Author: Ocean in Minds

When Maritime Infrastructure Meets Antarctic Science: Reflecting on the RSV Nuyina

Australia’s Antarctic program connects some of the most remote places on Earth with a familiar waterfront in Hobart.

At the centre of that connection is the RSV Nuyina, Australia’s Antarctic research and resupply vessel. From its home port in Hobart, the vessel supports scientific research, station resupply and Australia’s wider Antarctic operations.

Yet an apparently straightforward operational requirement—refuelling the vessel—reveals how complex the relationship between science, maritime infrastructure, safety and governance can become.

A Ship, a Bridge and a Refuelling Question

Nuyina’s home berth is at Macquarie Wharf in Hobart. However, the marine fuel facility at Selfs Point lies beyond the Tasman Bridge.

The issue is not simply whether the vessel physically fits beneath or between the bridge structure. The key concern has been navigational safety and directional stability.

Following extensive simulations, the TasPorts harbourmaster determined in 2023 that the vessel should not transit the bridge. In 109 computer simulations, the virtual vessel made contact with the central pylons four times, while additional simulated passages were terminated before potential collisions occurred.

Consequently, Nuyina has been travelling to Burnie in north-west Tasmania for refuelling. The return journey adds approximately 674 kilometres and almost $900,000 annually to its fuel costs.

The Australian Antarctic Program’s published voyage schedules demonstrate how Burnie has consequently become incorporated into Nuyina’s operational logistics.

More Than a Logistical Problem

It would be easy to view this simply as a question of where a ship should refuel.

But from a human-dimensions perspective, it illustrates something broader.

Maritime systems rarely depend upon one piece of infrastructure or one organisation. A research vessel operates within a network involving ports, bridges, fuel infrastructure, harbour authorities, governments, scientists, maritime professionals and communities.

Each part of that system has different responsibilities.

Scientific operations require reliability. Maritime authorities must manage navigational risk. Governments must consider infrastructure and expenditure. Port operators must consider operational feasibility. And communities reasonably expect critical infrastructure such as the Tasman Bridge to be protected.

Seen this way, the situation is not necessarily a story about one institution being right and another being wrong.

It is an example of interdependence.

Safety Is Part of Maritime Governance

The Tasman Bridge also carries particular historical significance for Tasmania.

In 1975, the bulk carrier Lake Illawarra struck the bridge, resulting in the collapse of part of the structure and the loss of twelve lives. That history inevitably forms part of the context within which contemporary navigational risks around the bridge are assessed.

This makes the Nuyina situation particularly interesting from a governance perspective.

Operational efficiency matters.

So does cost.

So does maintaining Australia’s Antarctic capability.

But maritime governance also requires decisions about risks whose consequences, however unlikely, could be extremely serious.

The challenge therefore becomes one of finding solutions that allow these objectives to coexist rather than treating them as competing priorities.

Infrastructure Shapes What Science Can Do

There is another lesson here that extends well beyond Hobart.

Scientific capability does not end with laboratories, researchers or sophisticated vessels.

It also depends upon the infrastructure surrounding them.

Wharves, fuel facilities, ports, bridges, logistics networks and regulatory systems may appear peripheral to scientific research, yet they help determine whether scientific operations can function efficiently.

The current $188 million agreement between the Tasmanian and Australian governments for Macquarie Wharf includes work towards a longer-term refuelling solution for Nuyina. Options considered over time have included different approaches to delivering fuel as well as further consideration of whether safe bridge transit might ultimately be possible.

The eventual solution is for the responsible authorities and maritime experts to determine.

But the situation itself provides a valuable case for reflection.

An Ocean in Minds Perspective

Nuyina connects Tasmania with Antarctica.

Yet before the vessel reaches the Southern Ocean, its operation depends upon decisions made within a few kilometres of Hobart’s waterfront.

That small geographical distance contains a remarkably complex system: science, engineering, maritime expertise, infrastructure, public safety, environmental considerations, government and long-term planning.

Perhaps this is one of the less visible dimensions of our relationship with the ocean.

Ocean capability is not created by ships alone.

It emerges from the systems of people, knowledge, infrastructure and institutions that enable those ships to operate.

And strengthening our relationship with the ocean may therefore require us to think not only about what happens at sea, but also about the systems we build on land to support it.

Ocean Reflection#1: Ocean Literacy Begins with People

(Acknowledging the authors)

Before sharing my reflection, I would like to encourage readers to refer to the original white paper by Francis, Kelly, Swanson, Adyel, Arthur, