposed commitments (20GL to Myalup) are satisfied (53). The Myalup commitments are based on piping the CRID system and transferring the savings to Myalup.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 66 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Another option is to purchase a property including a water entitlement (licence) – either surface water or groundwater, however the largest entitlement holders in the Collie Region are Synergy and the Water Corporation – Synergy the State energy supplier and Water Corporation the State water supply provider, but these options are highly improbable and as a result will not be considered further.
Harvey Water holds a large entitlement of 68GL from Wellington Dam but as described above, Harvey Water does not have a supply main to deliver water to the Collie Region.
It is understood that the Myalup Wellington Water Corporation is currently negotiating large entitlements in the area, however this is not a solution as their entitlements will be used to establish a WSP and the Government is currently investing large budgets to investigate and assess this option. The Myalup Wellington Water Corporation has an agreement to provide potable water to the Water Corporation (DoW, 2017) as well as planning to provide industrial water. Collie Water could be considered for supplementary/contingency water supplies.
Conclusion: Purchasing water from Harvey Water for a Collie greenhouse development is an option for both primary and contingency water supplies dependent on conveyancing rules being approved by DWER. Purchasing water from Harvey Water will be considered both a primary water and contingency water supply source to satisfy the immediate demands and future growth up to a total supply of 500ML.
Brunswick Region Harvey Water operates both irrigation and industrial water supplies in this area and has a network of supply channels throughout the area, primarily the Harvey Irrigation District (HID) and the Collie River Irrigation District CRID. Peak water demand is 1.5ML/day and Harvey Water has confirmed that they can supply this peak demand at most points along their supply channel. Locations at the extremities of the supply channel scheme may not be able to provide the peak daily demand. Harvey Water (B Hamersley 2017, personal communication, 27 September) has confirmed that they could provide up to 500ML/a for most sites.
Harvey Water has confirmed both capability and capacity to service the demands for the development and potential growth (B Hamersley 2017, personal communication, 27 September).
Harvey Water has indicated that high quality HID water (salinity <350mg/L) from the Harvey Dam (as piped to Kemerton) would cost $675/ML and CRID water (open channel) would cost $550/ML (salinity >1100mg/L) (B Hamersley 2017, personal communication, 27 September).
Another option is to purchase or lease a CRID property with a large water share within the Harvey Water governance and shareholding. The purchase price of an irrigated property includes the price of the water entitlement and prices are currently in the order of $10,000 per hectare for a typical 100ha property.
A further option would be to look at the Doral mine site post min closure as it has a significant water licence.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 67 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
The Water Corporation has an extensive network and facilities in the Brunswick Region but this infrastructure is dedicated to potable water and the growing demands of Perth. Therefore, the Water Corporation will not be considered further.
Aqua Ferre as part of Collie Water is currently developing a new irrigation model for the MIAP based on water savings from the CID and treated wastewater from Kemerton WWTP and there is potential in the medium term (5 – 10 years) to consider purchasing water from Aqua Ferre if the development area is within the MIAP.
Conclusion: Purchasing water from Harvey Water will satisfy both reliability and security requirements within a clear pricing structure. Purchasing water from Harvey Water will be considered the primary water supply source to satisfy the immediate demands and future growth up to a total supply of 500ML.
7.1.5.4 Strategy 4 – Wastewater Reuse Collie Region While wastewater is available in the area (Collie WWTP), it cannot be considered either secure or reliable and is heavily regulated by the DWER. As a result, this source will not be considered further.
Brunswick Region While wastewater is available in the area (Kemerton, Harvey, Burekup and Brunswick Junction), it cannot be considered either secure or reliable and is heavily regulated by the DWER. The Water Corporation analysis (Water Corporation, 2015) indicates that the growth in wastewater for these facilities is static over the next 40 years ‐ Table 5, p 29 (Water Corporation, 2015).
The Synergy SDP (maximum design flow rate 7‐8 ML/day) passes through the area from Roelands to Australind to Kemerton ‐ Figure 33 shows the route.
Source: Synergy Figure 33 Synergy SDP route
There is potential to take wastewater from the Synergy SDP and desalinate it for use. Historically, disposal salinity by Synergy has been quite low in the order of 3,000mg/L but if Synergy and other parties start to optimise the water resources in the Collie
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 68 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Region then the salinity may increase to the licence discharge limit of 32,000mg/L. There is between 1‐2ML of discharge per day from the pipeline. Discussion with Synergy, they have expressed an interest in discussing water options with a developer of a greenhouse.
Mining the wastewater from the SDP is an option if the pipeline salinity is less than 25,000mg/L so that the final salinity after the brine is reinjected stays within Synergy’s disposal criteria – 32,000mg/L.
The uncertainty at this time plus the expected regulatory and environmental approval burden makes this source an option for the future but not now.
7.1.6 Implications and Recommendations As a result of the evaluation of potential water supplies, the following recommendations are made. These options will need to be further considered as part of the feasibility analysis.
7.1.6.1 Collie Region From the evaluation of possible water supply options for the Collie Region, it would be simpler and more cost effective to purchase water from Collie Water and minimise all the risks around security and quality. However, as this option is still in pre‐feasibility stage and depends strongly on surplus mine de‐water as a raw water supply, this option will not be assessed as a primary water supply but as a supplementary/contingency water supply if Collie Water enters the market. This option may be considered a primary water supply for growth within the next 10 years.
Therefore, options that will be assessed as primary water supplies for the Collie greenhouse development are shown in Table 15.
Table 15 Water supply proposal for the Collie Region Source Volume ML (High Reliability) Primary Water Supply Sources Runoff from the greenhouse site 50 Runoff and drainage from the mine rehab sites 100+ (collected in mine voids) The Lower Collie River East Branch (AWE with 200 licence take rules) Supplementary/Contingency Water Supply Sources Trade or purchase an entitlement from Harvey 500 Water (Wellington Dam) to be taken from the Lower East Branch The Lower Collie River East Branch (AWE with 200 licence take rules) Collie Water purchase 300
If all water resources were available as in Table 15 and the water in the SDP was treated then there could be adequate water for greater than 100ha of greenhouses in the Collie Region.
Arris assessed the likelihood and risks to expand the site by evaluating available water sources against the demand.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 69 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
7.1.6.2 Collie Greenhouse Expansion – Water Supply Analysis Arris has modelled 250ML/year water demand for a 10ha greenhouse (Section 8.1.2) in Collie. Arris has assumed that a 10ha greenhouse development will have a 20ha footprint consisting of the greenhouse plus a 10ha hardstand/building area. A paired greenhouse development of 20ha of greenhouse will have a total development footprint of 30ha.
It is assumed that a paired greenhouse development in Collie – two 10ha units totalling 20ha will have a water demand of 450ML/year recognising operational savings for two units. Arris estimated water harvesting from the hardstand area using hardstand areas of 20ha and 30ha for Greenhouses one and two. Further expansion will be assumed to be multiples of the first pair.
Arris has analysed three scenarios estimated on increasing the rehabilitated mine site areas from the base case of 200ha to 300ha and then 400ha as the most attractive alternatives to increase total raw water supply.
The volume of water for one 10ha greenhouse unit can easily be satisfied with the primary water sources identified in Table 15. The water harvesting source in Table 15 has been estimated from the runoff from 200ha of rehabilitated pasture using a runoff coefficient of 0.1 for the winter rainfall of 600mm. Arris used a runoff coefficient of 0.7 and the winter rainfall of 600mm for the hardstand area.
The winter rainfall of 600mm is derived from BOM data and represents the 10 percentile for the period 2000 to 2016 which includes the driest period on record 2010‐2015.
Arris has analysed the water sources and developed a greenhouse expansion strategy for the Bluewaters site. The expansion strategy considers the confidence in abstracting water supplies from the LCREB as well as the risk of not having sufficient storage to cover a dry season with minimal or constrained runoff. The analysis has staged the abstraction from the LCREB with a maximum abstraction for up to 60ha of 1000ML/year – a combination of licensed AWEs (500ML) and water trade with Harvey Water (500ML).
Arris has also analysed the water supply risk on the assumption that the water supply from the LCREB is restricted in any one year to determine the risk profile for each expansion scenario. The risk assumes that in any year the available water supply consists only of the runoff from the hard stand area and the rehabilitated mine site as well as any storage from the previous year.
The risk profile is coloured green/orange/red (low risk/low‐medium risk/high risk) depending on the proportion of the overall deficit and the degree to which reliability could be secured by having storage to satisfy >33% of annual water demand. In these circumstances it is assumed that the deficit can be managed with reductions and savings in the operations area and further recycling. It is also noted that only the winter rainfall has been used in these estimates and that all annual rainfall falling on the hardstand area and the storages will increase the water supply volumes.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 70 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
7.1.6.3 Scenario 1 – Abstraction from LCREB and Runoff from 200ha Rehabilitated Mine Scenario 1 is based on runoff from the hardstand and rehabilitated mine area (200ha) and 1000ML abstracted from the LCREB.
Arris concludes that with an on‐site storage of 230ML that the Bluewaters site could expand to 40ha of greenhouse with a reliable water supply (shaded grey in Table 17) and a further 20ha of greenhouse (total of 60ha) could be developed with a low‐ moderate risk (shaded green in Table 17).
The overall dry‐season risk deficit for four greenhouses would be 300ML/year based on a storage of 230ML (storage for only four greenhouses).
The dry season risk deficit for expansion to six greenhouses has been estimated at 600ML with a maximum storage of 230ML.
This risk could be managed in a number of ways as part of an overall risk management plan for the next development and operations.
The risk for expanding to six greenhouses could be mitigated if more runoff is harvested from the rehabilitated mine site or if the storage in Wellington Dam is utilised with a new delivery main from the dam wall and water traded or bought from Harvey Water. Buying water from Collie Water could also be a cost efficient water supply if Collie Water is established and another option is to recycle the greenhouse discharge water at a volume that keeps the infield crop alive but loses production for the one year.
7.1.6.4 Scenario 2 – Increase in Rehabilitated Mine Site Area to 300ha Scenario 2 runoff is the same as Scenario 1 but exploring the additional runoff from a larger rehabilitated mine area to 300ha. This option marginally increases the local runoff harvested by 60ML/year.
Arris concludes that with an on‐site storage of 270ML that the Bluewaters site could expand to 50ha of greenhouse with a reliable water supply (shaded grey in Table 18) and a further 10ha of greenhouse could be developed with a low‐moderate risk (shaded green in Table 18). This option reduces the risk of expanding to five greenhouses from low‐moderate (Scenario 1) to low.
The overall dry‐season risk deficit for five greenhouses would be 370ML/year based on a storage of 270ML (storage for only five greenhouses).
The dry season risk deficit for expansion to six greenhouses has been estimated at 500ML with the same maximum storage.
The risk for expanding to six greenhouses could be mitigated in the same manner as for Scenario 1 and managed as part of an overall risk management plan for the next development and operations.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 71 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
7.1.6.5 Scenario 3 – Increase in Rehabilitated Mine Site Area to 400ha Scenario 3 runoff is the same as Scenario 1 but exploring the additional runoff from a larger rehabilitated mine area – 400ha. This option increases the runoff by 120ML/year compared to Scenario 1.
Arris concludes that with an on‐site storage of 270ML the Bluewaters site could expand to 60ha of greenhouse with a reliable water supply (shaded grey in Table 19). This option reduces the risk of expanding to six greenhouses from low‐moderate (Scenario 2) to low.
The overall dry‐season risk deficit for six greenhouses would be 460ML/year based on a storage of 270ML.
The risk for expanding to six greenhouses could be mitigated in the same manner as for Scenario 1 and managed as part of an overall risk management plan for the next development and operations.
7.1.7 Brunswick Region The primary water supply for the Brunswick Region is to purchase water from Harvey Water – see Table 16. It is not seen that water would be a limiting factor for an expanded greenhouse development in the Myalup CRID region where greater than 100ha of greenhouses could be developed.
Table 16 Water supply proposal for the Brunswick Region Source Volume ML (High Reliability) Primary Water Supply Sources Runoff from the greenhouse site 50 Purchase from Harvey Water (100% reliability) 200+ Supplementary/Contingency Water Supply Sources Further water to be purchased from Harvey Water as required
7.2 Cooperative and Collaborative Partnerships In the Perth and surrounding regions there already exists a number of experienced horticultural produce exporters which could be valuable assets in the development of a greenhouse enterprise based on selling into international markets. They could be potentially valuable in sourcing market opportunities, local logistics for air or sea freight and information on shipping options and costs. Cooperative and collaborative agreements may be necessary to extract the best opportunities from the existing operators in the Perth based horticulture export markets to ensure benefits from their expertise and knowledge are recognized. Benefits could also be explored in relation to shared packing shed and storage facilities, refrigerated road transport and consolidated load options.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 72 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 17 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 1 Total local Local Total Surplus/ Risk No “DRY” case Demand Hardstand Rehabilitated mine area LCREB RO Deficit supply Storage LCREB Deficit Units ML/an A ha C=0.7 RO ML A=200ha C=0.1 RO ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML 1 250 20 84 120 204 46 200 404 154 ‐108 ‐184 2 450 30 126 120 246 204 200 646 196 8 ‐26 3 700 50 210 120 330 370 200 930 230 140 140 4 900 60 252 120 372 528 100 1072 172 356 298 5 1150 80 336 120 456 694 200 1356 206 488 464 6 1350 90 378 120 498 852 100 1498 148 704 622
Table 18 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 2 Total local Local Total Surplus/ Risk No “DRY” case Demand Hardstand Rehabilitated mine area LCREB RO Deficit supply Storage LCREB Deficit Units ML/an A ha C=0.7 RO ML A=300ha C=0.1 RO ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML 1 250 20 84 180 264 ‐14 100 364 114 ‐128 ‐280 2 450 30 126 180 306 144 200 606 156 ‐12 ‐122 3 700 50 210 180 390 310 200 890 190 120 44 4 900 60 252 180 432 458 200 1132 232 236 202 5 1150 80 336 180 516 634 200 1416 266 368 368 6 1350 90 378 180 558 792 100 1558 208 584 526
Table 19 Bluewaters site water supply expansion Scenario 3 Total local Local Total Surplus/ Risk No “DRY” case Demand Hardstand Rehabilitated mine area LCREB RO Deficit supply Storage LCREB Deficit Units ML/an A ha C=0.7 RO ML A=400ha C=0.1 RO ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML 1 250 20 84 240 324 ‐74 0 324 74 ‐148 ‐342 2 450 30 126 240 366 84 100 466 16 68 ‐184 3 700 50 210 240 450 250 200 750 50 200 ‐18 4 900 60 252 240 492 408 200 992 92 316 140 5 1150 80 336 240 576 574 300 1376 226 348 306 6 1350 90 378 240 618 732 200 1618 268 464 464
Reliable water supply Low moderate risk
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 73 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 74 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
8 Greenhouse Site An options analysis process has been used to identify a preferred site for the establishment of a protected cropping system in the Collie Region. The site characteristics will be used to design a “model” greenhouse development for detailed evaluation.
A similar options analysis process was completed to identify a preferred site in the Brunswick Region.
The local site/feasibility study was completed in detail (54) and this section summarises the findings and further describes the preferred sites. The Site Selection Multi Criteria Assessment can be seen in Appendix B.
A four step process was used to identify the preferred site which was then scoped for infrastructure and economic analysis as illustrated in Figure 34.
Figure 34 Site selection process
This Local site/feasibility study carried out a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) (55) to identify the preferred site in Collie for detailed analysis and the comparative site in the Brunswick Region – Stages 1 to 3.
The Local site/feasibility study informs the design and assessment of the preferred sites to determine the costs and benefits and complete the feasibility study. 8.1 Environmental Impact Greenhouses of the type that would be developed as a result of this project have a small environmental footprint. Discussions of the Collie project have highlighted how impact on environmental resources have to a large extent been mitigated by: • Waste heat from the power station to heat the greenhouse; • Renewable electricity that can either be produced as part of this project or sourced from other developers; and • Water that will be harvested from the greenhouse roof, other hard stands and surface runoff from mine site redevelopment.
Although, a project in the Brunswick Region would use more finite resources both projects seek to maximise production per unit resource than other more conventional farming systems. For example, 422% more tomatoes are produced per unit water in high technology greenhouses than field production (Table 2).
With these types of greenhouse projects, through the adoption and use of IPM practices the use of pesticides is either mitigated or very limited use. There will be no herbicides used in hydroponic systems.
Further to this all operational and greenhouse waste can be minimised and wastes sorted into: green, recyclable and hard wastes to minimise impact on the environment.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 75 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Green waste can potentially be composted on‐site and could be used in the mine rehabilitation process or for field crop production. 8.2 Stage 1 ‐ Site Options In consultation with DPIRD, a range of potential sites were highlighted for consideration in both the Collie and Brunswick Regions. These sites were reduced to three locations for each area considering current zoning, infrastructure and locality.
Collie Region 1. Muja – the rehab site adjacent to the Muja Power Station which includes access to the “Z” pit which is the remnant of Griffin Coal’s Muja mine. 2. Bluewaters‐Ewington 1 which includes Griffin Coal’s current Ewington 1 mine area and rehab adjacent to the Bluewaters Power Station. 3. Collie – Ewington 2 which includes Griffin Coal’s proposed Ewington 2 deep mine area adjacent to the Collie A Power Station.
Brunswick Region 1. Kemerton SIA (56) Buffer zone – adjacent to the Kemerton Power Station. 2. Waterloo LIA – intensive agriculture zone. 3. Northern CRID Farmlands – near the Synergy Saline Ocean Disposal Pipeline and preferably on land with an intensive agriculture zoning.
Figure 1 shows the location of all the sites assessed. 8.3 Stage 2 – Evaluation Criteria The regional assets review identified a range of criteria and constraints which have scoped the evaluation completed in this part of the project. The following technical constraints map has been used to develop criteria for assessment of sites in a high level complimentary MCA framework using a simple weighted linear mathematical approach to rank sites (55). The evaluation criteria was applied to these sites and ranked to identify the preferred site.
