Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Hume facility would help protect landscape, oceans: FOY Group

By Stuart Clark - 30 March 2017 33

FOY Group

FOY Group Ltd Managing Director Stuart Clark has issued a response to David Tuckwell’s opinion piece “On FOY’s refinery, the ACT Greens have missed an opportunity to lead”.


There are now eight million metric tons of plastic flowing into the ocean every year. So much that there will be more plastic by weight in the sea than fish by 2050 (https://newplasticseconomy.org/report-2016).

The use of heavy levies and fines by governments simply has not worked to achieve reducing the flow of waste plastics into our waterways and misdirected pollution in general.

Historically, approximately 80% of plastic consumed and in circulation is not recycled and 72% of plastic used in packaging is not recycled. In Australia, a total of 313,700 tonnes of plastics were sent for recycling either locally or via export in 2013-14, representing 20.4% of consumed plastic. This indicates that approximately 80% of plastic consumed is likely to be still in circulation or has been diverted to landfill. This is predominately due to the fact that the majority of plastics are uneconomic to recycle back to plastic consumer or industrial goods. Plastic consumption is increasing so the problem can’t be ignored.

The plastics are discarded into the environment because they have no value. A real solution has been developed by The FOY Group. FOY is a proud Australian technology company that works with business, community and government to rid our waterways and our land of harmful, end-of-life, non-recyclable plastics, by converting them to fuel. The FOY process takes proven technology and science and combines these in a unique way to produce Australian Standard road-ready diesel and petrol.

FOY proposes to construct a facility at Hume that will process 200 tonnes per day of waste plastic that is not recyclable and which would normally be disposed of as landfill or worse still as pollution in our waterways and landscape. FOY is working with their aggregators and local waste authorities in the ACT to utilise ACT generated non-recyclable waste as a first priority. This will provide a permanent and sustainable alternative to landfill. FOY strongly advocates that plastics that are potentially recyclable, must be recycled. The plastics supply contracts that FOY has with waste aggregators specifically rejects all recyclable plastics.

The FOY proposal is being comprehensively and independently reviewed by the ACT Government and in conjunction with this, FOY has commissioned and received a full Health Impact Assessment undertaken by an independent third party as well as many other independent studies. All these reports are available on the ACT Government website.

“Petrol and diesel make up the majority of fuel consumed in support of our current businesses and lifestyles. Its demand levels are high. An Australian made, lower cost fuel, which meets Australian standards, lowers emissions and reduces the carbon footprint required to produce road fuels when compared to conventional extraction and production methods by up to 38%, will be attractive to the market,” Stuart Clark, Managing Director FOY Group Ltd said.

“FOY welcomes the ACT Government process to confirm the science and safety of its proposal. FOY wants to provide the local community with the facts. We want to be good neighbours that the ACT can be proud of. Regrettably, those that remain the most vocal against us are the very parties that have refused multiple invitations to meet and as such continue to disperse misinformation.

“FOY has an answer to the massive worldwide problem of waste plastic pollution. It is a solution that reduces the carbon footprint, reduces the price of fuel in Australia, reduces the need to extract more fossil fuels and creates Australian jobs. Canberra has the opportunity to be part of this solution that protects the world’s landscapes and our oceans.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
Hume facility would help protect landscape, oceans: FOY Group
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rommeldog56 2:04 pm 06 May 17

chewy14 said :

So, what do you think about the processes and independent review panel now? I’m sure that you’re going to reject these findings right? Seeing as the ACT doesn’t have access to the necessary depth of knowledge and technical capacity and all…….

The processes were a waste of time and ratepayers money. Logic and common sense (something this ACT Labor/Greens Govt has clearly displayed a serious lack of in planning and development decisions) said that a refinery in Hume, that close to residents, should be denied. The NSW Environmental Protection Agency rejected a FOY application and even wrote to the ACT Govt along similar lines (so much for their confidence that the ACT Govt could make the right and logical decision !). That alone should have automatically ruled out the FOY proposal at Hume, without wasting ratepayers $ on a panel of inquiry. Maybe FOY should meet the costs ?

