Desalination Plant @ Pt Hughes

[szopen 0]

I would suspect that the Pt. Stanvac location might have been chosen to avoid astronomical costs of site cleanup.

[niftrev 2]

Posted by: szopen

I would suspect that the Pt. Stanvac location might have been chosen to avoid astronomical costs of site cleanup.

Agree! szopen. How did I forget to mention that.

[vanders 0]

szopen, it seems storage volume has always been fine until now, but conditions now are alot different. the worst drought in history and limited supply from the river is what has really broken the donkeys back. There is a very large project to upgrade the Mt Bold Storage underway, which will add further storage to the system. you could argue that we should have had a storage that would cater for one in however many years drought, but i would argue that back in the day that storages were going in that a drought such as this would have been unimaginable, with global warming etc. perhaps you are right though, id never heard that thought though. the thing we have always had in our favour also in the past was that whatever we needed to take from the river to top up our catchment water, we could take. We still do take it for the purpose of supply to adelaide, but who in the past would have predicted the demise of the river and the huge amount of upstream demand that has crippled everything. i agree wholeheartedly that at the moment desal should be the last resort. however, as far as i know, the new plant for adelaide will be used minimally when traditional supplies are available. it is more of a safetynet againsy any future droughts. believe me the government will not be wanting to run it any more than it has to, as we all know the cost involved per L are astronomical in comparison with traditional supplies.

[spog61 0]

Do we want to set a precedence? If small desal plants turn out to be commercially viable should irrigators & other industry be allowed to re-locate to costal areas & draw on a seemingly limitless supply? The decline of the Murray started with the first pump! I like the Idea of desal plants, the melting polar ice caps are introducing plenty of fresh water but lets keep the discharge out of the gulfs and concentrate on getting it as far out into the open ocean as possible. Stuff the developers, industry & governments who are looking for a cheap way out.

[spog61 0]

Could be an Idea to invite certain parties to join S&H to view posts on an obviously hot topic, i.e members of federal, state & local gov. There are many well presented valid points & concerns posted on this topic. Not only a means of like minded people to communicate but a platform for airing their views/concerns to the appropriate authorities. just a thoughtrgds,Spog

[pescados 1]

Some time ago I read an article where it said that Ethopia in Africa has not had any rain in 4 years.Now just image that happen in Australia ?After the first year better build a desal plant, that might take a year.So 2 years without any rain water.I hope recycling of effluent will last that long allthough I'll try to go without...............

[Compleat Angler 72]

Hi all,This site is worth having a look at www.ffc.org.au/Desalination.html  Fishers for ConservationSpotter

[niftrev 2]

Excellent Spotter, Thats the first time Iv'e had a look at this site www.ffc.org.au/Desalination.html.  Thanks, it's certainly worth looking at and it makes sense too. I will have a look at writing a letterQuote : to the relevant Ministers now expressing your concern regarding this development proposal. FFC has provided a template letter to help get you started on our email campaigns pageThanks again niftrev[/color:105qfjwl]

[niftrev 2]

How easy was that, letter completed with my post added and it has been sent to Premier Rann. {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifniftrev[/color:2jikonz1]

[spog61 0]

excellent site & report my letters are soon to be on their way & I urge all to read & respond accordingly.So much for the so called "Big Australian" feels a bit like your wife cheating on ya!

[Guest dabilda]

Excellent site Spotter, hit the nail right on the head.My letters are gone....... email & snail mail.

[Guest dabilda]

Oh!! for those here that think Pt. Stanvac is a "proposal", it is not.It was given the green light earlier this week and WILL be completed by 2010 according to the report I heard.