A range of constraints were also developed as a set of provisions and guiding criteria to filter options that satisfied the criteria or could be considered a higher benefit than the constraint. The constraints comprise technical criteria as well as social provisions developed with a local Reference Group and Griffin Coal (Table 20).
Table 20 Constraints map Constraint – provided that … Details Minimum 100ha site to allow for 10ha greenhouse requires 20ha site for realistic growth at the site operations plus additional land for secondary horticulture and post‐production industries Minimum 250ML/a water supply with Salinity of raw water supply is not an issue as salinity < 100mg/L development will evaluate desalination and include options for saline water disposal Stormwater runoff capture and 20ha hardstand/greenhouse site will generate contribution to water requirements about 100ML/a in direct runoff from winter rainfall (about 700mm in Collie) The water supply does not negatively The DoW has an allocation policy (50) based impact on the basin groundwater on groundwater level recovery for the Collie recovery (Focus Group) Groundwater Basin and no further abstraction licences will be issued
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 76 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Constraint – provided that … Details The water supply does not negatively The Shire of Collie is actively implementing a impact on the Collie River recovery plans range of recovery actions to improve the (Focus Group) riverine attributes and flows through the town section of the Collie River A water supply based on surface water This size will allow for the total water demand will require a storage of up to 300ML to for one year allowing for losses and some allow diversion and storage in winter for direct use while it is raining use during the rest of the year Agreement is reached across Need to negotiate State Agreements and Government on a rehabilitation plan for hand back/close out plans to have multiple pasture to optimise water harvesting. forest and water harvesting objectives. An energy source is adjacent the site to Sites adjacent a power station can provide electricity for operations, synergistically harvest waste heat and CO2 if cooling and heating within 1km reducing operational costs and infrastructure. Power stations must have an economic design life of 25+ years The site is relatively flat and ideally with Mine rehab sites offer the opportunity to a slope of 1% terra‐form the final site to design The site is accessible for semi‐trailers Access to international airports and shipping and heavy haulage with easy access to ports is critical as produce is targeted for major highways export Planning is in place, or has whole of Site will need strong Local Government Government support to change support or already have planning in place planning, to support greenhouse with TPS and District Structure Plans (56) agriculture and ancillary industries (packing, sorting, refrigeration) A trained workforce is within commuting Ideally less than 50km away. distance Workforce needs to be specifically trained with some professionals Agricultural, engineering and other Collie, Harvey, Brunswick Junction and support industries and providers are Bunbury are large centres supporting mining within a 50km distance and agriculture Training and development plans are put The development provides a vibrancy for the in place for delivery in Collie to satisfy community – both diversity and industry needs (Focus Group) complimentary to the mining industry Prospective proponents will engage the community in an open and transparent manner (Focus Group)
8.4 Stage 3 – High Level MCA to Identify Preferred Site Each criterion was evaluated for each site using information readily available to the public. A spreadsheet was developed and used to determine the ranking of each site from which the preferred site for the Collie and Brunswick Regions were selected.
The MCA (55) has shown a clear preferred site in the Collie Region for the Bluewaters‐ Ewington 1 site with a very strong comparison site in the Brunswick Region for the Northern CRID Farmlands site.
Table 21 shows the ranking for each site from the MCA (55) and the high weighted ranking.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 77 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 21 MCA ranking for each site Total High Rank Location Region Weight Weight 1 Bluewaters Power – Ewington 1 Collie 74 36 2 Northern CRID Farmlands Brunswick 70.2 33.2 3 Muja ‐ "Z" pit Collie 61.6 30.6 4 Kemerton Core ‐ Power Station site Brunswick 59.1 27.1 5 Collie ‐ Ewington 2 Collie 58.65 28.65 6 Waterloo LIA Brunswick 49.45 18.45
A summary of the MCA spreadsheet is shown at Appendix B.
8.5 Site SWOT Analysis
Strengths: Weaknesses: • proximity to Bluewaters PS; • still an active mine site; • ability to terra‐form site to • mining leases heavily regulated optimise runoff and storage; and part of a State Agreement. • part of community vision for Collie • water licences for future growth – reimagining Collie; • reliable water supply options; • access to the Synergy SDP to discharge desalin ‐ation brine waste. Collie Bluewaters Site SWOT Analysis Opportunities: Threats: • can partner with • mine rehabilitation is energy company (solar farm) to subject to hand‐back develop an integrated plan and needs all of Government energy/agriculture proposal; approval; • site is a mix of freehold and State • community may see proposal as land with potential to develop diminishing Griffin’s rehabilitation industry diversity in Collie. obligations and may object or become outraged.
Figure 35 Collie Bluewaters Site SWOT Analysis
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 78 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Strengths: Weaknesses: • private freehold land; • no nearby alternative heat source. • planning highly applicable – zoned • higher land prices intensive farming; • being able to purchase land in the • Synergy SDP transects the area; right location at $10000/ha or • reliable/secure water supply; more for small parcels. • value of CRID water is extremely
low; • gas and electricity in the area. Northern CRID Farmlands Site SWOT Analysis Opportunities: Threats: • mine water from • negligible, with no the Synergy SDP and discharge major threats brine waste back into SDP; identified
• price of water is good and
could appreciate if Collie Water project gets up.
Figure 36 Northern CRID SWOT Analysis
8.6 Preferred Sites In selecting the sites, the key factors that differentiated the sites were the proximity to power, availability of alternative energy sources, a reliable/secure water supply, water treatment and disposal options, land tenure and a clear planning framework.
The degree that the model design and financial viability considered in this study can be translocated and transposed onto another site will depend on the local sensitivity and cost of these key factors.
8.6.1 Collie – Bluewaters‐Ewington 1 (Bluewaters) Site The Bluewaters site comprises primarily of the rehabilitated Ewington 1 mine, the adjacent block in the Coolangatta Industrial Estate and private land. (see Figure 37).
The proposed Bluewaters site is described as follows: • Coolangatta freehold block (up to 100ha) ‐ greenhouse and water treatment site; • mine rehabilitation site (300‐400ha) – finished to pasture/hay on a slope to be used primarily for water harvesting as well as for the secondary horticulture (50‐ 100ha), a potential solar farm (100‐200ha) and at the lowest elevation a storage reservoir (200‐400ML) yet to be approved; • lease portion of the Lower CREB stream reserve (UCL) opposite the Bluewaters Power Station to provide legal access to satisfy RiWI eligibility and for pumping infrastructure; and • easement across the land owned by the Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation (EGRC) to provide access for the pipeline and power infrastructure between the Lower CREB and the greenhouse site.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 79 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Depending on land tenure, an easement may also be required for access to the property from Boys Home Road. Access may also be possible directly from the Collie‐Williams Road.
The proposal is that the greenhouse/s will be developed on the freehold block in the Coolangatta Industrial Estate (owned by Griffin Coal) to optimise the heat and CO2 from the Bluewaters Power Station which is 500m to the east of the site.
The rehabilitated mine sites (200ha to 400ha) will be developed as a sloping form suitable for pasture/hay and to maximise water runoff which will be collected at the bottom of the valley in a storage/s (57). Timing of rehabilitation works will need to be clarified with Griffin Coal.
The secondary horticulture planned for the site (up to 100ha) will be developed on the steeper slopes (<10%) of the rehabilitated site adjacent, and preferably down slope, from the greenhouse. The most likely secondary horticulture crops are tree crops – either fruit or nuts.
The secondary horticultural crops will be watered with the off‐take water from the greenhouse and supplemented with suitable raw water from the hillside runoff or the Lower Collie East branch if TSS is <1000mg/L (57).
Figure 37 Bluewaters Power locality map
The schematic of the key features for the Bluewaters site is shown below in Figure 38.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 80 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Water treatment • Waste heat and CO2 • Freehold block with <1000m distance transport access • Access to Synergy SDP • Lower CREB diversion • Greenhouse site • 100ha Coolangatta Bluewaters IE Block PS
Rehab Areas Storage
• Up to 400ha • Water harvesting • Pasture/hay • Secondary horticulture • 200‐400ML • Potential for 200ha solar farm • Pre‐treatment
Figure 38 Key features of Collie Region
8.6.2 Brunswick Region The Northern CRID Farmlands site comprises primarily established flood irrigation farmland in an area bounded by South West Highway, Clifton Road, Raymond Road and Forrest Highway – see Figure 39.
Figure 39 Northern CRID Farmlands locality map
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 81 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
The water supply from Harvey Water is from Wellington Dam and the current salinities are 1,100‐1,300mg/L which is suitable only for tolerant pastures and some tree crops (especially citrus). The water supply will need desalinating resulting in a brine waste in the order of 15,000mg/L to be disposed.
As the Synergy SDP transects the area it is proposed that a small amount of wastewater is mined (up to 0.5ML/day) directly from the SDP and that the brine (up to 0.25ML/day) from the desalination unit is injected directly back into the SDP resulting in a salinity increase in the SDP of 15% based on current discharge salinities <5000mg/L.
The secondary horticulture planned for the site (up to 100ha) will be developed on existing, well developed farmlands serviced by a good rural drainage system. While tree crops are generally more suited for the secondary horticulture, the duplex soils will need to be considered for crop suitability.
The secondary horticultural crops will be watered with the off‐take water from the greenhouse and supplemented with suitable raw water from the Harvey Water CRID supply from Wellington Dam – salinity 1,000‐1300mg/L (58).
The schematic of the key features for the Bluewaters site is shown below in Figure 40.
A key feature of the Northern CRID Farmlands site is that the nearest power station is at Kemerton over 20km away and alternative energy will be required. The area is well serviced with natural gas and a rural electricity supply. Three phase power may not be available but can be created on site.
The key features for the Bluewaters and Northern CRID Farmlands sites are shown in Table 22.
• Zoned Intensive Farming • Gas and electricity
Land Alternative
Planning Energy
Land Water Supply Characteristics & Treatment
• Freehold block with transport access • Up to 500ML supplied by • Land is predominantly Harvey Water cleared and flat • Access to Synergy SDP Figure 40 Key features of Northern CRID Farmlands Site
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 82 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
8.7 Site Resources Matrix Table 22 Site Resources Matrix Location Bluewaters Northern CRID Farmlands Proposed Site Bluewaters – Ewington 1 site (400ha) + Northern CRID Farmlands site Coolangatta Industrial estate block (100ha) + Any existing property/s – minimum size 200ha but up to 400ha Stream reserve + Easement through Power Station buffer zone (State land) Land Availability Coolangatta freehold block available now – Griffin Coal. This The western part of the area is completely developed as flood block could be negotiated as part of the total rehabilitation irrigation farms with areas ranging from 20 – 80ha. hand‐back plan. All farms in this area are freehold and have all services except potable Stage 1 of Ewington 1 rehabilitation has been completed to water. pasture and active mining is to be completed over the next 12 months. Depending on land tenure – freehold or State Forest, The area is serviced by sealed roads. this site may need whole of Government coordination and approval to accept hand back as pastured slopes. Ewington 1 Any identified blocks for possible purchase will need to be assessed site may need to be excised from State Forest and managed by for risk of surface water inundation and associated remediation costs a State agency to facilitate access for proponent. will need to be included in future business model.
A State agency will need to accept vesting of the Lower CREB Note: blocks to be purchased will need to be assessed for risk of Stream Reserve (UCL) to allow legal access to the river and surface water inundation and associated costs included in future satisfy RiWI eligibility. business model
Easements will also need to be negotiated with the EGRC for power and water access from the Lower CREB to the greenhouse site. Land Cost To be negotiated as part of the rehabilitation and hand‐back Up to $20,000 per ha (N Jones 2017, personal communication, 1 plan. November).
Land value could be up to $10,000 per ha. Environmental Concerns This site is within the Collie Power Station air‐shed. This area is within the Leschenault Estuary catchment where excess nutrients from the farming area is causing algal and weed growth and The area is already cleared however there may be some amenity concerns at Australind. environmental offset areas to be maintained. The catchment has a Water Quality Improvement Plan to change land practices and ameliorate nutrients.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 83 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Location Bluewaters Northern CRID Farmlands Water Generally this area has a reliable rainfall and river flow however This area has a very reliable rainfall. flows need to be stored in winter (4 months) for use in the dry months (8 months). The Primary water supplies are: • Water harvesting from site (>50ML); The water storage needs to be 200‐400ML. • Purchase water from Harvey Water (CRID) (up to 200ML); • Mine water from the Synergy SDP (0.5ML/day). The Primary water supplies are: • Water harvesting from site (>50ML); The Supplementary/Contingency water supplies are: • Runoff from the rehab sites (>100ML); • Purchase additional water from Harvey Water (to meet • AWE from the Lower CREB (up to 200ML). demand). • Assess the potential for stormwater capture The Supplementary/Contingency water supplies are: • AWE from the Lower CREB (up to 200ML); • Purchase water from Collie Water (300ML); • Trade or purchase water from Harvey Water (up to 500ML).
Potential to access water from the SDP for treatment and making further room for RO brine water discharge Energy Sources The Collie site provided opportunity for unconventional energy For the study of sources of energy for the greenhouse conventional sources; waste heat and renewable electricity. sources of heat and electrical energy were assessed.
The waste heat source would be from the power station, using Investigations highlighted that there would be adequate supply form heat pumps to convert low grade heat to heat the energy store the grid of both electricity and gas to meet the greenhouse to 60oC. requirements
During the project we have spoken parties that are undertaking feasibility studies into large scale PV electricity generation in the Collie Region. If this either / or both of these projects proceed renewable electricity would be available. Greenhouse Design The greenhouse design would be the same for both sites: • High technology, dual skin, poly greenhouse • Full climate control • Hydroponic growing system Suitable Crops The targeted crops of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries and capsicum/chilli can be equally as well produced at either site with negligible variation in greenhouse operation costs.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 84 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Location Bluewaters Northern CRID Farmlands Planning and Approvals This area is described in the Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No. 1 (59) – Planning Precinct 4 Brunswick Intensive Farming Area.
This area has been protected as high value agricultural land under the provisions of the Greater Collie Region Scheme (60). Infrastructure Existing public infrastructure in the region is adequate to equally service both sites. There are equally available service providers that may be required for new project based infrastructure development. Transport Slightly longer transport times and distances to markets and export shipment facilities for the Collie site compared to the CRID site but of no real significance to overall transport cost. It is anticipated that existing transport companies are capable of easily adapting to cope with the transport demands of any greenhouse development. Ports / Airports No significant difference between the sites Logistics No significant difference between the sites Essential and Specialist Services No significant difference between the sites Partnership Opportunities Co benefits could arise with the power station/s, Collie Water Non‐foreseeable other than access to the SDP pipeline for brine and renewable power generators. wastewater discharge
Access to the SDP pipeline for brine wastewater discharge Community Local community is receptive to developments in the region Level and type of community engagement will be site dependant as with active planning for the future in progress. Concerns developments for this site are more regional based and not around the future of the coal power generation industry is a necessarily linked to a distinct town community. key driver in future planning to ensure on‐going prosperity for the community.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 85 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 23 Regional resource comparison quick reference Northern CRID Location Bluewaters Farmlands Proposed Site 999 999 Land Availability 99 999 Land Cost 999 99 Environmental Concerns 999 99 Water 99 999 Energy Sources 999 99 Greenhouse Design 999 Suitable Crops 999 Labour 99 999 Planning and Approvals 99 Infrastructure 999 Transport 999 Ports / Airports 999 Logistics 999 Essential and Specialist Services 999 Regional Partnership Opportunities 999 9 Community 999 99
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 86 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
9 Infrastructure Requirements for a 10ha Greenhouse Project It is not a requirement of this feasibility study to include detailed sophisticated high technology greenhouse and equipment specification. However, to enable economic modelling, capex costs need to be established and for this reason general greenhouse specifications have been included. 9.1 Site Preparation There are a number of different layouts for greenhouses that would be suitable. One of the most common layouts for a 10ha greenhouse is two 5ha greenhouses, approximately square, that are separated but a centralised packing shed (Figure 41). However, the final greenhouse layout will need to take into consideration property dimensions and landform.
Figure 41 Schematic of a greenhouse layout
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 87 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
What is largely true for all greenhouse developments is that they need a relatively large area that is level and flat. Falls in the order of 1% are required to facilitate greenhouse construction and to provide adequate drainage. Hence suitable site selecting is critical in mitigating high costs of land formation if the site chosen is neither flat, level or well‐ drained. Both the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands sites that are generally flat and level. Griffin Coal advised for the Collie site they can undertake the required land formation as part of their mine rehabilitation. 9.2 Greenhouse There have been a range of parameters that have been considered when making the decision about the type of greenhouse that provided the best outcomes for tomatoes in the Greater Collie Region. Some of these parameters include environmental conditions (light, wind, heat, and temperature) and crop type. To provide an understanding of the greenhouse requirements and the parameters that sit behind the decision making process see Appendix A, Greenhouse Structure Comparative Assessment for Specific Crops and Appendix D, Considerations for a Greenhouse Development.
9.2.1 Infrastructure and Other Capital Requirements
Important Note! The greenhouse specifications are indicative, they are not recommendations. Final specification and requirements would be determined by project engineers, equipment suppliers and / or EPC Contractors. It is important to ascertain where the technology risk sits and for that reason Arris is not specifying brand, design and / or requirements. Shire building codes and regional planning regulations will have to be met for all infrastructure developments and compliance costs / impacts will need to be included in the final analysis.
9.2.1.1 Greenhouse Specifications For this study dual skin poly, chapel style, multi span greenhouses have been selected (Figure 42). In making this selection the following key elements have been considered: • Ease and cost of construction; polyhouse technology has advanced significantly in recent years from the low technology poly tunnels that have been widely used in Australia. The use of low weight polymers reduces the required engineered structural strength and increases the span length.