In any event, happy that in relation to this FOY refinery proposal, the view of NIMBYs and many other experts have prevailed. At least for the time being……

I hope that the ACT Govt will give FOY back the deposit they paid on the land at Hume and that FOY will go away – permanently. Then FOY can find somewhere else for a pool of human guinea pigs for their refinery.

dungfungus 4:59 pm 04 May 17

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ?

“Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/independent-panel-slams-proposed-hume-plastics-plant-20170503-gvy4no.html

So, what do you think about the processes and independent review panel now?

I’m sure that you’re going to reject these findings right?

Seeing as the ACT doesn’t have access to the necessary depth of knowledge and technical capacity and all…….

This is great news.

It may have consequences for the government that approved the extension of the MLRMC too.

Here’s the link to the report: http://www.planning.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1058059/Final-report-Inquiry-Panel-Hume-Waste-Plastic-to-Fuel-Facility.pdf

Some places referred to are reported as being in Fyshwick when they should be Symonston.

dungfungus 3:18 pm 04 May 17

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ?

“Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/independent-panel-slams-proposed-hume-plastics-plant-20170503-gvy4no.html

So, what do you think about the processes and independent review panel now?

I’m sure that you’re going to reject these findings right?

Seeing as the ACT doesn’t have access to the necessary depth of knowledge and technical capacity and all…….

This is great news.

It may have consequences for the government that approved the extension of the MLRMC too.

chewy14 1:14 pm 04 May 17

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ?

“Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/independent-panel-slams-proposed-hume-plastics-plant-20170503-gvy4no.html

So, what do you think about the processes and independent review panel now?

I’m sure that you’re going to reject these findings right?

Seeing as the ACT doesn’t have access to the necessary depth of knowledge and technical capacity and all…….

dungfungus 9:01 pm 12 Apr 17

Here’s an interesting twist on recycling plastics (and other stuff).

This group in California appears to be doing something similar to what Foy is proposing but on a much smaller scale. Both systems rely on incredibly high temperatures.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/cathie-anderson/article140586478.html

Somewhere in the dialogue the promoter claims they can get energy from carbon.

Mmmmmm. If this is correct, shouldn’t The Greens be falling over each other to get this Californian system set up in Canberra? I mean it would allow us to reach 100% renewables in no time, even perhaps 200%!

JH 12:34 pm 11 Apr 17

Errrrr ….. how exactly will taking plastics out of LANDfill remove one ounce of plastics from the ocean? Looks like a sales-pitch crock to me – let’s feel good about saving a turtle while we make some money. If they were proposing to dredge the oceans that would be great – but that would cost a fortune so they are not interested in that.

dungfungus 11:39 am 05 Apr 17

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ?

“Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

Stuart Clark from Foy needs to respond to this and explain why he “envisages” that the Hume proposal will be approved.

chewy14 8:25 am 05 Apr 17

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ?

“Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

So you misread the article, thanks for admitting it.

And the NIMBY’s catch 22, you can’t put in a plant until you’ve put in a plant somewhere else.

Sorry, that doesn’t cut the mustard, it will clearly be one of the things the expert review will look at and they will certainly place requirements on any plant to monitor emissions to ensure their compliance with regulation.

As for your comparison with the tram (as a critic of that decision myself), it fails miserably. This will primarily be an
environmental and health decision based on the existing regulations and processes in place, whereas the Tram is a financial decision, where the government has significantly more room to make policy decisions which they did.

To sum up (because I’m sick of this discussion), you have no evidence that the independent review is biased yet you think it won’t work. You impugn the professional integrity of those involved without reason and you won’t accept the outcome of the decision unless it goes your way. As I said at the beginning, text book NIMBY.

dungfungus 9:11 pm 04 Apr 17

wildturkeycanoe said :

chewy14 said :

Are you suggesting that the independent review process that has been set up is somehow biased or not actually independent?