[niftrev 2]

Hi Dabilda,Where did you hear this report, I must have missed it if it was in the Advertiser.I found this report. news.smh.com.au/national/pilot-desalination-plant-planned-for-sa-20080526-2i8l.html - SA pilot plant gets green light (Trial) Wednesday, 28 May 2008APPROVAL has been granted for the construction of a $10 million pilot desalination plant at Port Stanvac in South Australia.Pilot desalination plant planned for SAConstruction work will begin on a $10 million pilot desalination plant for South Australia, Premier Mike Rann says.The pilot plant will test water quality, filtration and pretreatment technology required for the major $1.1 billion plant the government has slated to provide a quarter of Adelaide's water supply.Premier Mike Rann said the pilot plant at Port Stanvac, south of Adelaide, on Gulf St Vincent, should be in operation by July.The major project should be up and running by the summer of 2011-2012.Port Stanvac is the state government's preferred site for the desalination plant. A $3 million baseline environmental assessment for the gulf will be complete by the end of 2008 and the SA Government expects to have the major plant up and running by the summer of 2011-12.Here is a another good read www.theage.com.au/national/scientists-o ... -2k0i.html niftrev

[Big Ian 0]

good link Dabilda, Spotter Niftrev {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifI was very interested in the bit on the second pagewhere Dr Benkendorff said in reference to desalination plants."It is difficult to predict impacts because there is no comparable situation except in the Middle East, and many of those countries are relocating their desalination plants because of the impacts they had on their gulf systems" "They have basically destroyed their fisheries." {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif what the hell are we doing {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif

[Guest dabilda]

Hi Dabilda,Where did you hear this report, I must have missed it if it was in the Advertiser.

G'day niftrevIt was just a brief report on the radio on my way home from work. What was said was testing had been done in a small plant at Pt Stanvac and the green light had been given to a full scale plant to be constructed to be operational by 2010. I never saw or heard any more after that on TV, paper or radio. So, the full story I can't say as that is all that was said.

[Guest dabilda]

good link Dabilda,I was very interested in the bit on the second pagewhere Dr Benkendorff said in reference to desalination plants."It is difficult to predict impacts because there is no comparable situation except in the Middle East, and many of those countries are relocating their desalination plants because of the impacts they had on their gulf systems" "They have basically destroyed their fisheries." {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif what the hell are we doing {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif

G'day Big Ian,I can't take credit for the link, that was Spotter that provided that.But, I totally agree.

[Compleat Angler 72]

Thanks Niftrev for putting up the link for The Age.Bev Schultz dropped it into me this morning but I hadn't had time to post it but I am glad to see you beat me to it.Spotter

[brenton 637]

What i find sad about these situations is that little effort will be made to lessen the impact of this salt enriched waste,the money is spent on the plant itself the golf course and other facilities and the salt pumped into the bay.I,m pretty sure that if the outfall pipes were extended and the brine metred out over a km or so through 10 or 20 small bleeders or taps then the impact would be minimal.Whats the bet that it ends up being pumped out in 1 spot 300 metres off the coast.I would site the west beach outlet as an example,it was supposed to be 500 metres of the coast but looks to be more like 200 to me.I sure wouldn,t like to buy real estate off those blokes. cheers brenton

[Big Ian 0]

I found another very interesing sitehttp://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/A ... Desal.htmlWhere I read this in relation to the desal plant proposed for whyalla"Adelaide University Associate Professor [and marine biologist] Bronwyn Gillanders says cuttlefish only breed once in their lifetime. She says if increased salt levels caused by the proposed plant negatively affect the cuttlefish reproductive process, the entire population could be devastated."Cheers Ian {SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif

[Big Ian 0]

I spoke to my brother in law today about the issue of the brine from a proposed desal plant at port stanvac entering the gulfhe said " why not mix it with the fresh water output from our sewerage plants to reduce it back to the right levels"so I wonder if that would help or indeed be an option, there are sewerage plants at Christies Beach ( I think), Glenelg and Bolivar there is a pipeline from stanvac down the coast already that they used to pump fuel down to the port so it already goes past glenelg and its not far to Bolivar.I wonder?

[vanders 0]

Whats the bet that it ends up being pumped out in 1 spot 300 metres off the coast.I would site the west beach outlet as an example,it was supposed to be 500 metres of the coast but looks to be more like 200 to me.

if thats the case then thats terrible. i know there are scientific formulae around for outfalls and im sure everything would be done correctly (one would hope) for one at hughes. surely it wouldnt end up being a single point discharge though. i know of a developer in an Eyre Pen town who recently was denied mains water for his proposed development, and so went down the desal path only to be denied by the council. its good to see at least one council with some sense..