Figure 42 Example of the chapel style greenhouses with netted twin roof venting
• Greenhouse,12 ‐ 16m multi‐span greenhouse; the use of wide spans (Figure 46) has a number of physical advantages that improve greenhouse performance: increased volume, reduced shading by structural elements, increased production flexibility due to the reduced number of internal poles. A larger greenhouse
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 88 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
volume provides better internal climate stability leading to better climate control (Figure 43) and structural height improves ventilation.
Source: Richel 2017 Figure 43 Contrasting temperature variation between low and high volume greenhouses
Source: Richel 2017 Figure 44 Schematic showing increase in greenhouse volume through use of wider spans
• 6.5m high; the greenhouse will have 6.5m to the gutters. The combination of the high gutters, chapel frame and large span, will provide significant head space and volume to make the maintenance of growing conditions easier to manage. • Greenhouse cladding EFTE (F‐Clean or similar), plastic films have many advantages over glass. New technologies being applied to the production of greenhouse plastic films increases their versatility and advantages with specific coatings now possible to match films with crop light requirements, heat transmission, local climatic conditions, etc. General plastic film characteristics include: o Light weight, lighter than glass requiring lighter framing for support. o Improved light transmission properties over glass increasing productivity o Long life of over 30 years without replacement o Chemical resistance o Mechanical properties; stretch and strength o Weather resistance
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 89 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
o Non‐flammable o Anti‐stick properties o Anticondensation and non‐drip properties (condensation can reflect more light reducing production performance) o Light transmission and light wavelength control (more light than glass) o Diffuse transmission can increase usable light, increasing production. o Easier construction to attain insect proof environment for biosecurity and plant health o New techniques have been developed enabling cladding repairs to be undertaken without the need for destocking the greenhouse (Figure 45)
Figure 45 Richel patented system for recladding greenhouses externally without crop removal
• Dual skin cladding for improved thermal insulation. Although it is generally considered to be easier to heat a greenhouse than cool it the cost of heating is higher, therefore, reducing heat loss (Figure 46) in cold ambient conditions is a significant cost saver.
Source: Richel, http://richel.fr/en/produits/multi‐span‐greenhouses/ Figure 46 Dual skin cladding can increase energy savings
• Roof ventilation, double continuous ventilation. To enhance natural greenhouse cooling roof ventilation to allow heat to escape is the cheapest and most effective cooling option. The use of roof venting will improve temperature and humidity control. The North – South alignment of the greenhouses and the wind speed and direction that can be seen in the wind roses (Appendix F) will improve natural ventilation for greenhouse cooling. Both windward and leeward
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 90 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
ventilation with deflectors will be used (Figure 47). • Floor coverings; a white polyethylene floor covering is used to provide a clean, dirt free growing environment. It also prevents moisture entering the greenhouse and affecting relative humidity levels. The white is light reflective and disperses light through the crop and reduces heat build‐up in the structure. These coverings are replaced every few years.
Figure 47 Schematic showing greenhouse ventilation showing how deflectors improve ventilation efficiency
• Insect screening; screening will be a physical barrier to insect entry to greenhouses and will be a part of an integrated pest management system and biosecurity protocols. The greenhouses will be positively pressurised with insect screening on vents. o There are a number of pests that can potentially impact greenhouse operation and market access in WA including Mediterranean Fruit Fly (https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/fruit/mediterranean‐fruit‐fly) and Tomato and Potato Psyllid (TPP) (https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/tomato‐ potato‐psyllid‐tpp). o Insect screening of vents can reduce passive ventilation 40‐70% and will have a minor reduction of light into greenhouse. The use of photo‐ sensitive screens provides extra protection. • In‐take fans; insect screened air intake fans are used to provide active venting capacity and to maintain a slightly positive air pressure to create additional biosecurity protection.
9.2.1.2 Screening System Thermal screens are a cost effective and efficient way of improving greenhouse environment management. These screens are designed to keep heat and radiation in a greenhouse during cold periods such as night time and prevent radiation and associated heat entering the greenhouse during hot periods, such as in the middle of a summer day. • The screens are retractable so as to mitigate against light loss when not in use. Open weave screens have gaps between the aluminium strips that allow warm air to rise through them, while the strips reflect radiation into or back out of the greenhouse depending on use. • These screens provide significant energy savings of up to 30%. Screens are to be installed within the greenhouse. • Internal screening above the crop serves two purposes: o Protect the crop from extreme light and heat in high light and hot conditions o Further insulation in cool conditions
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 91 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
o They can be a problem if using bee pollination techniques as bees can get trapped above the screens and die. • Screening systems can be installed internally and or externally. The final decision on placement of screening should be made in collaboration with the greenhouse designer and manufacturer.
9.2.1.3 Heating system (conventional system) For this discussion a conventional heating system will be considered as regardless of the type of heating decided upon the general principles remain the same.
The heating system includes: • Two hot water boilers would be required to supply heat, generally two are installed to mitigate against risk to the crop of breakdowns. • The fuel for the boilers should be determined based of fuel source/s available, typically options include: o Gas: grid natural or LPG gas o Coal o Biomass • Flue gas condensers and chimneys, to increase heat recovery efficiency • One heat storage tank of ±1500m³ content • One nitrogen generator pressure expansion system • One manifold including transport‐ and mixing groups • Four ring supply mains including mixing groups • Tube rail heating system • Grow tube heating system, • Monorail heating in propagation greenhouses • Insulation material
9.2.1.4 Cooling System Cooling greenhouses is an important operational requirement as in high light and heat environments like Australia temperatures can rise above optimal crop production conditions and, in some cases, kill crops. For this reason, a number of control measures are used to manage the greenhouse environment: • Dual skin greenhouse with screening • Roof ventilation • Evaporative high pressure foggers produce very fine water droplets which are designed to evaporate without wetting the crop or structure; this evaporative cooling technology is used to enhance cooling under high temperature conditions • Circulation fans; Horizontal and vertical fans are used to maintain a uniform environment improving heat, humidity and carbon dioxide distribution delivering better crop uniformity and production.
9.2.1.5 Irrigation and Fertigation System Production Greenhouses Irrigation operation and control is one of the most important systems in a hydroponic greenhouse. It not only delivers water to the plant but is also the vector for fertilisation (fertigation).
Irrigation system includes: • A substrate irrigation suitable to supply 10 litres per square meter per day, and 2.5 plants per square meter • Mixing vessels systems for fertilisers
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 92 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• pH pre‐control • Water storage tanks • Growing gutter system with 10 growing gutters per 16m (tomatoes) • Water re‐use, including UV disinfection
9.2.1.6 Electrical System and Computer Controls Electrical system includes: • Cable duct system inside the greenhouse • Power distribution devices, excluding main panel • Connection materials and cabling for the equipment • Greenhouse environmental management computer system • “Work‐it” labour registration system • Horizontal re‐circulation fans. (to be used jointly with the foggers for cooling)
9.2.1.7 Other Capital Equipment Requirements Harvesting equipment: • 100 harvesting trolleys • 35 electrical tube‐rail carts for crop maintenance • 4 electrical tube‐rail carts for greenhouse maintenance • 3 induction operated towing trucks • 2 Induction systems (1 per block)
Greenhouse to packing shed transport: Trolley guidance; an automated harvest cart guidance system will be installed. This technology enables full trolleys to return to the grading and packing area autonomously, reducing labour costs.
Spraying equipment: Although the greenhouse will use integrated pest management systems and the bring in beneficial (predatory insects) for the biocontrol of pests spraying will still be required from time to time to manage uncontrollable outbreaks.
Further to this, nutrients may be applied to the leaves of the crop as part of the nutrient management system. New nano fertilisers have demonstrated a range of uses and advantages over traditional nutrient management techniques. • 4 tank carts for transport of water and sprays • 4 spraying trolleys for crop spraying
Roof washers: • Semi‐automatic roof washer with platform
Vehicles: A range of lifting equipment and vehicles are required in the day to day operation of a greenhouse. • Forklift / telehandler • Utes 9.3 Greenhouse Support Infrastructure Buildings near the greenhouses will be required for storage (fertilisers, planting medium, picking containers, picking / servicing equipment, greenhouse spares), workshop (maintenance and equipment servicing) and heating equipment (boilers, heat
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 93 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
exchanges, heat pumps). A budget allowance of $47,000 has been made for these buildings. 9.4 Packing and Grading Independent of the crop to be grown a dedicated packing shed will be required to grade and pack the produce for market. While fit out in relation to grading and packing equipment will be crop dependant a similar size packing shed will be required for all crops. It is likely that a shed of approx. 1500m2 would be required to service a 10ha greenhouse complex and an allowance of $300,000 has been made in the budget calculations for this facility.
The grading equipment will be produce specific and will need to be coupled with packing equipment specific to the packaging requirements of the market and style and product image to be portrayed in the market place. An allowance of $1m has been made in the budget for the purchase and installation of grading and packing equipment.
To maximise product quality and shelf life of all the suggested possible products for consideration in this report will require refrigeration and will benefit from rapid cooling as soon as possible after harvest. High capacity coldstores for rapid cooling of either or both pre and post packed produce, storage and for refrigerated loading docks will be required at the packing shed. An allowance of $1M for coldstores and cooling equipment has been included in the budget calculations. 9.5 Transport and Materials Handling At the greenhouse site, there will be a requirement for hard surfaces around the packing shed and greenhouse service facilities for the efficient movement of trucks and materials handling equipment. Cost is included in the installation, construction and commission budget item of $550,000.
Forklifts will be the principle mobile materials handling equipment and purchase costs have been allocated in the budget calculations under Mobile equipment.
The cost of refrigerated transport to markets and shipping terminals has be included in the marketing costs for the produce and is based on using external contractors for the transport services. 9.6 Labour Force Amenities Onsite facilities will be required to service the greenhouse, packing shed and office labour force. For a 10ha facility it is estimated that 96 staff will be required to operate the facility (Table 5). Facilities will need to comply with any WA labour employment regulations and would include toilets, dining room, change rooms and sick bay. Additional facilities to support efficient operations and to meet expected industry standards would include up to 10 single person offices, group offices for 3‐5 persons, store room, computer room and meeting room(s). Budget allowance for workforce amenities building, fit out and offices is $58,000.
Car parking space will also be required for the labour force and the cost has been budgeted for in the greenhouse support infrastructure cost. 9.7 Waste Management and Recycling It is estimated that a 10ha greenhouse facility growing tomatoes will create 1,500t/year of green waste. This can either be composted on site or used by one of the local
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 94 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
commercial composting companies. Other waste should be managed under a waste management plan with the separation of waste materials into separate bins based on the recycling opportunities or for disposal as landfill.
A well‐managed greenhouse facility of the type recommended in this report will produce very small quantities of waste that will need to be directed to landfill. EnviroVeg is the Australian vegetable industry environmental quality assurance system. The EnviroVeg manual is a valuable source of information on waste management and the development of a waste management plan (61).
A $5,000 Capex allocation is made in the budget calculations for Waste Management as most of the cost associated with this will be recurrent costs.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 95 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 96 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
10 Economic Analysis Summary The financial analyses are general in nature. Costs are estimates only and are based on reasonable expected values collated from several sources (Table 24). The values provided do not, nor intend to, provide specific detailed financial advice on the installation and operation of the proposed greenhouse facility and are a guide only.
Table 24 Sources of greenhouse information and costs Greenhouse fit‐out Source Greenhouse and furniture Power Plants 9 AIS Greenworks 9 9 Royal Brinkman 9 Apex Greenhouses 9 University of South Australia Energy Systems
The economic models are based on the production of vine ripened truss tomato and strawberry and assume that 85% of product harvested is first grade, 12% second grade and 3% of harvested product is unsaleable. Second grade product is assumed to return 75% of first grade price. A discount interest rate of 5.25%pa is used. A specific annual rate of inflation of recurring costs or prices has not been included. In calculating the benefit cost ratio, the model assumes that production costs, yields and revenues are the same in each year, with the exception of the first year in which both costs and revenues are only 50%.
For tomato, at the ‘Collie site’, the expected simple return on investment given a market price of $3/kg for first grade product and an annual yield of 60kg per square metre is estimated to be 18.64%, with a gross margin of approximately $67 per square metre. The calculated benefit cost ratio over 10 years is 1.33. The price/yield sensitivity analysis (Table 27) illustrates that the proposed investment is resilient, at both sites.
The total greenhouse footprint is 10.08 hectares and the initial capital investment is estimated to be $228.64 per square metre, that is, just under $23m in total at the ‘Collie site’. Typical annual recurring costs are estimated to $85.19 per square metre; approximately $8.59m in total per annum giving an estimated payback period of just under 7.5 years (Table 27). A summary of the estimated expenditure is presented in Table 28.
At the ‘CRID site’, the expected reasonable return on investment for tomatoes given the same market price and crop yield is estimated to be 16.05%. The gross margin is approximately $61 per square metre. The calculated benefit cost ratio over 10 years is 1.30.
The primary differences between the sites reflect different infrastructure and operating costs for heating. The model also assumes that land needs to be purchased and additional earthworks undertaken at the Northern CRID Farmlands site. For the same total greenhouse footprint, the initial capital investment is lower at the ‘CRID site’ at an estimated $218.80 per square metre. Typical annual recurring costs are estimated to be slightly higher at $90.52 per square metre ($9.12m in total per annum) due to greater expenditure on heat energy. The estimated payback period is just under 7.5 years (Table 31). A summary of the estimated expenditure is presented in Table 32.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 97 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
For strawberry, assuming the same greenhouse footprint, the overall infrastructure investment is slightly lower at both sites reflecting fewer equipment costs for this crop. There is a considerable range in strawberry productivity across industry and this is generally dependent upon types of production systems used. The productivity values selected in this analysis are conservative and assume that the production system is a more standard hydroponic method, rather than the less tested vertical or rotating production systems, increasingly being promoted.
At the ‘Collie site’, the expected return on investment given a market price of $10/kg for first grade product and an annual yield of 12kg per square metre is estimated to be 18.08%, with a gross margin of approximately $52 per square metre. The calculated benefit cost ratio over 10 years is 1.30. The estimated payback period is just under 9.5 years (Table 29). A summary of the estimated expenditure is presented in Table 30.
Whilst there is a generally wider range of prices for strawberry and a more significant seasonality impact on prices, the price/yield sensitivity analysis (Table 26) illustrates that the proposed investment, is again, stable at both sites.
At the ‘CRID site’, the expected reasonable return on investment for strawberries given the same market price and crop yield is estimated to be 16.27%, with a gross margin of approximately $49 per square metre and a calculated benefit cost ratio over 10 years is 1.29. The estimated payback period is just over 9 years (Table 33). A summary of the estimated expenditure is presented in Table 34.