Big call, got anything to back that up? You’re potentially attacking the professional reputation of the expert reviewers that will be involved.

It may be a fruitless exercise, as we have already seen with the light rail project. It won’t matter even if the experts advise them project is not wise to proceed with, the government will steam ahead because they can and nobody has the power to stop them.
I wonder if it will be the same experts who conducted the study that prevented FOY from starting up in NSW?

The tram experts were mainly critical of the financial aspects of a mass transit proposal that essentially would do exactly the same as the busses. The only environmental issues were the perceptions that trams were somehow “greener than busses”. The worst the tram project can do is bankrupt the Territory.

The issues facing the expert panel examining the Foy proposal are only health and environment which are far more important than the billions of dollars at risk with the with the tram project as failure to control some of the nasty emissions from the recycling process could kill Territorians.

Then again, the government has a record of ignoring expert advice (they did with the extension of the Mugga Lane land fill) so don’t be surprised if Foy gets the “green” light.

rommeldog56 7:23 pm 04 Apr 17

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

This is a quote from FOY in the link :

” Foy has a second project in planning in Berkeley Vale on the Central Coast. In information to the Australian Stock Exchange, Foy says NSW authorities want data from a plant in a like jurisdiction before they will approve the Berkeley Vale plant. The ACT factory is envisaged to provide that baseline data. “

Yep – Tuggeranong residents are certainly going to be guinea pigs – there can be no base line data for the Hume refinery proposal as its the 1st one using that unproven technology.

Proper processes ? “Proper processes” like the Tram decision, its EIS, ongoing planning decisions, etc, by this ACT Gov’t give little comfort that “proper processes” are effective here. Perhaps the ACT is seen as a soft touch by FOY.

chewy14 8:00 am 04 Apr 17

rommeldog56 said :

chewy14 said :

Are you suggesting that the independent review process that has been set up is somehow biased or not actually independent?

Big call, got anything to back that up? You’re potentially attacking the professional reputation of the expert reviewers that will be involved.

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

That’s not what that article said although it’s unsurprising you would misread it. It says there is a second proposal for a new plant in NSW, that authorities want better data on. Nothing to do with the first rejection, the reason for which is unknown.

Although the issue of emissions data is something that the expert panel will clearly look at and make an informed assessment on. If they believe the emissions or health risks are too high and reject the proposal then all well and good. If they approve it, the same.

Why are you so against proper processes being followed?

rommeldog56 9:57 pm 03 Apr 17

chewy14 said :

Are you suggesting that the independent review process that has been set up is somehow biased or not actually independent?

Big call, got anything to back that up? You’re potentially attacking the professional reputation of the expert reviewers that will be involved.

Can not find anything on who the ACT expert panel actually are. But here is a C/T article that is certainly worth reading. It appears that NSW EPA knocked back the FOY proposal in NSW because they lacked baseline data to support their claims re emissions, health impacts, etc. So FOY wants to use the Canberra plant to provide that to NSW !! As I said, Tuggeranong residents are FOYs Guinea Pigs for this unproven technology :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/proposed-act-plasticstofuel-plant-to-be-investigated-by-expert-health-panel-20170111-gtphay.html

wildturkeycanoe 9:07 pm 03 Apr 17

chewy14 said :

Are you suggesting that the independent review process that has been set up is somehow biased or not actually independent?

Big call, got anything to back that up? You’re potentially attacking the professional reputation of the expert reviewers that will be involved.

It may be a fruitless exercise, as we have already seen with the light rail project. It won’t matter even if the experts advise them project is not wise to proceed with, the government will steam ahead because they can and nobody has the power to stop them.
I wonder if it will be the same experts who conducted the study that prevented FOY from starting up in NSW?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site