[spog61 0]

Hey fellas, just thought I?d relay the first 2 replies I received from our pollies after sending the letter template with the following personal addition, as encouraged by the following site; www.ffc.org.au/Desalination.html.  ?(to the relevant Ministers now expressing your concern regarding this development proposal. FFC has provided a template letter to help get you started on our email campaigns page)??I?m sure you?ve already read what?s below, I would just like to add that we only have to look at what the lack of foresight by our ancestors has done to the River Murray. I?m not against desal plants I just feel that the brine rich discharge needs to located in the open ocean so it can be diffused more efficiently. Would such a proposal be even considered on the Great Barrier Reef?? Quite frankly I?m a bit disappointed in the so called ?Big Australian?, sort of feels like being cheated on by your partner.??Thank you for your e-mail to the Premier of South Australia. Your e-mail has been received and will be given appropriate attention. If you have not provided your postal address, please do so by return e-mail in order for a response to be sent to you.? In this day and age why would you waste tax payers money posting a reply instead of emailing, seeing as they?ve already acknowledged receipt by email. Still waiting on the other 2 replies. In retrospect I was probably a bit harsh on our earlier ?ancestors? as they lacked a lot of the scientific tools to properly predict any consequences but no excuses for more recent & current decision makers.FYI ? When I posted the objection letter I inserted my addition at the very top & in a different font colour so that it would stand out more and therefore hopefully draw their attention, rather than just a cursory glance.Cheers, Spog [file name=iCcB1BIF__rann.doc size=72704]http://www.fishyorkepeninsula.com/images/attachments/iCcB1BIF__rann.doc[/file]

[ospray 1]

They might bring the letter to his attention, but will any of it sink in and be given some consideration?Thats the big question[/color:213iwmet]

[alanh 6]