The main difference between tomato and strawberry is due to a lower labour requirement for strawberry and an associated lower level of equipment and amenities. The level of protected cropping technology is assumed to be the same for both crops as this ensures that a development can successfully target a range of identified crops/markets without significant reinvestment.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 98 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 25 Price and yield sensitivity for the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands (tomato) Return on investment (1yr) Price and yield sensitivity (truss tomato) & Benefit to Cost ratio (10yr) Collie Site Yield [kg/m2] Price 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 [$/kg] $ ‐13.22% ‐8.21% ‐3.33% 1.43% 6.08% 10.61% 15.04% 19.37% 2.50 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.03 1.11 1.19 1.27 1.34 $ ‐8.81% ‐3.31% 2.04% 7.27% 12.36% 17.34% 22.19% 26.93% 2.75 0.85 0.95 1.04 1.13 1.22 1.31 1.39 1.48 $ ‐4.40% 1.58% 7.41% 13.09% 18.64% 24.05% 29.33% 34.48% 3.00 0.93 1.03 1.13 1.23 1.33 1.43 1.52 1.61 $ 0.01% 6.47% 12.77% 18.91% 24.90% 30.75% 36.46% 42.03% 3.25 1.00 1.12 1.23 1.34 1.44 1.54 1.65 1.74 $ 4.41% 11.35% 18.12% 24.72% 31.16% 37.44% 43.57% 49.55% 3.50 1.08 1.20 1.32 1.44 1.55 1.66 1.77 1.88 $ 8.80% 16.23% 23.47% 30.53% 37.41% 44.12% 50.68% 57.07% 3.75 1.16 1.29 1.41 1.54 1.66 1.78 1.90 2.01 $ 13.20% 21.10% 28.81% 36.33% 43.65% 50.80% 57.77% 64.58% 4.00 1.23 1.37 1.51 1.64 1.77 1.90 2.02 2.14 Northern CRID Farmlands Yield [kg/m2] Price 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 [$/kg] $ ‐14.49% ‐9.69% ‐5.01% ‐0.43% 4.03% 8.40% 12.66% 16.83% 2.50 0.75 0.84 0.92 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.24 1.31 $ ‐10.27% ‐5.01% 0.13% 5.14% 10.04% 14.83% 19.51% 24.08% 2.75 0.83 0.92 1.01 1.10 1.19 1.28 1.36 1.44 $ ‐6.07% ‐0.34% 5.26% 10.72% 16.05% 21.26% 26.34% 31.32% 3.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.39 1.48 1.57 $ ‐1.86% 4.33% 10.38% 16.28% 22.04% 27.67% 33.17% 38.55% 3.25 0.98 1.09 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.51 1.61 1.70 $ 2.34% 9.00% 15.50% 21.84% 28.03% 34.08% 39.99% 45.76% 3.50 1.05 1.17 1.29 1.40 1.51 1.62 1.73 1.83 $ 6.54% 13.66% 20.61% 27.39% 34.01% 40.48% 46.80% 52.97% 3.75 1.13 1.25 1.38 1.50 1.62 1.74 1.85 1.96 $ 10.73% 18.31% 25.71% 32.94% 39.98% 46.87% 53.59% 60.16% 4.00 1.20 1.34 1.47 1.60 1.73 1.85 1.97 2.09
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 99 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 26 Price and yield sensitivity for the Collie and Northern CRID Farmlands (strawberry) Return on investment (1yr) Price and yield sensitivity (strawberry) & Benefit to Cost ratio (10yr) Collie Site Yield [kg/m2] Price 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [$/kg] $ ‐12.51% ‐7.44% ‐2.62% 1.98% 6.37% 10.56% 14.57% 18.42% 8.50 0.80 0.88 0.96 1.04 1.11 1.18 1.25 1.31 $ ‐9.64% ‐4.29% 0.80% 5.65% 10.28% 14.70% 18.93% 22.98% 9.00 0.85 0.93 1.02 1.10 1.17 1.25 1.32 1.39 $ ‐6.77% ‐1.14% 4.21% 9.31% 14.18% 18.83% 23.28% 27.54% 9.50 0.89 0.99 1.07 1.16 1.24 1.32 1.39 1.47 $ ‐3.90% 2.00% 7.62% 12.97% 18.08% 22.96% 27.63% 32.10% 10.00 0.94 1.04 1.13 1.22 1.30 1.39 1.47 1.54 $ ‐1.03% 5.15% 11.03% 16.63% 21.98% 27.09% 31.98% 36.65% 10.50 0.99 1.09 1.19 1.28 1.37 1.46 1.54 1.62 $ 1.84% 8.29% 14.43% 20.29% 25.87% 31.21% 36.32% 41.20% 11.00 1.03 1.14 1.24 1.34 1.43 1.52 1.61 1.70 $ 4.70% 11.43% 17.83% 23.94% 29.77% 35.33% 40.65% 45.75% 11.50 1.08 1.19 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.59 1.68 1.77 Northern CRID Farmlands Yield [kg/m2] Price 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [$/kg] $ ‐13.31% ‐8.42% ‐3.75% 0.71% 4.97% 9.05% 12.96% 16.71% 8.50 0.79 0.87 0.95 1.03 1.10 1.17 1.24 1.30 $ ‐10.55% ‐5.39% ‐0.46% 4.24% 8.74% 13.05% 17.17% 21.12% 9.00 0.84 0.92 1.01 1.09 1.16 1.24 1.31 1.38 $ ‐7.79% ‐2.36% 2.83% 7.78% 12.51% 17.04% 21.37% 25.53% 9.50 0.88 0.98 1.06 1.15 1.23 1.31 1.38 1.45 $ ‐5.03% 0.67% 6.11% 11.31% 16.27% 21.03% 25.58% 29.94% 10.00 0.93 1.03 1.12 1.21 1.29 1.37 1.45 1.53 $ ‐2.27% 3.70% 9.40% 14.84% 20.04% 25.01% 29.78% 34.34% 10.50 0.98 1.08 1.17 1.27 1.36 1.44 1.52 1.60 $ 0.48% 6.72% 12.68% 18.36% 23.79% 28.99% 33.97% 38.74% 11.00 1.02 1.13 1.23 1.33 1.42 1.51 1.60 1.68 $ 3.23% 9.74% 15.95% 21.88% 27.55% 32.97% 38.16% 43.14% 11.50 1.07 1.18 1.28 1.39 1.48 1.58 1.67 1.76
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 100 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 27 Collie Site economic model summary ‐ tomato
Project name Collie site (truss tomato)
Area under production 10.08 Ha 99,288 m2 less walkways: 1.50% Number of crops 1 per year Planting density 1.7 per m2 Number of plants per year: 168,790
Assumed real interest rate: 5.25% pa Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00% Product value inflation 0.00%
2 Yield per m2 60 per m Yield per plant 35.29 kg Expected total yield 5957280 kg 5957.28 tonnes
Grade 1* Grade 2* Grade 3* Unsaleable Proportion of grade quality: 85% 12% 0% 3% Calculated yield 5063688 714873.6 0 178718.4 Expected sale price / kg $ 3.00 $ 2.25 $ 1.50 Income$ 13,671,957.60 $ 1,528,042.32 $ - Packing weight (kg) 5 9 9 * Grades are included as generic terms and do not represent specific quality grades
Revenue $15,200,000 Gross Margin $6,612,452 Return on Recurring Costs 0.77
Gross margin per plant $39 Gross margin per hectare $665,987 Gross margin per square metre $67
Net margin / EBIT $3,736,925 ROI 18.64% Very Favourable Outcome Benefit to Cost ratio (10 yr) 1.33 Favourable Outcome
Net margin per plant $22 Net margin per hectare $376,372 Net margin per square metre $38
Net Present Value Benefit : Cost PV ROI IRR NPV over 5 years $8,691,212.73 1.14 14% 20% NPV over 10 years $30,704,865.49 1.33 33% 31% NPV over 15 years $47,749,260.43 1.42 42% 33% NPV over 20 years $60,946,134.32 1.46 46% 33%
Payback 7 years & Favourable Outcome 6months
Approx. Operating cost per kilogram produ $1.13 per kg Average operating cost per kilogram sold $1.44 per kg Real cost per kilogram sold $3.37 per kg
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 101 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 28 Summary of costs for the Collie Site ‐ tomato
Project name Collie site (truss tomato)
Production area 10.08 hectares Number of crops 1 per year 100800 m2 Plant density 1.7 per m2 Number of plants 171360 Assumed real interest rate 5.25% Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00%
Capital expenditure Cost per unit Cost Annualised cost ($) External funds Adjusted Annualised prodn area (m2) contributed cost ($) Site preparation$ 2.75 $ 277,200.00 $ 22,717.17 $ - $ 22,717.17 Structures Production greenhouse$ 83.52 $ 8,418,800.88 $ 896,998.46 $ - $ 896,998.46 Nursery greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - R&D greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Postharvest facility$ 22.80 $ 2,298,368.00 $ 188,356.51 $ - $ 188,356.51 Office and Admin$ 0.58 $ 58,464.00 $ 4,791.26 $ - $ 4,791.26 Other buildings$ 0.47 $ 47,000.00 $ 3,851.76 $ - $ 3,851.76 Production greenhouse fitout$ 19.26 $ 1,941,105.60 $ 248,150.52 $ - $ 248,150.52 Heating and Cooling$ 56.50 $ 5,695,424.00 $ 466,753.00 $ - $ 466,753.00 Water management$ 18.99 $ 1,914,000.00 $ 161,523.95 $ - $ 161,523.95 Power and Energy$ 1.14 $ 115,000.00 $ 9,424.51 $ - $ 9,424.51 Waste management $ 0.05 $ 5,000.00 $ 409.76 $ - $ 409.76 Mobile equipment$ 10.43 $ 1,051,250.00 $ 137,799.45 $ - $ 137,799.45 MIscellaneous equipment$ 0.36 $ 36,500.00 $ 8,488.93 $ - $ 8,488.93 Management and control systems$ 6.35 $ 639,968.00 $ 148,839.48 $ - $ 148,839.48 Installation, construction & commission$ 5.44 $ 548,620.00 $ 577,422.55 $ - $ 577,422.55
Working capital$ 8,587,548.10
Total$ 228.64 $ 31,634,248.58 $ 11,463,075.40 $ 31,634,248.58 $ 11,463,075.40 excl working cap. $ 23,046,700.48 $ 23,046,700.48
Recurrent expenditure (Proportion of growing) Set up and clean out 100% $ 1.27 $ 127,512.00 $ - Crop production 100% $ 5.30 $ 534,328.20 $ - IPM & Biosecurity 100% $ 1.77 $ 178,067.43 $ - Power and Energy 95% $ 8.15 $ 821,250.00 $ - Postharvest 0% $ 13.80 $ 1,391,478.16 $ - Maintenance and Repairs 75% $ 0.32 $ 32,620.00 $ - Office and administration 50% $ 4.49 $ 452,292.30 $ -
Labour Human Resources$ 50.10 $ 5,050,000.00 $ - Management 75%$ 1.94 $ 195,714.29 Production 100%$ 46.92 $ 4,730,000.00 Postharvest 0%$ 8.84 $ 891,000.00 $ 5,816,714.29 Total$ 85.19 $ 8,587,548.10 $ - $ 8,587,548.10
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 102 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 29 Collie Site economic model summary ‐ strawberry
Project name Collie site (Strawberry)
Area under production 10.08 Ha 99,288 m2 less walkways: 1.50% Number of crops 1 per year Planting density 8 per m2 Number of plants per year: 794,304
Assumed real interest rate: 5.25% pa Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00% Product value inflation 0.00%
2 Yield per m2 12 per m Yield per plant 1.50 kg Expected total yield 1191456 kg 1191.456 tonnes
Grade 1* Grade 2* Grade 3* Unsaleable Proportion of grade quality: 85% 10% 0% 5% Calculated yield 1012737.6 119145.6 0 59572.8 Expected sale price / kg $ 10.00 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 Income$ 9,621,007.20 $ 848,912.40 $ - Packing weight (kg) 0.5 5 5 * Grades are included as generic terms and do not represent specific quality grades
Revenue $10,469,920 Gross Margin $5,204,520 Return on Recurring Costs 0.99
Gross margin per plant $7 Gross margin per hectare $524,184 Gross margin per square metre $52
Net margin / EBIT $2,409,579 ROI 18.08% Very Favourable Outcome Benefit to Cost ratio (10 yr) 1.30 Favourable Outcome
Net margin per plant $3 Net margin per hectare $242,686 Net margin per square metre $24
Net Present Value Benefit : Cost PV ROI IRR NPV over 5 years $2,543,284.95 1.05 5% 10% NPV over 10 years $19,869,762.10 1.30 30% 23% NPV over 15 years $33,285,042.30 1.42 42% 25% NPV over 20 years $43,672,020.62 1.49 49% 26%
Payback 9years & Favourable Outcome 5months
Approx. Operating cost per kilogram produ $5.50 per kg Average operating cost per kilogram sold $4.42 per kg Real cost per kilogram sold $11.18 per kg
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 103 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 30 Summary of costs for the Collie Site ‐ strawberry
Project name Collie site (Strawberry)
Production area 10.08 hectares Number of crops 1 per year 100800 m2 Plant density 8 per m2 Number of plants 806400 Assumed real interest rate 5.25% Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00%
Capital expenditure Cost per unit Cost Annualised cost ($) External funds Adjusted Annualised prodn area (m2) contributed cost ($) Site preparation$ 2.75 $ 277,200.00 $ 22,717.17 $ - $ 22,717.17 Structures Production greenhouse$ 83.52 $ 8,418,800.88 $ 896,998.46 $ - $ 896,998.46 Nursery greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - R&D greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Postharvest facility$ 22.80 $ 2,298,368.00 $ 188,356.51 $ - $ 188,356.51 Office and Admin$ 0.58 $ 58,464.00 $ 4,791.26 $ - $ 4,791.26 Other buildings$ 0.47 $ 47,000.00 $ 3,851.76 $ - $ 3,851.76 Production greenhouse fitout$ 19.26 $ 1,941,105.60 $ 248,150.52 $ - $ 248,150.52 Heating and Cooling$ 56.50 $ 5,695,424.00 $ 466,753.00 $ - $ 466,753.00 Water management$ 18.99 $ 1,914,000.00 $ 161,523.95 $ - $ 161,523.95 Power and Energy$ 1.14 $ 115,000.00 $ 9,424.51 $ - $ 9,424.51 Waste management $ 0.05 $ 5,000.00 $ 409.76 $ - $ 409.76 Mobile equipment$ 4.44 $ 448,000.00 $ 58,724.52 $ - $ 58,724.52 MIscellaneous equipment$ 0.30 $ 30,000.00 $ 6,977.20 $ - $ 6,977.20 Management and control systems$ 6.35 $ 639,968.00 $ 148,839.48 $ - $ 148,839.48 Installation, construction & commission$ 5.44 $ 548,620.00 $ 577,422.55 $ - $ 577,422.55
Working capital$ 5,265,399.63
Total$ 222.59 $ 27,702,350.11 $ 8,060,340.28 $ 27,702,350.11 $ 8,060,340.28 excl working cap. $ 22,436,950.48 $ 22,436,950.48
Recurrent expenditure (Proportion of growing) Set up and clean out 100% $ 0.50 $ 50,400.00 $ - Crop production 100% $ 4.39 $ 442,512.00 $ - IPM & Biosecurity 100% $ 1.73 $ 174,388.23 $ - Power and Energy 95% $ 8.15 $ 821,250.00 $ - Postharvest 0% $ 17.55 $ 1,769,102.62 $ - Maintenance and Repairs 75% $ 0.32 $ 32,620.00 $ - Office and administration 50% $ 4.17 $ 420,126.77 $ -
Labour Human Resources$ 15.43 $ 1,555,000.00 $ - Management 75%$ 1.94 $ 195,714.29 Production 100%$ 46.92 $ 4,730,000.00 Postharvest 0%$ 8.84 $ 891,000.00 $ 5,816,714.29 Total$ 52.24 $ 5,265,399.63 $ - $ 5,265,399.63
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 104 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 31 Northern CRID Farmlands Site economic model summary ‐ tomato
Project name CRID site (truss tomato)
Area under production 10.08 Ha 99,288 m2 less walkways: 1.50% Number of crops 1 per year Planting density 1.7 per m2 Number of plants per year: 168,790
Assumed real interest rate: 5.25% pa Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00% Product value inflation 0.00%
2 Yield per m2 60 per m Yield per plant 35.29 kg Expected total yield 5957280 kg 5957.28 tonnes
Grade 1* Grade 2* Grade 3* Unsaleable Proportion of grade quality: 85% 12% 0% 3% Calculated yield 5063688 714873.6 0 178718.4 Expected sale price / kg $ 3.00 $ 2.25 $ 1.50 Income$ 13,671,957.60 $ 1,528,042.32 $ - Packing weight (kg) 5 9 9 * Grades are included as generic terms and do not represent specific quality grades
Revenue $15,200,000 Gross Margin $6,075,894 Return on Recurring Costs 0.67
Gross margin per plant $36 Gross margin per hectare $611,946 Gross margin per square metre $61
Net margin / EBIT $3,363,595 ROI 16.05% Very Favourable Outcome Benefit to Cost ratio (10 yr) 1.30 Favourable Outcome
Net margin per plant $20 Net margin per hectare $338,772 Net margin per square metre $34
Net Present Value Benefit : Cost PV ROI IRR NPV over 5 years $8,107,631.01 1.13 13% 20% NPV over 10 years $28,335,018.68 1.30 30% 32% NPV over 15 years $43,996,371.57 1.37 37% 33% NPV over 20 years $56,122,404.77 1.41 41% 34%
Payback 7 years & Favourable Outcome 5months
Approx. Operating cost per kilogram produ $1.22 per kg Average operating cost per kilogram sold $1.53 per kg Real cost per kilogram sold $3.52 per kg
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 105 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 32 Summary of costs for the Northern CRID Farmlands Site ‐ tomato
Project name CRID site (truss tomato)
Production area 10.08 hectares Number of crops 1 per year 100800 m2 Plant density 1.7 per m2 Number of plants 171360 Assumed real interest rate 5.25% Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00%
Capital expenditure Cost per unit Cost Annualised cost ($) External funds Adjusted Annualised prodn area (m2) contributed cost ($) Land purchase$ 1,000,000.00 $ 81,952.28 $ - $ - Site preparation$ 22.59 $ 1,277,200.00 $ 104,669.46 $ - $ 186,621.74 Structures Production greenhouse$ 83.52 $ 8,418,800.88 $ 896,998.46 $ - $ 896,998.46 Nursery greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - R&D greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Postharvest facility$ 22.80 $ 2,298,368.00 $ 188,356.51 $ - $ 188,356.51 Office and Admin$ 0.58 $ 58,464.00 $ 4,791.26 $ - $ 4,791.26 Other buildings$ 0.47 $ 47,000.00 $ 3,851.76 $ - $ 3,851.76 Production greenhouse fitout$ 19.26 $ 1,941,105.60 $ 248,150.52 $ - $ 248,150.52 Heating and Cooling$ 26.82 $ 2,703,680.00 $ 221,572.75 $ - $ 221,572.75 Water management$ 18.99 $ 1,914,000.00 $ 161,523.95 $ - $ 161,523.95 Power and Energy$ 1.14 $ 115,000.00 $ 9,424.51 $ - $ 9,424.51 Waste management $ 0.05 $ 5,000.00 $ 409.76 $ - $ 409.76 Mobile equipment$ 10.43 $ 1,051,250.00 $ 137,799.45 $ - $ 137,799.45 MIscellaneous equipment$ 0.36 $ 36,500.00 $ 8,488.93 $ - $ 8,488.93 Management and control systems$ 6.35 $ 639,968.00 $ 148,839.48 $ - $ 148,839.48 Installation, construction & commission$ 5.44 $ 548,620.00 $ 577,422.55 $ - $ 577,422.55
Working capital$ 9,124,105.66
Total$ 218.80 $ 30,179,062.14 $ 11,836,404.99 $ 30,179,062.14 $ 11,918,357.28 excl working cap. $ 21,054,956.48 $ 21,054,956.48
Recurrent expenditure (Proportion of growing) Set up and clean out 100% $ 1.27 $ 127,512.00 $ - Crop production 100% $ 5.30 $ 534,328.20 $ - IPM & Biosecurity 100% $ 1.77 $ 178,067.43 $ - Power and Energy 95% $ 13.77 $ 1,387,725.00 $ - Postharvest 0% $ 13.80 $ 1,391,478.16 $ - Maintenance and Repairs 75% $ 0.32 $ 32,620.00 $ - Office and administration 50% $ 4.19 $ 422,374.86 $ -
Labour Human Resources$ 50.10 $ 5,050,000.00 $ - Management 75%$ 1.94 $ 195,714.29 Production 100%$ 46.92 $ 4,730,000.00 Postharvest 0%$ 8.84 $ 891,000.00 $ 5,816,714.29 Total$ 90.52 $ 9,124,105.66 $ - $ 9,124,105.66
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 106 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 33 Northern CRID Farmlands Site economic model summary ‐ strawberry
Project name CRID site (Strawberry)
Area under production 10.08 Ha 99,288 m2 less walkways: 1.50% Number of crops 1 per year Planting density 8 per m2 Number of plants per year: 794,304
Assumed real interest rate: 5.25% pa Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00% Product value inflation 0.00%
2 Yield per m2 12 per m Yield per plant 1.50 kg Expected total yield 1191456 kg 1191.456 tonnes
Grade 1* Grade 2* Grade 3* Unsaleable Proportion of grade quality: 85% 10% 0% 5% Calculated yield 1012737.6 119145.6 0 59572.8 Expected sale price / kg $ 10.00 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 Income$ 9,621,007.20 $ 848,912.40 $ - Packing weight (kg) 0.5 5 5 * Grades are included as generic terms and do not represent specific quality grades
Revenue $10,469,920 Gross Margin $4,879,526 Return on Recurring Costs 0.87
Gross margin per plant $6 Gross margin per hectare $491,452 Gross margin per square metre $49
Net margin / EBIT $2,247,813 ROI 16.27% Very Favourable Outcome Benefit to Cost ratio (10 yr) 1.29 Favourable Outcome
Net margin per plant $3 Net margin per hectare $226,393 Net margin per square metre $23
Net Present Value Benefit : Cost PV ROI IRR NPV over 5 years $2,975,147.22 1.06 6% 11% NPV over 10 years $19,219,678.80 1.29 29% 24% NPV over 15 years $31,797,246.69 1.40 40% 26% NPV over 20 years $41,535,613.92 1.45 45% 27%
Payback 9 years & Favourable Outcome 2months
Approx. Operating cost per kilogram produ $5.77 per kg Average operating cost per kilogram sold $4.69 per kg Real cost per kilogram sold $11.59 per kg
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 107 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Table 34 Summary of costs for the Northern CRID Farmlands Site ‐ strawberry
Project name CRID site (Strawberry)
Production area 10.08 hectares Number of crops 1 per year 100800 m2 Plant density 8 per m2 Number of plants 806400 Assumed real interest rate 5.25% Capital costs inflation 0.00% Recurring costs inflation 0.00% NPV recurring costs inflation 0.00%
Capital expenditure Cost per unit Cost Annualised cost ($) External funds Adjusted Annualised prodn area (m2) contributed cost ($) Land purchase$ 1,000,000.00 $ 81,952.28 $ - $ - Site preparation$ 22.59 $ 1,277,200.00 $ 104,669.46 $ - $ 186,621.74 Structures Production greenhouse$ 83.52 $ 8,418,800.88 $ 896,998.46 $ - $ 896,998.46 Nursery greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - R&D greenhouse$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Postharvest facility$ 22.80 $ 2,298,368.00 $ 188,356.51 $ - $ 188,356.51 Office and Admin$ 0.58 $ 58,464.00 $ 4,791.26 $ - $ 4,791.26 Other buildings$ 0.47 $ 47,000.00 $ 3,851.76 $ - $ 3,851.76 Production greenhouse fitout$ 19.26 $ 1,941,105.60 $ 248,150.52 $ - $ 248,150.52 Heating and Cooling$ 26.82 $ 2,703,680.00 $ 221,572.75 $ - $ 221,572.75 Water management$ 18.99 $ 1,914,000.00 $ 161,523.95 $ - $ 161,523.95 Power and Energy$ 1.14 $ 115,000.00 $ 9,424.51 $ - $ 9,424.51 Waste management $ 0.05 $ 5,000.00 $ 409.76 $ - $ 409.76 Mobile equipment$ 4.44 $ 448,000.00 $ 58,724.52 $ - $ 58,724.52 MIscellaneous equipment$ 0.30 $ 30,000.00 $ 6,977.20 $ - $ 6,977.20 Management and control systems$ 6.35 $ 639,968.00 $ 148,839.48 $ - $ 148,839.48 Installation, construction & commission$ 5.44 $ 548,620.00 $ 577,422.55 $ - $ 577,422.55
Working capital$ 5,590,393.99
Total$ 212.75 $ 26,035,600.47 $ 8,222,106.67 $ 26,035,600.47 $ 8,304,058.95 excl working cap. $ 20,445,206.48 $ 20,445,206.48
Recurrent expenditure (Proportion of growing) Set up and clean out 100% $ 0.50 $ 50,400.00 $ - Crop production 100% $ 2.29 $ 230,832.00 $ - IPM & Biosecurity 100% $ 1.73 $ 174,490.43 $ - Power and Energy 95% $ 13.77 $ 1,387,725.00 $ - Postharvest 0% $ 17.55 $ 1,769,102.62 $ - Maintenance and Repairs 75% $ 0.32 $ 32,620.00 $ - Office and administration 50% $ 3.87 $ 390,223.93 $ -
Labour Human Resources$ 15.43 $ 1,555,000.00 $ - Management 75%$ 1.94 $ 195,714.29 Production 100%$ 46.92 $ 4,730,000.00 Postharvest 0%$ 8.84 $ 891,000.00 $ 5,816,714.29 Total$ 55.46 $ 5,590,393.99 $ - $ 5,590,393.99
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 108 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
11 Stakeholder Register The following contacts are people we have either already spoken to with regard to the project or intend to engage with during the investigation. The latter are those bracketed in Table 35.