worth a read6 / 11/ 06To: Hon. Gail Gago MLCMinister for Environment and Conservation,Government of South AustraliaFrom: Dr. Toby BoltonLecturer in Marine Biology,Flinders University?Lincoln Marine Science Centre,PO Box 2023, Port Lincoln, 5606, South AustraliaPh: 08-8683-2561, Mob: 0428 213 489, Fax: 08-8683-2525Email: toby.bolton@flinders.edu.auDear Minister Gago,I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposal by BHP-Billiton to develop a desalination plant at Point Bonython (Upper Spencer Gulf) that would provide mining operations at Olympic Dam with fresh water. First, I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to the expansion of mining operations in the state and believe that it represents a major economic opportunity for our nation as a whole. Further, I am not opposed to the mining of uranium, its export, or its use in nuclear energy production. My concerns relate only to the potential impacts of a desalinisation plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf.South Australia?s Gulfs are unique ecosystems that are comprised largely of assemblages of often-endemic tropical biota in a temperate area. Within these unique systems, the Upper Spencer Gulf is a region of particularly high habitat diversity and has accordingly been given an Ecological Rating of one (ER1) in the Draft Spencer Gulf Marine Plan produced by the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage (Government of South Australia, 2006). Under this proposed planning practice, an ER1 zone should be subject to negligible impacts only. This means that the ecosystems encompassed within the planning zone should be able to recover from any anthropogenic impact within days. Not surprisingly, the habitat diversity of the Upper Spencer Gulf supports particularly diverse assemblages of marine biota, including the juvenile stages of commercially exploited species (e.g. Western King Prawn, King George Whiting). The value of the prawn fishery in Spencer Gulf alone was $AU40 million in 2004, and the combined direct and flow-on value of the fishery was $AU108 million (EconSearch 2005, Knight et al., 2005). Similarly, the direct and flow-on value of the scale fishery for the Spencer Gulf/Coffin Bay region in 2004 was $AU23 million (EconSearch 2006). In addition to this, the Upper Spencer Gulf is the most intensively used region of Spencer Gulf by recreational fishermen, the expenditure of whom was $AU23 million in 2000 (Henry and Lyle 2003). Clearly, the Upper Spencer Gulf is a region of high ecological and economic importance that requires prudent management. The draft Olympic Dam EIS produced by ARUP HLA, indicates that BHP Billiton views desalinisation as the preferred option for obtaining fresh water for Olympic Dam. The proposal is to supply Olympic Dam with an additional 120 megalitres of fresh water per day from a reverse osmosis desalinisation plant. However, in terms of the total volume of fresh water that would ultimately be produced, this figure is likely to be conservative because population centers on the Eyre Peninsula are also slated be beneficiaries of the plant?s production. Indeed, I believe that this is a large part of the reason for its popularity among regional councils and government areas. Based on the conservative figure, 320 megalitres of sea water would be drawn from the Gulf to produce 120 megalitres of fresh water via the reverse osmosis system. The remaining 200 megalitres of water would be rendered hyper-saline (salinity of approximately 65 parts per thousand) by the process. This salinity is approximately twice that of the ambient sea water (37 p.p.t.) in the region. Under the current proposal, this hyper-saline water would be pumped into the Upper Spencer Gulf where it would be dispersed by natural oceanographic processes. To put these figures into a more conceptually tangible context, my calculations conservatively indicate that a volume equivalent to that of 65 full sized Olympic swimming pools of hyper-saline water would be pumped into the Upper Spencer Gulf everyday for the foreseeable future. I have serious concerns about this proposal that are outlined below:1. There are no experts specializing in the field of the environmental impacts of desalinisation plants.While I am a biologist with a background in experimental research into the reproduction of marine invertebrates, I am not an expert in the field of environmental impacts of desalinisation plants. Indeed, there are no experts in this field and I therefore feel as qualified as anyone to comment on this proposal. The lack of appropriate expertise is a major problem for the current proposal because the impacts of the plant on marine biota in a system such as the Upper Spencer Gulf simply cannot be accurately predicted. 2. There are no oceanographic models that can accurately predict the dispersion of hyper-saline water in the Upper Spencer Gulf.The only modeling of oceanographic processes in the region adjacent to Point Lowly was conducted in response to an oil spill in the area in 1992. Different modeling processes showed similar outcomes: tidal eddies are apparent in the regions immediately north and south of Point Lowly (see Noye 1996 and references therein). However, the exchange of water, and water-bourne material between the Upper and Lower Spencer Gulf remains unknown. Furthermore, oceanographic models based on the movement of floating particulate material are not applicable to the dense, hypersaline water that would dispersed from the sea floor under the current proposal. Accurate models of the dispersion of hypersaline water in the Upper Spencer Gulf are a fundamental requirement for predicting the impacts of the proposed desalinisation plant. Such models do not exist. While the company conducting the EIS claims that they will incorporate oceanographic models of salt dispersion into their assessment, any model is only as good as the data that are put into it. As far as I can determine, the required input data for the development of accurate predictive models are similarly unavailable. 