Table 35 Stakeholder Register Organisation / Company Contact Person Contact Details Shire of Collie Mr David Blurton, CEO 08 9734 9000 / [email protected] Cr Sarah Henderson, Shire President Griffin Coal Mr Brant Edwards, Technical 0478 406 097 / Services & Environmental Manager [email protected] South‐West Development Mr Simon Taylor SWDC Bunbury Commission Industry Development 0427086857 Member for Collie Mr Mick Murray Collie Electoral Office 97342073 Collie Focus Group Mr Peter Piavanini 0428931845 Mr Glyn Yates 0407445280 Mr Neil Martin 0418931845 Cr Joe Italiano Elders Real Estate Mr Noel Jones 97265277 Rural Property Specialist and Water Broker Harvey Water Mr Bradd Hamersley 97290124 General Manager Doral Mining Mr Adachi 0417985449 Iwatani Corporation Deputy Managing Director Adachi‐[email protected] Bluewaters Power Mr Steve Deonck 97796201 Station Manager Department of Planning, Lands Ms Marion Dandridge 97910577 and Heritage Planning Manager
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 109 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 110 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
12 References 1. South West Development Commission. South West Regional Blueprint. 2016. 2. Collie Economic Development Task Force. Reimagining Collie / Draft Report. 2016. 3. Deloitte Access Economics. Action plan for tranforming agriculture in South Western Western Australia. 2015. 4. Various Consultant Groups for Collie Shire. Collie Super Town ‐ townsite Growth Plans. 2012. 5. Shire of Collie. Corporate Business Plan 2012/13 ‐ 2016/17. 2015. 6. The South West Development Commission et.al. Roads to Export ‐ Greater Bunbury Infrastructure Investment Plan. Bunbury : s.n., 2010. 7. Water Corporation. Water Forever: South West Final Report. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2015. 8. Department of Health Western Australia. Food Access and Cost Survey (FACS), Western Australia. 2010. 9. —. Food Access and Cost Survey 2013 Report. 2013. 10. Department of Agriculture and Food WA. Western Australia's Agrifood, Fibre, fishereis, Forestry Industries. 2016. 11. GHD ‐ Report for DAFWA. Economic analysis of irrigated agriculture development options for the Pilbara. 2015. 12. Lee, A., Enthoven, N., Kaarsemaker, R. Best Practice Guidelines for Greenhouse Water Management . s.l. : http://static.rockwool.com/globalassets/grodan/downloads/corporate/best‐practice‐ water‐management.pdf, 2016. 13. WA Department of Water . Hydroponic Plant Growing . s.l. : https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/4037/84604.pdf, 2013. 14. An Austrian farm is growing cherries in a greenhouse heated with biogas. Hansen, M. March 2009, s.l. : Good Fruit Grower, http://www.goodfruit.com/rodent‐eating‐ machines‐2/, 2009. 15. Islam, N, et al. Multipliers: Western Australian Agriculture and Food Industries. South Perth, Western Australia : Department of Agriculture and food , 2010. 16. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Primary Industries. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. s.l. : www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/water/nwqms‐guidelines‐4‐vol1.pdf, 2000. 17. Smith, G. Overview of the Australian Protected Cropping Industry. s.l. : Accessed January 2018. https://www.protectedcroppingaustralia.com/wp‐ content/uploads/2016/06/National‐Training‐Centre‐for‐Controlled‐Environment‐ Horticulture‐PART‐1.pdf, 2016. 18. Time and Date. Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia — Sunrise, Sunset, and Daylength, January 2018. [Online] https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/bunbury. 19. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. Management of the Greenhouse Envionment. [Online] https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2902. 20. Brown, J. Light in the Greenhouse: How Much is Enough? CropKing Incorporated . [Online] http://www.hort.vt.edu/ghvegetables/documents/GH%20Lighting/Light%20in%20the%2 0Greenhouse_JBrown.pdf. 21. Kittas, C., Katsoulaaos, N., Bartzanas, T., Baaker, S. Greenhouse Climate Control and Energy Use. [book auth.] FAO. Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops: Principles for Mediterrean Climate Areas. Rome : FAO of the United Nations, 2013.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 111 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
22. Kelly, J., Ryan, B. Polyhouse Expansion on the Northern Adelaide Plains. Adelaide South Australia : Arris, 2015. 23. Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities. International Airline Activity ‐ Time Series. [Online] 2017. https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/international_airline_activity‐time_series.aspx. 24. Splichal, B. Commercial production of ‘Frontenac’ grapes in greenhouses. s.l. : Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, 2015. 25. Soilless greenhouse production of table grape under Mediterranean conditions. Buttaro, D., Serio, F., Santamaria, P. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256547182_Soilless_greenhouse_production_ of_table_grape_under_Mediterranean_conditions, s.l. : Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 2012, Vol. 10. 26. Marijana Business Daily. Chart of the Week: Profitability in the Cannabis Industry. Marijana Business Daily. May 9, 2016, 9 MAy 2016. 27. Norris, G. Medical cannabis being made at top secret Sunshine Coast facility. The Courier‐Mail. July 25, 25 July 2017. 28. AgriFutures Australia. Bush Tomato. s.l. : AgriFutures Australia. 29. Ryder, M, Latham, Y. Cultivation of Native Food Plants in South‐eastern Australia. Sydney : Rural Indusrties Research and Development Corporation, 2005. 30. Ryan, B., Kelly, J. Polyhouse expansion on the Northern Adelaide Plains. Virginis South Australia : Virginia Irrigation Association, 2015. Technical Report. 31. Bensley, T. Exporting Vegetables to China: Examining Opportunities and Barriers. 2013. 32. Port Jackson Partners. Greener Pastures: The Global Soft Commodity Opportunity of Australia and New Zealand. [Online] 2012. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ua ct=8&ved=0CC4QFjADahUKEwjUy8vc1pPJAhWIg6YKHWXtCPI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. anzbusiness.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fanz‐ superregional%2FAgricultureInsightsGreenerPastures.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEdfP. 33. Duggan, J. China's middle class turns to organics after food safety scares. s.l. : The Guardian, 2014. 34. Yongmin, B. Challenges for Food Safety in China. 2004, Vol. 53. 35. Radhakrishnan, Manju. Market Opportunities for WA Fruits. Perth, Western Australia : Department of Primary Industriies and Regional Development, 2017. 36. —. Market Opportuniities for Tomatoes (Fresh and Chilled). Perth, Western Australia : Department of Primary Industriies and Regional Development, Internal Report, 2017. 37. —. Market Opportunities for Cranberries, bilberries and other fruits of the genus Vaccinium. Perth, Western Australia : Department of Primary Industriies and Regional Development, Internal Report, 2017. 38. —. (Market Opportunities) Fruits of the Genus Capsicum or Pimenta. Perth, Western Australia : Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Internal Report, 2017. 39. RMCG. Capsicum Imports 2015. Sydney : s.n., 2016. 40. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR). [Online] Australian Government, 2017. https://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/default.aspx#k=#s=16. 41. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention. FAO Agreement ISPM10 ‐ Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. Rome : Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2011.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 112 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
42. Horticulture Innovation Australia. Trade Assessment Panel ‐ Assessment and prioritisation process. [Online] 2017. http://horticulture.com.au/wp‐ content/uploads/2016/07/TAP‐Assessment‐and‐prioritisation‐process.pdf. 43. Strik, B. C. Flowering and Fuiting on Command in Berry Crops. [Online] 2012. http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/system/files/u178/AH24_Strik_flowering_fruiting_on _command_in_berries_926,197‐214_2012.pdf. 44. MarketWest. Perth Market Price Reporting. [Online] 2017. http://pricing.marketwest.com.au/. 45. Australian State and Territory Governments. Australian Interstate Quarantine. [Online] 2017. http://www.interstatequarantine.org.au/producers/. 46. Gallardo, M., Thompson, R.B., Fernande, M.D. Water requirements and Irrigation Management in Mediterranean Greenhouses: the case for the southeast coast of Spain. [book auth.] Food and Agricultural Organisation and International Society for Horticultural Science. Good Agricultural Practice for Greenhouse Vgetable Crops: Principles for Mediterranean Climate Areas. Roame : Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, 2013, 6. 47. Badgery‐Parker, Jeremy. Greenhouse Energy Estimator Tool. 48. De Pascale, S., Orsini, F., Pardosi, A. Irrigation water quality for greenhouse horticulture. [book auth.] FAO. Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable crops. Rome : FAO, 2013. 49. Bailey, D., Bilderback, T., Bir, D. Water Considerations for Container Production of Plants. http://www.nurserycropscience.info/water/source‐water‐quality/extension‐ pubs/water‐consideration‐for‐can‐plants‐ncsu.pdf/at_download/file : North Carolina Cooperative Extension Services, 1999. 50. Department of Water. Upper Collie Water Allocation Plan. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2009. 51. —. South West groundwater areas allocation plan. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2009. 52. —. Lower Collie surface water allocation plan. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2016. 53. Hamersley, B. personal communication. 2017. 54. Arris Pty Ltd. Collie Local feasibility study (draft for internal use). Adelaide, South Australia : s.n., 2017. 55. —. Collie Local feasibility study Multi Criteria Analysis (draft for internal use). Adelaide, South Australia : s.n., 2017. 56. LandCorp and Department of State Development Western Australia. Kemerton Strategic Industrial Area, Structure Plan. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2017. 57. Arris Pty Ltd. Collie water resource study (draft for internal use). Adelaide, South Australia : s.n., 2017. 58. —. Myalup‐CRID water resource study (draft for internal use). Adelaide, South Australia : s.n., 2017. 59. Department of Planning. Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No 1. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2017. 60. Western Australian Planning Commission. Greater Bunbury Strategy 2013, Final Report. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2013. 61. AusVeg Ltd / Horticulture Australia Ltd. EnviroVeg Manual. s.l. : AusVeg Ltd, 2007. 62. Radhakrishnan, Manju. WA horticulture export markets ‐ Where can we make a difference. s.l. : DAFWA, 2017. 63. Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Coriolis, Vegetables WA. Finding the Sweet Spot: Growing WA Vegetable Exports (interim Draft). 2016. 64. Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia. Market Opportunities for Fruit. 2017.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 113 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
65. Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Coriolis. Pathways to Competitiveness. 2016. 66. —. Premium Agrifood Market Opportunity. 2016. 67. —. Target Market Opportunities in Asia for Fresh Carrots. 2016. 68. Mann, Nicky. Intensive Berry Production. Using Greenhouses, Substrates and Hydroponics. Is this the way forward? s.l. : HIA / Nuffield Farming Society, 2015. 69. Department of Water. Myalup‐Wellington Project, Water for Food Program booklet. Perth, Western Australia : s.n., 2017.
12.1 Reference Document Summaries (62) WA horticulture export markets ‐ Where we can make a difference • Study includes 14 crops of greater than $1m value and evaluation against 14 criteria. • Plums, melons and grapes will benefit from horizontal integration while apples and carrots will benefit from value add opportunities. • Avocadoes and strawberries have a lot of potential but market access barriers prevail. • Potatoes, apples and celery also have good indicators in some sectors. • Strawberries are a major export crop with WA export value of $27.6m at an average price of $8.60/kg. • WA prices for all commodities in study were above global average prices and in some cases (Including strawberries) more than 100%. • Strawberries, grapes and apples from WA are not being supplied into the premium sector of the market. • WA is the third largest supplier of melons into the UAE with 15.5% of the market. India is the top supplier. • All the high value markets (Japan, China, South Korea) have import restrictions. • Minimal difference between export and domestic market prices for strawberries. • For strawberries, WA has a seasonal advantage, branding and varietal improvements would benefit industry and market access to the Japan market will be important for future growth.
(63) Finding the Sweet Spot: Growing WA Vegetable Exports • Scope of study limited to fresh vegetables excluding potatoes and market opportunities in East Asia, South East Asia, Middle East, Indian subcontinent and East/South Africa. • Export markets are the only opportunity for significant industry growth for vegetables. • WA vegetable exports have been relatively stable over the last 20 years with average un‐weighted value of $82m pa. • Most important export markets have been SE Asia and the Middle East (UAE). • Middle East market is growing in importance as a destination for WA vegetables. • Most countries and regions can produce most of vegetables for their own consumption most of the time. • Ceiling prices for vegetables in any region is generally set by local cost of production in greenhouses. • Biosecurity and trade barriers impact on market access for many countries. • In 2015, China exported US$4b worth of vegetables to more than 20 international markets.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 114 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• High cost / high quality Western vegetable producers (Netherlands) are increasing vegetable exports. • WA export vegetable growth should only focus on Tier 1 countries (triaged based on country GDP per capita) and include Malaysia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, UAE, Qatar, Hong Kong and Singapore. • Best upside growth indicators are for UAE, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea. • Protected production crops with the best upside growth indicators for the selected markets are mushrooms, tomatoes and lettuce. • Report contains detailed market by crop analysis.
(64) Market Opportunities for Fruits • Seven fruit crops analysed. Greenhouse production could be considered for 3 crops analysed including melons, strawberries and grapes. • Best potential markets for melons identified as Bahrain, Hong Kong, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, Singapore, UAE, Vietnam. • Best potential markets for strawberries identified as Bahrain, Hong Kong, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, New Zealand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, UAE. • Best potential markets for grapes identified as China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam. • Currently no access for melons into Vietnam and strawberries into Japan and Taiwan. • Grapes have less market access issues than other fruits. • Global imports for all fruits in the study have had a steady growth in quantity and price over the last 5 years. • Japanese market is open for melons – need to target premium, high quality sector of the market. • The third quarter is the seasonal window for WA strawberries (for Japan). • Report contains detailed market and crop analysis data including tariff information.
(65) Pathways to Competitiveness • Report analyses the current WA situation and opportunities across the whole agri‐food sector. • Only a handful of WA industries are internationally competitive and at a global scale eg grains. • This project is targeted at agrifood sectors with the potential to grow five or ten times larger through a rapid expansion of exports to Asia. • Market demand is not an issue, markets want all we grow in WA. • Informative report agri‐business analysis and on improving market competitiveness. • Recommends strategy for implementation by WA government to build export markets. • No greenhouse crops included in study – citrus and potatoes included.
(66) Premium Agrifood Market Opportunity • Evaluation and definition of premium and organic markets.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 115 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Only opportunities highlighted that could possibly link to this project were processed products including fermented foods, marinated vegetables, chilli/hot sauces, chutneys/pickles/relishes. • Marinated vegetables were identified as a good opportunity for the South West Region of WA. • Potentially valuable report if a value add component were to be considered for a greenhouse crop.
(67) Target Market Opportunities in Asia for Fresh Carrots • This is one of a series of 20 similar reports on a range of agri‐food industries in WA with the same market and opportunities type analysis. Reports can be located on the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development web site https://www.dpird.wa.gov.au/. • No crops analysed are directly applicable to greenhouse production. • Covers Asian market structure and opportunities, WA products and market growth potential and potential in‐market partners. • The horticulture crop reports may be useful in identify in‐market partner opportunities for any greenhouse crops from this project.
(68). Intensive Berry Production. Using Greenhouses, Substrates and Hydroponics. Is this the way forward? From Soilless Australia Media Article • Report from scholarship travel to including USA and Europe. • Compares traditional field cropping with protected cropping systems for blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and strawberries. • Berries are the number 1 fruit category by value in the USA with an annual market growth rate of 4.2% (2015 data). • Similar market growth has occurred on the Australian domestic market. • Coco ‐peat is a common substrate medium used throughout the world. • Netherlands blue berry production using substrates was up to 37.5t/ha. • Variety of different containers used – strawberries in long shallow white troughs with coco‐peat and blueberries in 40l poly weave grow bags were used in very successful operations. • Best greenhouse strawberry production systems used hi‐tech greenhouse 2 2 construction – cost A$450 per m . Yield at 15 kg/m . CO2 enriched. Bumblebees and honey bees for pollination. • Blueberries generally in low‐tech greenhouses. Economics of using hi‐tech greenhouses has not been proven. 10kg per plant yield from 4th year onwards. • Raspberries in hi‐tech greenhouse. Yield 2kg per plant. 10l pot with coco‐peat and Trichoderma substrate. 3 stem systems in linear trellising. • Raspberries being successfully air‐freighted from South Africa to European markets. • CA refrigerated containers being used to ship blueberries from South America to Europe. From Full Report • Genetic selection and improvement of the various berry varieties is advancing swiftly but so too is the control of a few powerful breeders and marketing companies so when growers select good varieties to grow they are selecting their marketing avenue too. • The protected cropping of berries in greenhouses using substrates and hydroponics is in its infancy. As a result, the early adopters of this sophisticated
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 116 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
and innovative method of berry production are considered pioneers in the industry. They have no alternative but to experiment and work on a process of educated trial and error because every farm, region, grower, market, berry crop and variety differs enormously and demands a different solution. • The berry industry has become increasingly versatile over time and today consists not only of fresh fruit, but also of frozen, dried, extracts, juices, pulps, beverages, oils and other highly specialised ingredients and/or products. • For strawberries, the emergence of high tech glasshouse production utilising substrates and hydroponic systems, strawberry yields have jumped to 15kg per m² which equates to 150t/ha. • The Australian Blueberry Industry is very well represented through its peak industry body, the Australian Blueberry Growers Association (ABGA), and has an active Industry Development Officer (IDO) in Phillip Wilk who is passionate and works very hard for the growers. There are a number of independent blueberry breeders concentrating on Southern Highbush varieties and we also have the Costa Group in conjunction with the global berry giant, Driscolls® active here. As a result, there is no shortage of new and exciting varieties emerging that are suited to the various climatic conditions in Australia. These new varieties are also being sold around the globe and are highly sought after for their size, flavour and vigour. • Blueberry production in hi‐tech greenhouses could still possibly be considered somewhat experimental in that many of the refinements in production environment to ensure high yield and high quality production have not been determined. • Valuable crop production information included in the report.
(35) Market Opportunities for WA Fruits • This report analyses the market opportunities for seven fruits — apples, avocados, grapes, melons, oranges, plums and strawberries. These fruits were selected in response to an earlier analysis by Radhakrishnan, 2017, in which selection was based on current export level (more than $1 million) or supply expansion or potential identified in other reports. • Asian and Middle Eastern markets are the focus. • The only crop from our selected group covered in this report is strawberries and comments below are relevant to the research into strawberries. • Bahrain, Hong Kong, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, New Zealand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, UAE are high potential markets with access. • Japan and Taiwan are high potential markets where we do not have access. • International market competitors are US, Egypt, South Korea, New Zealand. • WA has a clear seasonal advantage for strawberries as US is the only country exporting strawberries during third quarter (July to September). • The strawberry industry would benefit from gaining market access to Japan, which is a high value and high unit value importer of strawberries. • Australia receives the second highest price in exports among the top 20 exporters globally. • The Australian export price is 150% higher than the global average.
(37) Market Opportunities for Berries (Blueberries, Cranberries, bilberries and other fruits of the genus Vaccinium) • Australia is a net importer with a net import tonnage of 1048t in 2016, principally from New Zealand.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 117 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Hong Kong is Australia’s largest export market ($4.155m in 2016). • Singapore is the main destination for WA production ($1.701m in 2016). • China is the largest importer among the Asian countries. • Chile is the largest exporter with a share of 30% of global exports. Chile is the major competitor for Australia in nearly all Asian markets, however Chile does not supply at the high end of the market. New Zealand supplies at the high end of the market, and the highest unit value exporter among the top 20 exporters. • WA has distance advantage and tariff advantage in most of the Asian and Middle East countries. • WA do not have access to China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all of which are protocol markets with high potential. • China is the largest importer in Asia with good growth rate, WA has distance advantage and competition is less. Tariff will be phased out to zero in 2019. Blueberry is in the list of negotiations with China. • Both Japan and Taiwan are a premium importer, with reasonable volume. WA has distance advantage in both countries. Tasmania has access to Japan. • South Korea is also a premium importer with good distance advantage for WA, and has less competition.
(36) Market Opportunities for Tomatoes (Fresh and Chilled) • Singapore is Australia’s largest export market with a total value of $800k at $5.71/kg in 2016. • The top importing Asian and Middle East countries are UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, on average, all three import under the global average import price of $1.57/kg. • UAE and Saudi Arabia are heavy volume importers. • Japan is a premium importer. • All the Middle East, Asian and South East Asian countries have reasonably high competition. • WA does not have distance advantage in any of these destinations. Most of the supply seems to be from neighbouring countries. • The challenge for WA would be to identify a premium segment of the market, as we may not be price competitive. • Information is not available for separate categories of tomato. This is a limitation of this study.
(38) (Market Opportunities) Fruits of the Genus Capsicum or Pimenta • Australia has a negligible share of the global capsicum exports market. • Japan has a high market potential, but Australia has no market access. • New Zealand is Australia’s major export destination. • Price growth is the highest in Hong Kong and Qatar in the past two and five years. • Imports in our regions of interest are generally from neighbouring countries or countries in their region. However, Hong Kong’s imports are highest from the Netherlands (22%) but with low volumes. Whether this market is a better niche premium quality market than others cannot be ascertained from the data available. • China is a significant supplier into Thailand and Taiwan. • Large number of competitors in the market. • No seasonal advantage as most of the competitor’s supply throughout the year.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 118 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• India is a major competitor in most of the markets at lower price points. • South Korea is a competitor at higher price points. • Australia's export price is 94% higher than the global average export price ($2.03 per kg). However South Korean export price is 6.3% higher than Australian average. South Korea exported capsicum worth of $128 million and is the seventh largest exporter in the world. Hence there are opportunities at the premium markets for high value product. • WA does not have a seasonal advantage as most of the competitors supply the product throughout the season. • Australia has tariff advantage in Japan and Thailand. However, tariffs are low in general. • Japan is a premium importer, importing high volumes, but WA does not have access to Japan. Only product from Tasmania is allowed into Japan from Australia.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 119 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 120 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Greenhouse Structure Comparative Assessment for Specific Crops
An overview of appropriate technology selection Background Protected cropping (PC) is best defined as the production of horticultural crops within, under or sheltered by artificial structures and/or materials to provide and/or enable modified growing conditions and/or protection from pests and adverse weather. Protected cropping encompasses a number of other terms including greenhouse horticulture, plasticulture, low cost protected cropping (LCPC) and controlled environment horticulture (CEH). Protected cropping represents the application of a corresponding technological response to a continuum of constraints in the growing environment. It involves the use of structures, materials and technologies (with appropriate practices) to influence temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, water, fertiliser and light and to mitigate adverse impacts of the natural environment in a desired production location. Protected cropping, in general, strives to address numerous environmental constraints of crop production, ultimately leading to a fully controlled environment in which the aim is to manage all factors in the growing environment. Controlled Environment Horticulture, also referred to as controlled environment agriculture (CEA) combines the use of climate controlled protective environments with highly efficient hydroponic (soilless) growing systems to reliably and predicably grow high quality fresh product under variable climatic conditions, year‐round. Controlled environment production is the most sophisticated level of protected cropping. At the opposite end of the continuum, Low cost protected cropping is a deliberate strategy to address a single (or limited number of) key production (or marketing) factors using one or more protected cropping elements. There is a wide array of technologies and practices (and combinations of these) available in the field of protected cropping and new technologies continue to be developed. Over‐capitalisation is a common challenge in protected cropping.
Key types of protected cropping structures A greenhouse is a generic term that includes any structure that is enclosed with a water impermeable cladding material such as polyethylene, polycarbonate or glass and subsequently encompasses terms such as polyhouse and glasshouse which can be used to indicate the type of cladding material. A greenhouse may also have a retractable roof and/or side walls. A tunnel (also known as a hoop house, cold frame, igloo or quonset) is a semi‐circular or dome shaped plastic‐clad greenhouse, typically 2 ‐ 3.5 metres high at the highest point. A plastic cladding material is used over a simple frame. A cloche (also known as a low tunnel) is a semi‐circular or
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 121 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
dome shaped structure less than 2 metres high at the highest point. A light cladding material, usually net or fine plastic, is fastened over a simple or light frame. A screenhouse refers to a fully enclosed structure. It is similar to a greenhouse except it has a covering material that is permeable to air and moisture, for example shadecloth (known as a shadehouse) or insect screening (known as a screenhouse or nethouse). A crop canopy, sometimes also known as a 'crop‐top' structure consists of a covering material suspended (usually at height) over a cropping area while the sides remain open. Materials that may be used depend on the desired protective element and include plastic (known as a rainshelter), shadecloth (sometimes referred to as a shadescreen), hail‐net and bird‐net.
Categorising protected cropping Although protected cropping specifications should be considered a continuum, it is commonly segmented into three technology levels – low, medium and high. These categories can be useful in simplifying different investment outlooks, but it needs to be recognised that while ‘high tech’ is often considered the best option, the wide range of technologies and how they are combined or integrated can result in completely different set‐ups. Project feasibility is determined by the appropriateness of the technology. Importantly, the structure shell is a key component of a protected cropping system and it is a principal determinant of maximum performance capacity. The array of technologies that complete a system include: cladding (diffusing, anti‐static, anti‐condensate, light spectrum modification, smart plastics, smart glass), ventilation (vents, extraction fans, retractable roof), circulation fans (HAF, VAF), evaporative cooling (wet pads, fogging, misting), heating (air, hydronic, radiant), grow pipes, heat buffer tanks, ground source heat, heat exchangers, energy screens, insect screens, dehumidification, CO2 supplementation, pipe rail, automated carts, closed hydroponics, raised gutters, water disinfection, supplementary lighting and real time crop monitoring. The integration and automation of incorporated technologies significantly enhances performance. Low tech Low tech systems are characterised by structures in which the growing conditions are difficult to manage. Structures are low profile, having a peak height of less than 3.5m, typically no vertical side walls and a small volume to surface area ratio. The most common examples are tunnels (igloos) and cloches. These structures have limited ventilation and no automated environmental control. Low tech systems may include heating, however, they are energy inefficient. Overall, low tech structures provide very limited means of environmental control. They are poor performers, especially in warm to hot climates. These structures tend to be comparatively cheap upfront but have relatively high production costs and limitations on productivity. Low tech systems are difficult to upgrade or integrate. Medium tech Medium tech systems tend to utilise better quality structures but are height restricted – the gutter height is less than 4m. These greenhouses have vertical walls enabling efficient use of the footprint and reasonable access for equipment. There is ideally roof ventilation or an active cooling system or at the very least, wall vents. Overall, cooling capacity in warm to hot climates is suboptimal. A supplementary evaporative cooling system, such as high‐pressure fogging may be installed. Medium tech systems generally have a heating system and some automation of environmental control. Most commonly, medium tech structures will have polyethylene cladding.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 122 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
High tech The foundation of a high tech (hi‐tech) protected cropping system is a structure with a gutter height more than 4m and passive roof ventilation of at least 30% of floor area and/or an active cooling system. Heating and integrated automated environmental control are installed. System variations evolving include semi‐closed and closed greenhouses. Essentially these concepts involve reducing the direct exchange of air with the external environment and using heating, active cooling and dehumidification to manage internal conditions, precondition intake air and extract heat, carbon dioxide and/or moisture from exhaust air.
General cost considerations There is a wide potential for cost variation in each and every component of a protected cropping system. The range of materials is diverse, the scope of equipment is broad and the integration of choices incorporates a collection of decision points, from physical location to energy and water considerations, from risk management to crop choice, from specialised set ups to more versatile facilities. An effective heating system can account for up to 30% of the project cost and integrated automation can account for some 15%. The most substantial cost variations tend to revolve around (a) physical location, (b) the cladding material (for example, glass versus polyethylene film), (c) the risk allowances and design redundancies (such as excess heating capacity or water storage) and (d) future proofing (for example mechanisation and automation) to offset future labour costs. Similarly, a project requiring potential crop versatility will necessarily need to consider a ‘higher spec’ structure. A constancy across all protected cropping projects is that significant economies of scale are obtainable. A ten‐fold increase in production area can realise a 15 – 25% saving in capital costs per unit area.
Table 1 Example establishment estimates Element 1 hectare 10 hectares 100 hectares Site preparation 100,000 450,000 4,000,000 Structure 2,050,000 18,500,000 174,650,000 Equipment, machinery 440,000 800,000 4,500,000
Packing, postharvest 300,000 2,000,000 5,100,000
Office and amenities 60,000 150,000 750,000 Total $ 2,950,000 $ 21,900,000 $189,000,000 $2.95m/ha $2.19m/ha $1.89m/ha Source: Primary Principles (2013), Protecting Australia’s Growing Opportunities Key feature decision points • Ventilation (and air exchange) directly impacts on the capacity of the greenhouse to provide suitable growing conditions and minimise risks of extreme adverse conditions. A common limitation of medium tech systems is that during extreme temperatures, sufficient removal of excess heat cannot be achieved due inadequate air exchange capacity. Redundant capacity is a critical consideration. • Active ventilation systems including semi‐closed/closed greenhouses are more capital‐ intensive technologies which can impact on perceived value of redundant capacity. Passive ventilation is the lowest cost method of air exchange and can be manually operated during power or computer failures. Active air exchange is more precisely controllable.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 123 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) supplementation is not universally warranted. Increasingly this technology is used in tomato production, primarily in locations where significant levels of
heating are required, capitalising on the recapture of CO2 from combustion exhaust. The
feasibility of CO2 supplementation for most crops has not be quantified. • The source of energy used in a protected cropping system has substantial and potentially long‐term cost (and emissions) implications. In addition to cost, availability and reliability of supply are significant factors. Ground source heat (geothermal) as well as other renewables have a significant potential to complement, if not replace, fossil fuels in the near term. • Intended use is an important consideration. Low and medium tech systems can be set up and be suitable for some crops and upgrading or retrofitting is not generally viable. High end protected cropping systems are fundamentally about effective control of the internal environment under variable (and extreme) ambient conditions and so can be utilised (or accessorised) for any crop. • Climate variability is increasingly impacting on horticulture. Low to medium tech systems can be set up for expected or typical environmental conditions. High end systems are resilient and versatile and the automation of a range of integrated technologies enable the system to handle unexpected situations and/or low frequency extremes. • Roof profile has an impact on internal air volume, height above crop, ventilation efficiency and light transmission. High roof peaks increase the air volume leading to more stable internal conditions and increase the height above the crop of excess heat. Ventilation at the peak is more effective than vents at lower points in the structure. Vents on opposing sides of the roof (compared to on one side only) significantly increase venting capacity and performance under variable weather conditions. A curved roof profile has a higher average transmission of light over the course of a year. A flat or skillion roof has the lowest average transmission of light over the course of a year. • Production system differentiation is primarily between soil and soilless (hydroponic). Hydroponic systems are inherently more uniform, productive, controllable and resource efficient than soil. Natural soils vary significantly between locations and require active, continual management to optimise for specific crops and manage pathogens. An array of hydroponic systems exist and can be selected for specific situations and readily changed. Depending on marketing intentions, it is currently difficult for hydroponics to comply with existing organic/biodynamic accreditations in Australia. • Cladding selection impacts on capital and recurring costs as well as overall performance of a protected cropping system. Historically glass has been the superior (and more expensive) cladding option with high durability, high light transmission and low maintenance requirements. Plastic films and sheeting provide a range of lower upfront cost options with varying performance parameters. Over the life of a greenhouse structure, the degradation and periodic replacement of plastic films can be equivalent to or slightly higher than the cost of glazing. The addition of useful characteristics into plastic films, however, can provide additional benefit. The development of smart glass and higher performing and vastly more durable plastics continues to warrant project specific assessment of options. Upfront cost typically remains a key factor.