3. The Upper Spencer Gulf is very shallow and water exchange is likely to be low compared to southern regions of the Gulf.Not withstanding the points made regarding oceanographic modeling above, the Upper Spencer Gulf is shallow and has a salinity that is markedly higher than that of the lower regions of the Gulf. These factors strongly suggest that water exchange between the upper and lower regions of the Gulf are low because the relatively high salinity of the upper Gulf results from evaporation losses.4. Toxicity assays designed to determine the effects of salinity or chemicals used to de-scale pipe systems are at inappropriate spatial and temporal scalesThe spatial scale of the impacts of the proposed development extends throughout the Spencer Gulf. The temporal scale of the impacts will be ongoing. Thus, the proposed desalinisation plant will impose a spatially large and persistent impact upon Spencer Gulf.Toxicity tests are conducted on a limited range of species (often those that are physiologically robust and therefore amenable to experimentation, but not necessarily representative of the system) in highly controlled conditions that do not reflect the conditions experienced by organisms in their natural environment. The direct application of the results of such assays to natural systems is therefore highly problematic because of their inherent artificiality. This artificiality is further compounded by the limited spatial scale of such experiments, which are generally small (i.e. Petri dishes, aquaria and small mesocosms). Furthermore, toxicity assays generally only consider acute effects and therefore fail to provide insight into chronic effects that may extend across, or differ among, life-history stages of organisms. This is particularly true of marine organisms, most of which have complex life-cycles and often exhibit external fertilisation. The gametes and early life-stages of many marine organisms are well known to be especially susceptible to toxins. Moreover, the effects of toxins are often much more complex than simple lethality (the basis of most toxicity assays) and the prediction of toxicity on the basis of lethality is therefore also problematic.The toxicity assays proposed under this EIS are of an inappropriate spatial and temporal scale to accurately predicting the impacts of the proposed desalinisation plant.5. The sea water intake system will draw in the dispersive larvae and juveniles of most marine species in the areaMost marine species have complex life-cycles that incorporate microscopic water-bourne life-history stages. These life-stages include eggs of fish and invertebrates, spores of algae, seeds of sea grasses, and the larval stages of fish and invertebrates. The proposed desalinisation plant will draw in 320 megalitres of sea water containing these propagules every day. This activity therefore has the potential to influence recruitment levels of a wide range of marine organisms. However, like the other potential ecological impacts of this proposal, the consequences of removing large numbers of planktonic propagules and organisms cannot be accurately predicted.6. The reverse osmosis system is energy intensive and will require a significant increase in electricity production that will come from fossil fuel powered electricity generation plantsReverse osmosis systems are power intensive because water has to be pumped under considerable pressure through a membrane / filter system. The current estimate of the amount of power required for the desalination plant is 300-400 megawatts. This represents a significant increase in the amount of electricity currently consumed by the state (an increase of approximately 30% of Adelaide?s current usage). The draft EIS indicates that renewable energy options are being considered to augment the power requirements of the plant. It seems unlikely to me that any current renewable energy option could significantly contribute to the power requirements of a desalinisation plant. Therefore, in the absence of nuclear power generation, we are left with only one option?the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity generation. Global climate change resulting from the emission of greenhouse gasses is now a generally accepted phenomenon, even among highly conservative Australian political leaders. Given the seriousness of this problem, it seems remarkably irresponsible for us to be considering options such as the desalination plant while not pursuing nuclear technology at the same time. 7. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between BHP Billiton and the Government which states that the ?proposed plant and pipeline must be developed without material impact on the environment, especially the marine environment?This statement is unambiguous. I cannot conceive that this key element of the MoU could ever be achieved given the scale of the proposed desalinisation plant. There simply has to be an impact and the question is really one of how big that impact would be. Unfortunately, I do not believe that an accurate picture of the impacts of a desalinisation plant on the proposed scale can be drawn at this point. Regardless of the magnitude of the impact, the MoU and the zoning of the Upper Spencer Gulf as ER1 should be a sufficient basis for the reconsideration of the entire proposal.Yours sincerelyDr. Toby BoltonLiterature citedEconSearch 2005. The economic indicators for the Spencer Gulf and West Coast prawn fishery, 2003-04. A report prepared for PIRSA. EconSearch Pty Ltd, Adelaide.EconSearch 2006. The economic indicators for the marine scalefish fishery, 2003-04. A report prepared for PIRSA. EconSearch Pty Ltd, Adelaide.Government of South Australia. 2006. A Regional Perspective of the Spencer Gulf ? Draft. Department for Environment and Heritage.Henry, G.W. and Lyle, J.M. (eds.) 2003. The national recreastional and indigenous fishing survey. A fisheries action program project (National Heritage Trust). FRDC project no. 99/158. Australian Government Department of Fisheries and Agriculture, Canberra.Knight, M.A. Tsolos, A., and Doonana, A.M. 2005. South Australian fisheries and aquaculture information and statistics report. SARDI research report series no 67. SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide.Noye, B.J. 1996. Numerical Models of South Australian Coastal Sea Processes. Report TM2. University of Adelaide, Dept. Applied Mathematics.

[Big Ian 0]

well done Alan,that was well worth the read and gives credence to some things stated earlier in this thread.

[Ranger 48]

Most interesting reading, and I sure would like to see a reply to that letter.In my own dealings with the office of the minster for environment I've found only generic replies forthcoming, WHEN replies come at all. I sure would like to see a decent reply to a letter such as this, which adresses these concerns!

[alanh 6]

Note That the letter was sent in november 2006Carry on at all costs !!!Something this governmet seems to do in its stride and put band aids on aftetwardsMust say kingfish farms are a classic example

[Compleat Angler 72]

Todays YP Country Times 11/6/08 Page 3DESAL OFF AGENDA FOR NOW

[Compleat Angler 72]

This is the report from the YP Country TimesDesal off agenda for now Wednesday, 11 June 2008 District Council of the Copper Coast Mayor Paul Thomas has clarified comments made recently in other media in relation to a community desalination plant. Mr Thomas says, while it appears there is no further interest from the Port Hughes developers, desalination still needs to be considered for the future.?As a community we need to consider desalination as part of our water-proofing plan along with stormwater and effluent re-use."I don?t mean having a plant at Port Hughes ? I would favour Myponie Point anyway ? but I don?t think we should forget about it. "I?m not discounting it could be part of the community in the future.??

[brenton 637]

Hooray {SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif They must of picked up on the negative vibe from the community and have put the plan on hold....(not to worry everyone its all done and dusted now)i bet they try and sneak it in later,probably next summer when the next raft of water restrictions are initiated(hey if we get the desal plant up you can use all the water you want) > cheers brenton

[niftrev 2]

Reply #42 on: May 30, 2008, 08:24 PM » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Excellent Spotter, Thats the first time Iv'e had a look at this site www.ffc.org.au/Desalination.html.  Thanks, it's certainly worth looking at and it makes sense too. I will have a look at writing a letterQuote : to the relevant Ministers now expressing your concern regarding this development proposal. FFC has provided a template letter to help get you started on our email campaigns pageThanks again niftrev Re: Desalination Plant @ Pt Hughes « Reply #43 on: May 30, 2008, 08:46 PM » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------How easy was that, letter completed with my post added and it has been sent to Premier Rann. August 12th BHP Billiton Desalination Plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf I have just received a letter 7/8/08 from The Hon Paul Holloway who responded on behalf of the premier to my email of 30th May 2008 in relation to the BHP Billiton Desalination Plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. As quoted from the letter and of interest

Due to the major environmental, social and economic importance, and high levels of public interest in the proposed expansion, it is entirely appropriate the proponent prepare extensive environmental studies to address the guidelines. Amongst many other matters, the guidelines require demonstration that the proposed sea water desalination plant will not negatively impact on the marine and terrestrial environment, including the Giant Cuttlefish and the fishing and aquaculture industries.

It goes on to say an environmental impact study will be made public next year for a period of 8 weeks. During this time a number of public meetings will be held to explain both the project and the public's opportunity to lodge submissions.regards niftrev :

[Ranger 48]

Reading this was a pleasant surprise I must say! After all, if a desal plant is required up that way, surely it needs to be there to provide much needeed water for residents, ratepayers and the local community, not to water a bl**dy golf course! I'm also keen to hear more about plans for stormwater and effluent re-use in addition or in place of desal too!

I have just received a letter 7/8/08 from The Hon Paul Holloway who responded on behalf of the premier to my email of 30th May 2008 in relation to the BHP Billiton Desalination Plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. As quoted from the letter and of interest

Due to the major environmental, social and economic importance, and high levels of public interest in the proposed expansion, it is entirely appropriate the proponent prepare extensive environmental studies to address the guidelines. Amongst many other matters, the guidelines require demonstration that the proposed sea water desalination plant will not negatively impact on the marine and terrestrial environment, including the Giant Cuttlefish and the fishing and aquaculture industries.

It goes on to say an environmental impact study will be made public next year for a period of 8 weeks. During this time a number of public meetings will be held to explain both the project and the public's opportunity to lodge submissions.

This was also good news! I'd like to find out WHO is performing the EIS (SARDI perhaps?) and I'd also like it to be tabled for scrutiny for a little longer than 8 weeks, but it's definately a step in the right direction, and I'd certainly like to see a copy of it once it's prepared! ;D

[niftrev 2]

Ranger posted

I'd certainly like to see a copy of it once it's prepared!

As quoted form the letter

When the EIS is ready for public release, public notices will be placed in the Advertiser and other local newspapers detailing where to access the document, how to make submissions and particulars on the public meetings. Such advice will also be made available on the planning SA website at www.planing.sa.gov.au

[Ranger 48]

Thanks Trev....Treva....Nifty.....Niftrev! ;D

[Compleat Angler 72]

@RangerI think the developers of the Golf Course and the Council have a lot more to worry about at the moment....Page 2 & 3 of the Sunday Mail.Spotter