Emerging technologies • Smart glass is a collective term to describe technologies under development which could enable unnecessary or excess proportions of radiation to be converted to redirectable forms
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 124 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
of energy (heat or electricity) or to selectively convert unnecessary frequencies of radiation passing through the cladding into desirable frequencies. Other potential technologies include embedding customisable or even variable screening (shading) capacity within the glass. • Polyethylene cladding can be manufactured with a range of properties. Standard materials include UV stabilisers to extend durability, anti‐condensate additives that prevent water droplets forming and anti‐static additives which prevent dust, dirt and smog sticking to the cladding. Newer additives include infra‐red (IR) traps which prevent radiant heat from passing through the film. Applied to the internal layer, these additives prevent heat energy escaping the greenhouse. Applied to the external layers, these additives can reduce incoming daytime heat. These films also impact on crop colour, compactness and development. Additives to manipulate ultraviolet (UV) radiation can also be used. Blocking UV radiation can reduce several key greenhouse crop pests, though it will also impact on bees if these are used for pollination. Light diffusing properties can be added to increase the amount of diffused light. Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) is high performance plastic (highly durable and has light transmission rates around 95%). Manufacturing costs are falling making this product highly suitable for general commercial horticulture situations. Multilayer systems can be manufactured that enable variable solar transmission. This material is also 100% recyclable. • Ground source heat and heat pumps have significant potential in protected cropping systems1. A heat pump is a device which transfers energy. Its efficiency is related to the differential between the source temperature and the target temperature. The smaller the temperature gap, the more efficient the process. The Earth’s surface absorbs around 50% of the incoming solar radiation from the sun. The sheer mass of the earth means that the ground has a relatively stable temperature throughout the year, so when heat is needed (in winter), the ground is relatively warm and when cooling is required (in summer), the ground is relatively cool. The relatively small differential between average soil temperature in Australia and common target greenhouse temperatures suggest this technology has significant potential. • Phase change materials (PCM) are substances that can absorb a relatively large amount of heat energy while changing phase (melts) but remain at a fairly constant temperature during this change. The energy is stored within the material until the opposite phase change occurs, that is, the material becomes a solid and the energy is released. Incorporating a PCM that has a suitable phase change temperature in a greenhouse can potentially absorb excess heat energy during the day and release energy at night. PCM could be used a primary method of temperature management in a greenhouse or to complement other heating systems by evening out extremes of temperature.
1 An Assessment: The benefits and costs of three potential energy options for greenhouse heating (2013), Primary Principles and EHR Consultants. Report for the HAL supported industry project, Increasing energy efficiency and assessing an alternative energy option for Australian protected cropping.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 125 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Parameter Low tech Medium tech High tech – poly High tech – glass Cost guide (est.) $30 – 50 /m2 $70 – 90 /m2 $150 – 250 /m2 $200 – 350 /m2 Potential crop 40 – 60% 60 – 80% 100% 100% productivity Crop suitability Salad crops Salad crops / Asian Fully versatile Fully versatile Fresh herbs veg *suitability in low Greenlife Fresh herbs to medium tech Short‐term Greenlife systems highly floriculture Floriculture dependent on Berries external climate Eggplant Cucurbits *check trellised crop load ratings of
structure Features • Basic hoop • House structure • House • House structure • Polyethylene structure structure • Polyethylene cladding • Fully • Fully cladding • Wall vents +/or engineered & engineered & • No vents roof vents <30% insurable insurable • 3.5m peak floor area • Polyethylene • Glass cladding height • 5m peak height cladding or • Roof vents • Single span • Single or Gutter polycarbonate >30% floor • Closed connected • Roof vents area +/or hydroponics spans >30% floor active cooling • Heating system area +/or • Min 5m peak • Cooling system active cooling height • Closed • Min 5m peak • Spans gutter hydroponics height connected • Computer • Spans gutter • Heating controllers connected system • Heating • Cooling system system • Closed • Cooling system hydroponics • Closed • System hydroponics integration & • System Automation integration & Automation Height 8 99 999 999 Air volume 8 99 999 999 Ventilation 8 99 999 999 Temperature 8 9 999 999 control Humidity control 8 99 999 999 Light 9 99? 99? 999 transmission Shape 99 999 999 999 Suitability for 8 99$ 999 999 internal screens Suitability for 9 99$ 999 999 automation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 126 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Parameter Low tech Medium tech High tech – poly High tech – glass Suitability for ? 99 999 999 biocontrol Suitability for 999 999 999 999 hydroponics Labour efficiency (ergonomics, 8 99? 999 999 WHS, logistics) Input efficiency 9 99 999 999 8 poor 9 good ? variable depending on factors such as location (climate), specific product and maintenance $ risk of overcapitalisation as maximum productivity and management capacity is limited
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 127 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 128 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Site Selection Multi Criteria Assessment
Collie site selection Supplementary and Treatment and Alternative energy Agricultural Evaluatio Rank Weighted Rank Strategic context Government Priority Primary WS Storage Water Quality land Tenure land characteristics Proximity to PS Access Labour contingency WS disposal options support industries n TOTAL 1.5‐1.0 Weighted Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Weighting Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess Assess t t t t t t t t t t t t t t Collie area Muja ‐ "Z" pit Lower Collie River State Forest but State Agreement applies Runoff from rehab East 100‐400 ha Powerhouse road Description Z pit (500 ML) + Z Pit salinity ~ 1000 Synergy saline Reserve can be Collie ‐ 21 km Collie ‐ 21 km Original rehab site ready for Mine rehab requirements sites ‐ Z Pit Void water can be formed to Adjacent Muja PS to Collie Reahb site adjacent to Muja PS and Pit 3 3 5 1 Lined stormwater 4 mg/L but low pH 3 disposal pipeline 3 excised with all‐of‐ 5 5 3 Electricity and coal 5 4 Brunswick ‐ 61 km 5 Brunswick ‐ 61 km 4 61.6 3 30.6 3 final form DMIR&S and hand back plus hard stand Purchase water specifications as but life 18+ yrs then Coalfields Z detention basins (~3‐4) 19 km Government Bunbury ‐ 77 km Bunbury ‐ 77 km plans runoff Trade Harvey part of rehab Hwy support Water No direct cost to Lower Collie River purchase land but Muja A & B closed Secondary sealed Z Pit estimated 500 East is 20 km away State must take Muja C & D nearing road until ML runoff (GC) responsibility after design life Coalfields Highway hand‐over State Agreement EP Act Pt 5 DBCA mine closure and hand RIWI authority to DPLH Policies and Guidelines Collie Reimagined back Unregulated water MRWA UCWAP connect to Synergy DMIRS Excising State Forest SDP DJTSI reimagining Collie
Bluewaters ‐ Ewington1 Runoff from rehab State Forest but Description State Agreement applies sites Current mining area and Lower Collie River Synergy saline Reserve can be ~ 300 ha can be Adjacent Collie ‐ 12 km Collie ‐ 12 km Rehab and mining site adjacent Mine rehab requirements plus hard stand To be formed as Boys Home Rd to current rehab plan to 3 3 5 East 5 4TSS < 500 mg/L 4 disposal pipeline 5 excised with all‐of‐ 5 formed as part of 5 Bluewaters PS ‐ life 5 Electricity and coal 5 5 Brunswick ‐ 52 km 5 Brunswick ‐ 52 km 5 74 1 36 1 Bluewater PS and Coolangatta DMIR&S and hand back runoff part of final rehab Collie‐Williams Rd pasture in place Ewington Voids ~2 km Government final rehab span ~ 25+ years Bunbury ‐ 68 km Bunbury ‐ 68 km Industrial Estate plans plus purchase support water No direct cost to purchase land but Collie‐Williams Rd State must take is main road responsibility after hand‐over Griffin owns freehold land adjacent to this area State Agreement EP Act Pt 5 mine closure and hand authority to Policies and Guidelines Collie Reimagined MRWA back connect to Synergy Excising State Forest SDP
Collie ‐ Ewington 2 Adjacent Collie A PS State Agreement applies Runoff from rehab State Forest but ‐ life span ~ 25+ Mine rehab requirements sites Description Currently dewatered void ‐ Lower Collie River No storage until Synergy saline Reserve can be ~ 300 ha can be years Collie ‐ 12 km Collie ‐ 12 km DMIR&S and hand back plus hard stand Boys Home Rd to Current mining site adjacent Collie A mid‐long term required for 1 2 5 East 5 final landscape 1TSS < 500 mg/L 4 disposal pipeline 5 excised with all‐of‐ 2 formed as part of 3 Note by the time 2 Electricity and coal 5 5 Brunswick ‐ 52 km 5 Brunswick ‐ 52 km 5 58.65 5 28.65 4 plans runoff Collie‐Williams Rd PS deep mining ‐ no void Voids formed ‐ >10 years ~2 km Government final rehab this mine is Bunbury ‐ 68 km Bunbury ‐ 68 km Handback at least >10 plus purchase support rehabilitated <10 years water years life No direct cost to purchase land but Collie‐Williams Rd State must take is main road responsibility after hand‐over State Agreement EP Act Pt 5 mine closure and hand authority to Policies and Guidelines Collie Reimagined MRWA back connect to Synergy Excising State Forest SDP
Myalup‐CRID comparison area
Kemerton SIA Buffer Zone Buffer 100 ha LandCorp Winter GWL 0‐ Needs approval Sealed road Protected SIA for heavy This location prefer heavy Harvey Water Harvey Dam <350 5mbgl near by sub‐station Bunbury 20 kms Bunbury 20 kms Description from LandCorp Treasure Road to industry and other industry pipeline access ‐ Harvey Water only required for mg/L Mainly flat Kemerton PS NE on Roache Road away away Kemerton SIA buffer zone adjacent to Desalination only (application) major access road ‐ industries not permitted if 1 Industry buffer could 1 from Harvey Dam 5 1 GL Leederville 5 water treatment 5 Leederville ‐ 1000 ‐ 4 4 1 May need fill to 2 corner but only 3 Mains power 132kv 5 5 Brunswick 18 kms 5 Brunswick 18 kms 5 59.1 4 27.1 5 Kemerton PS between Treasure Rd to get to 200 mg/L LandCorp will then Marriot Road to compromises major support agriculture but has Plus 125 ML RIWI AWE DWER ‐ and GH operations 1500 mg/L winter flooding peak power and 22kv Harvey 30 kms Harvey 30 kms and the Wellesley River lease land to Forest Highway or objective environmental constraints hardstand runoff level Gas available Collie 55kms Collie 55kms proponent SW Hwy Environmental constraints Planning ‐ for strategic/heavy industry Policies and guidelines RIWI Targeting Priority for heavy industry DWER Analysis results SIMCOA process Kemerton SIA Structure Plan Harvey Water industries MRWA Need to discuss possibility with and job creation Groundwater sub‐ SIMCOA and standards processing natural LandCorp area resources as well as other heavy industries
CRID Farmlands Area completely 12.5 km2 total area Description Greenhouse DBGP is in the area ‐ Bunbury 20 kms Bunbury 20 kms Rural land already zoned Protected land for Hardstand runoff Harvey Water CRID Brine disposal private ownership ‐ (5x2.5 km) SW Highway to Between SW Hwy and Forrest Hwy process only if HW would need to away away intensive agriculture agriculture under Harvey Water ‐ 3‐4 days Synergy Saline will need to Flat Perth or Bunbury and Clifton and Raymond Rds 5 5 5 5 can deliver on 5CRID 1000+mg/L 4 4 4 4None 1arrange pump 4 5 Brunswick 17 kms 5 Brunswick 17 kms 5 70.2 2 33.2 2 Shire of Harvey TPS 5 provisions Greater Bunbury CRID ‐ design pipe emergency storage disposal pipeline purchase or lease May need fill to Forrest Hwy to Purchase block or lease portion of demand 1‐2 station and Harvey 38 kms Harvey 38 kms Region Scheme scheme ‐ $550/ML (3‐4 ML) runs through site Zone for intensive winter flooding Perth holding with large water entitlement ML/day controller Collie 48kms Collie 48kms ag level Can purchase or Look at properties close to trade additional Synergy saline disposal CRID water that is $10‐$20k/ha pipeline ‐ Clifton Rd to currently surplus to Raymond Rd requirements EP Act Pt 5 Intensive farming precinct authority to Policies and guidelines GBRS Harvey Water Harvey Water MRWA 3A connect to Synergy SDP
Waterloo LIA Brine disposal Regional area has been Draft Waterloo industrial Greenhouse 20km to Bunbury Gas reticulation to Bunbury 20 kms Bunbury 20 kms Hardstand runoff Flat identified for agriculture park draft Structure Plan process only if HW WWTP site away away Description Harvey Water ‐ Area completely May need fill to SW Highway to and post‐harvest 2 District Structure Plan to 1 3 Mining company 3 can deliver on 5CRID 1000+mg/L 3 17km to Synergy 1 2 3None 1Needs pump 5 5 Brunswick 17 kms 5 Brunswick 17 kms 5 49.45 6 18.45 6 Agri‐food precinct Waterloo Rd CRID ‐ design pipe private ownership winter flooding Perth or Bunbury agricultural industries WAPC October 2017 ‐ final demand 1‐2 Saline disposal station and mains Harvey 38 kms Harvey 38 kms scheme level including noxious industries expected 2022 ML/day pipeline Clifton extension to site Collie 48kms Collie 48kms Road Has identified agri‐food Currently serviced by area on eastern side but Onsite drainage Harvey Water CRID design for post‐harvest not and storage primary production
Waterloo LIA EP Act Pt 5 District Structure Will need a local structure DWER water authority to Policies and guidelines Harvey Water Plan MRWA plan trading connect to Synergy Will need a local SDP structure plan
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 129 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 130 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
International Market Assessments for Greenhouse Produce Analysis of export market opportunities was conducted by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (2017). (36) (37) (38) Berries
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 131 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 132 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 133 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 134 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 135 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 136 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 137 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 138 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 139 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 140 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Capsicum
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 141 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 142 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 143 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 144 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 145 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 146 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 147 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 148 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 149 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 150 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 151 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Tomatoes
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 152 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 153 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 154 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 155 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 156 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 157 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 158 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 159 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 160 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 161 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 162 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Strawberries This is an extract from Market Opportunities for WA Fruits: Bulletin Number 4889. (published Accesses October 2017) (35)
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 163 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 164 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 165 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 166 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 167 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 168 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 169 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 170 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 171 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 172 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 173 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 174 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 175 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 176 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 177 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 178 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 179 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 180 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Considerations for a Greenhouse Development This table has been developed to provide insight into considerations that are required for the development of a greenhouse project.
Crop and Food Products • Crop/s to be grown o What crops will be grown o How will crops be marketed (fresh, punnets, semi processed, …) o Value of crops for economic modelling o Staff requirements for different crops • Growing environment for crops o Infrastructure, greenhouse, technology • Food products and processing o Fresh produce o Opportunity to process crops into new products Foods (jams, sauces, …) Nutraceutical products through the extraction or concentration of functional compounds Production of other high value products (eg for the cosmetic industry)
Land and Siting of the Greenhouse • Development Location o Proximity to markets o Labour and accommodation o Biosecurity risk and consideration of the requirement for Pest Free Place of Production o Infrastructure: roads, rail, water, electricity and gas o Communications availability (phone, internet, cell reception) • Site Accessibility o Can semi‐trucks get to the property o Will there need to be o If it is a retail operation, can they easily get to the location o Staff access and parking (vehicle movements per day) o Environmental access issues Flora and fauna studies ECPB Act assessment Ramsar • Local Utilities o Is there gas, water and electricity available? o What is the cost of getting them installed vs looking for a different location o What are the alternative resources: solar thermal, wind, photo voltaic, alternate water resource (industrial waste, sea, brackish ground water, municipal waste, …, water) • Future Expansions – Is there enough room to expand as your business grows o Get planning done early to prevent issues with future expansion o Include potential expansion into development application • Amount of land reforming to be undertaken o Do site preparations outweigh the cost of the land o Is there a better location with less preparation work o Is water harvesting part of land reformation • Building Codes o What codes are in place and can the greenhouse be approved o zoning advantages and limitations • Is there room for o Water storage o Energy generation (PV, CSP, and storages)
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 181 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Innovative technologies to improve energy use efficiency o Parking o Head house/packing house o Other out buildings that may be needed • Slope of land and exposure to the sun • Access to suitable water supply (quantity and quality) o What water treatment will be required o What will be the wastewater management strategy Brine waste stream from the water treatment plant Dump water from the greenhouse Will it be retreated Will it be used for additional production • Climate assessment o Impact of local environmental conditions on Cost of development On‐going cost of production
Market • Who is marketing produce o The greenhouse company o Wholesaler on behalf of greenhouse • Who is buying the product o Export (barriers and protocols), o Retail o Grocery stores o Wholesale distributors o Farmers markets o Restaurants o Controlling market price • What is the outlet (retail, wholesale or combo) • Market product specification o Implications for greenhouse management o Cool chain o Staff training • What competition do you have o What is your differentiator Production system Crop genetics • Market size o Can the market handle your entrance o Can you take market share o Does the market currently want your product, do you have to direct market to the consumer • Are there existing customers or buyers lined up or contracts in place • Product market specification • Packaging and promotion • On‐farm food safety systems • Post harvest management and protocols o Cool chain management Controlled atmosphere Import protocols and biosecurity management Fumigation o Logistics Do current freight systems have the Air capacity to meet your Sea production/market demand Rail
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 182 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Intrastate Interstate International o Quarantine Inspection Services Availability and cost Container inspection
Funding/Financing • Budgeting o Capex, setup costs o Cost of production o Sensitivity analysis • Where are you getting money o Do you know how much you need in total including operation cost until you have cash flow o Debt equity funding ‐ what percentage are you putting down o Banks, equity funds, private investor, ... o Size of project and implications for securing investors (often big is better) • Are there grants or tax benefits available o State or Local Government Renewable energy (ARENA) Employment, creation of new jobs ($10‐25k for each permanent job created) • Are you going to use a bank or Ag lender • Is this a new business vs expansion on existing; the processes will be different
Time Frame • Lay out all completion dates: o Money in o Approvals and development application o Site work done o Constructor/EPC contractor o Construction start and completion o Final walkthrough o Staffing o Plants/material arrival o Growing started o First pick completion • Time for site preparation o Land formation o Run utilities o Build the structure • What time until first harvest o Timing of first planting o Scheduling of subsequent plantings until full production o Implications on cashflow • How long will it take to receive the building codes, permits and zoning approvals o Environmental approval requirements often linked to site selection o Development application (major project status ‐ what are the benefits and risks)
Product Suppliers • Who will be a supplier for growing material o Fertilisers o Growing media Rockwool, peat or soil o Seeds/cuttings o Water analysis
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 183 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
• Office supplies supplier • Maintenance material for equipment
Construction • Building yourself • Hired basic construction • Use EPC contractor o Who takes the technology risk • Labour and accommodation (especially in remote regions) • Concrete vs gravel in the greenhouse • Site prep needed • Utilities available at the time of construction • Road access existing
Permitting • Zoning for Ag and/or intensive horticulture • Building permits • Building codes • Time table for getting these approved • On‐site management of wastes (composting facility)
Growing • Management team o Business manager o Marketing o Procurement o Human resource, Occupational Health and Safety, Environmental Health and Safety o Training and skills manager • Growing team o Lead grower o IPM technician o Agronomist o Greenhouse staff (pickers and packers) Access to suitable staff Staff training Contract hire or engagement • Employed vs contracted staffing (CBA) • Knowledge of growing your crop o What are you producing o Growing styles and systems to be used Organic (Australian context) Chemical minimised (red tipped banana example) Conventional o What is your capacity to change to new crops and opportunities (respond to markets) o Understanding greenhouse interactions (design) and crop management • Identification of consultants available for technical expertise and questions • Time frame of production turns match up with planned/expected number of turns o Realistic production expectations Design production expectations o Realistic production ramp‐up At the commencement of the project to align start of production with construction timeframes Expectations for the first 3 years Year 1, say 70% of design production Year 2, say 85% of design production
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 184 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Year 3, say 95% of design production Thereon full production • Production technologies o Irrigation management (impacted by crop, growing technique and media) o Fertilisation (impacted by crop, growing technique and media) Nutrient types, formulation and sources Nutrient control systems Water analysis o Climate control (heating, cooling, humidity, ...) o Light management • Atmosphere management and CO2 enrichment
Pest and Disease Management • IPM systems o Production philosophy Clean/green/organic Use of chemicals o Pest and disease thresholds • Chemical, physical and biological control methods o Use of beneficial, introduced biological controls o Use of chemicals Types Regulation Interaction with beneficial Interaction with bees and other pollination methods Choice and availability of pesticides (chemical resistance, worker safety, application methods, withholding periods) o Insect screening Crop specific pests and screen sizing Screen impact on ventilation and cooling Greenhouse height (design) and need for screening • Pest Free Place of Production o Increase market access through the establishment of a PFPP o How is this going to be achieved and what impact will it have on greenhouse design and operation o Requirements Systems to establish pest freedom Systems to maintain pest freedom Verification that pest freedom has been attained or maintained Product identity and phytosanitary security of the consignment Phytosanitary security of product on consignment Buffer requirements
Structure • Technologies o Greenhouse o Growing systems o Energy (heat and electricity) o Heating, cooling, ventilation, humidification and dehumidification o Water demand and quality as a function of environmental conditions, crop type, cost of water and waste management stream strategy • Orientation of the greenhouse (light and prevailing winds) • Future expansion expected • Coding, style • Size o Size of structure and site layout
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 185 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
o Adequate space for working, product handling and production area o Does your growing layout needed to meet sales goals fit into a greenhouse that fits your budget • Equipment needed • Greenhouse cladding o Glass o Polycarbonate o Plastic films o Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) is a fluorine‐based plastic • Insect exclusion • Is the packing and warehousing attached to the greenhouse • Structural requirements o Is extra support needed for vine crops o Construction materials and cladding (production optimisation and environmental requirements) o Climatic requirements Ventilation Wind o Validation of engineering specification Structural Electricity o Shade screens for greenhouses Internal vs external Impact on pollination bee behaviour Interaction between shade screens and greenhouse cladding (glass/plastic polymers/polycarbonate, single/dual‐skin) Light management Direct or scattered light Additional light to extend growing periods Light blocking systems
Water Treatment Technologies • Water treatment plant o Water quality Source water quality Product water quality to meet crop requirements o Water quantity Is source water not a limiting factor or is it in short supply? What volume of product water is required? o The plant Pre‐treatment; filtration, pH adjustment, biocide, … Treatment; Reverse Osmosis (RO), Ion exchange, Ultra filtration, Nano filtration, Multi Effect Distillation (MED), Solar distillation, Electrodialysis Waste stream treatment and management • Waste Stream Management o What is the waste stream water quality o Most waste streams will be brackish to saline o Management plan Can the waste stream be beneficially reused Y/N? ¾ To grow salt tolerant crops ¾ Used for aquaculture ¾ Salts commercially be harvested ¾ Solar pond development for energy storage Discharged safely to the environment, say ocean outfall Evaporation ponds to manage waste stream on‐site
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 186 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Deep well injection Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) systems
Co‐development • Outdoor crops for the sustainable management of wastewater for greenhouse o Crop suitability Climatic environmental conditions Wastewater suitability for crop Will this crop be economic • Aquaculture o Aquaculture opportunities Fish Shrimp Marron o Environmental conditions • Renewable energy o Greenhouse could be the cornerstone customer for a renewable energy project o Joint renewable energy project could improve/increase external funding/grant opportunities o May impact heating and heat storage systems to take advantage of excess energy from renewable generation (low cost energy, could be used to stabilise the network)
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 187 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 188 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Monthly Perth Wholesale Market Prices (2011 to 2017) for Selected Lines of Blueberries, Strawberries, Capsicums and Tomatoes
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 189 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 190 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 191 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 192 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Collie and Bunbury Wind Roses
Month Collie Bunbury /Time January 9:00am
3:00pm
February 9:00am
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 193 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time 3:00 pm
March 9:00am
3:00pm
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 194 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time April 9:00am
3:00pm
May 9:00am
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 195 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time 3:00pm
June 9:00am
3:00pm
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 196 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time July 9:00am
3:00pm
August 9:00am
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 197 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time 3:00pm
September 9:00am
3:00pm
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 198 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time October 9:00am
3:00pm
November 9:00am
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 199 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Month Collie Bunbury /Time 3:00pm
December 9:00am
3:00pm
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 200 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Map of the Tomato Potato Psyllid Quarantine Area
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 201 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 202 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Example Output for the Brunswick Water Balance Model
40 Year Crop Water Use Model Brunswick Summary Table Greenhouse area 10.0 ha Crop Tomatoes Crop Tomatoes Crop Coeff Model 1.25 ETo 90% Greenhouse factor from field crop coefficient Crop coefficient 1.25 Dutch Model 3.00 mm/J GH/Field Factor 90.0% Salinity Ratio (Na salts/total salts) 75.0% Incoming Radiation Mixing Ratio Rain Water 22.4% Film transmission 80% RO water 77.6% RO Treatment Plant Capacity 1.3 ML/d Rainfall RO Storage 10.0 ML Rain Coef 0.85 Min rainfall 1.00 Rain water storage 25.0 ML Rainfall Storage 25.00 ML Total RCW (inflow) + amenity and washdown 280.0 ML/y Brine Waste 56.0 ML/y Treatment Plant GH Discharge Waste 41.0 ML/y RO water 1.3 ML/d Opp Eff 0.80 Assumes 10% loss of performance for years 2&3 and then replace membranes 1.04 Plant nutrient solution capacity 2.0 ML RO Eff 0.80 Greenhouse Area of prod 10.00 ha 100,000 m2
Growing Water Replacement Product water 100.00 Shandy Combined Product Water (RO + Rain) Salinity Ratio 0.75 System Cap 2.00 Dis Ratio 50%Prod 22.88205 Na/L
Rainwater Mix Ratio: Fresh 0.224 Treated H2O0.776 Total Load 35,513 g Feed 22,882 Na 23 Na Threshold 100 Total Thres 200,000 g Discharge 100,000 Cl 35.5
Dam Depth (m) 5.00 Area 2000 m2 Width (m) 32 Length (m) 63 Peak Vol 10.00 ML Nozzels 2m Water Use 0.068 L/m Hours equation Cooling ML/a Spacing 2m Cycles 100% 1.247 x coefficient Evap Cooling (ML/a) 75 Max Water Req 2.00 g/m2/s Lines 8 m ‐30.462 Threshhold Temp (oC) 46 Average 24 35 Min
FAO56 Dutch Average Annual Crop Water Number of Ext Water Total Date Year Day Day Month Year T.Max T.Min Rain Evap Radn VP RHmaxT RHminT FAO56 Crop Req Crop Req Crop Req Crop Req Cum RO Rainfall Cum RFCooling Water Na Load Discharges Discharges Volume External W (yyyymmdd) (dd) (dd) (mm) (YYYY) (oC) (oC) (mm) (mm) (MJ/m2 (hPa) (%) (%) (mm) ML/d ML/d ML/d ML/yr ML ML/d ML Hours ML/d ML/year g # ML/year ML/d ML/a Max ‐0.05 ‐0.07 ‐0.06 ‐140.55 10.00 25.00 1.18 60.50 41 265 Average ‐0.39 ‐0.42 ‐0.41 ‐149.26 9.48 19.59 0.13 45.97 37 238 Min ‐1.00 ‐0.79 ‐0.88 ‐155.25 0.24 1.01 0.00 35.39 45,764 37.25 30 217 19770101 1 1 1 1977 31.5 14 0 8.6 32 13 28.1 81.4 7.1 ‐0.799 ‐0.768 ‐0.783 10.000 0 25.000 8.819 0.45 63,689 0 1.322053 19770102 2 2 1 1977 27 13.5 0 7 29 17 47.7 100 5.4 ‐0.608 ‐0.696 ‐0.652 10.000 0 24.864 3.207 0.16 78,603 0 0.836644 19770103 3 3 1 1977 30.5 16 0 7.8 31 18 41.2 99.1 6.4 ‐0.720 ‐0.744 ‐0.732 10.000 0 24.703 7.572 0.39 95,352 0 1.192723 19770104 4 4 1 1977 36.5 18.5 0 9 31 16 26.2 75.2 7.9 ‐0.889 ‐0.744 ‐0.816 9.639 0 24.504 15.054 0.77 114,033 0 1.751544 19770105 5 5 1 1977 29.5 20 0 8.2 29 22 53.4 94.1 6 ‐0.675 ‐0.696 ‐0.686 9.824 0 24.352 6.325 0.32 129,718 0 1.068122 19770106 6 6 1 1977 31 16 0 9.4 31 11 24.5 60.5 7.2 ‐0.810 ‐0.744 ‐0.777 9.843 0 24.171 8.195 0.42 147,498 0 1.276121 19770107 7 7 1 1977 33 17 0 7.8 27 16 31.8 82.6 6.6 ‐0.743 ‐0.648 ‐0.695 9.799 0 24.005 10.689 0.55 163,406 0 1.355816 19770108 8 8 1 1977 30 19 0 10 27 18 42.4 82 6.1 ‐0.686 ‐0.648 ‐0.667 9.967 0 23.851 6.948 0.35 178,672 0 1.090046 19770109 9 9 1 1977 29.5 15 0 8.8 31 14 34 82.1 6.6 ‐0.743 ‐0.744 ‐0.743 10.000 0 23.685 6.325 0.32 195,679 0 1.124139 19770110 10 10 1 1977 27.5 14.5 0 8.6 29 15 40.9 90.9 5.8 ‐0.653 ‐0.696 ‐0.674 9.545 0 23.538 3.831 0.20 118,576 1 1.868217 19770111 11 11 1 1977 30.5 18 0 6.8 26 18 41.2 87.3 5.9 ‐0.664 ‐0.624 ‐0.644 9.700 0 23.390 7.572 0.39 133,309 0 1.107242 19770112 12 12 1 1977 29 16 0 9 29 17 42.4 93.6 6 ‐0.675 ‐0.696 ‐0.686 9.917 0 23.239 5.701 0.29 148,995 0 1.028374 19770113 13 13 1 1977 27 14.5 0 9.6 31 10 28.1 60.6 6.5 ‐0.731 ‐0.744 ‐0.738 10.000 0 23.075 3.207 0.16 165,873 0 0.919943 19770114 14 14 1 1977 29 12 0 7.8 32 10 25 71.3 6.7 ‐0.754 ‐0.768 ‐0.761 10.000 0 22.906 5.701 0.29 183,284 0 1.101488 19770115 15 15 1 1977 31.5 13 0 9.6 31 12 26 80.2 6.9 ‐0.776 ‐0.744 ‐0.760 9.224 0 22.732 8.819 0.45 106,183 1 2.269501 19770116 16 16 1 1977 31 13 0 7.4 31 16 35.6 100 6.4 ‐0.720 ‐0.744 ‐0.732 9.278 0 22.571 8.195 0.42 122,933 0 1.232471
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 203 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 204 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Support Correspondence Letters of support for the development of a greenhouse project in the Greater Collie Region: • Bluewaters Power • Harvey Water • Lanco • Shire of Collie • Shire of Dardanup • Shire of Harvey
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 205 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 206 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 207 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 208 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 209 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
From: Mark Chester Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018 2:13 PM To: Wayne Tingey Cc: Luke Botica; Steve Potter Subject: RE: Support for a greenhouse development in the Shire for Dardanup
Good afternoon Wayne
Thank you for the information and the telephone call.
The Shire has discussed several options for the future use of the Doral mining land over the years.
Dardanup Shire has supported the creation of the Bunbury Geographe Growth Partnership Steering Committee that has as their primary objective to increase economic development and employment across the region. Developing agriculture is one of the primary drivers recognised in the Growth Plan Strategy (see below).
As a proactive local government the Shire Council is willing to consider all ideas for development and will assist any proponent with the assessment of the proposed land use and give professional advice on what is possible and what may be required to amend the town planning scheme if the proposal is a use not allowed. As a general guide, the area in question is currently zoned General Farming, intensive agriculture is a discretionary use that will require advertising allowing public comments/submissions.
Officers will be able to verify this information at the proposed briefing. Staff won’t be able to prepare reports on behalf of the proponent but they are able to give direction about the process.
A proponent is encouraged to find and engage a town planning consultant to prepare the required information and staff will help guide them through the process as necessary.
Bunbury Geographe information in support of the development of agriculture is as follows: ‐
PRIORITY GOAL: AGRICULTURE & AGRIBUSINESS
Growth Driver: Premium agriculture and food production
Global food demand is set to rise under the Asian century, urbanisation and climate change megatrends and Bunbury Geographe is well placed to service a boutique, premium food market overseas.
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 210 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
There are a number of factors reinforcing agriculture and food production as a key export opportunity for the region. The region currently exports produce, including to Asia, enjoying a strong reputation for providing safe food that is ‘clean and green’ and fulfils a key customer demand. The region is in similar time zones to Asia, facilitating business communications, and yet is located in the Southern Hemisphere therefore offering counter‐seasonal fruit and vegetable goods.
Efficient supply chains together with modern processing and packaging technologies will assist delivery of premium produce in a timely and reliable manner. International freight opportunities may be augmented through the Busselton‐Margaret River Regional Airport upgrade and future containerisation at Bunbury Port.
A key factor to unlocking agricultural production is securing future water supplies, as reflected in the Priority Initiative identified for the driver.
A copy of the Strategy can be found at this link: http://bunburygeographe.com.au/growth‐drivers/
I trust this is helpful. Please be in touch to set up a time and date for a briefing staff in March.
Regards
Mark
Mark Chester Chief Executive Officer p: 08 9724 0306
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 211 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 212 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 213 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation
Arris Pty Ltd ABN 91 092 739 574
South Australian Office: Western Australian The Waite Campus Office: Bld 11b Gate 2c 6/14 Halley Road Hartley Grove BALCATTA WA 6021 Australia URRBRAE SA 5064 Australia Tel +61 8 9344 4600 Tel +61 8 8313 6706 Fax +61 8 8313 6752 Fax +61 8 8313 6752
Queensland Office: 44 Wentworth Terrace Northern Territory Office: ROCKHAMPTON Qld 4700 Australia 16 Willes Road Tel +61 407 268 069 BERRIMAH NT 0828 Australia Fax +61 8 8313 6752 Tel +61 8 8947 0181
Fax +61 8 8313 6752
[email protected] Arris Pty Ltd ACN 91 092 739 574 Page 214 Collie Futures – Protected Cropping Prefeasibility Investigation www.arris.com.au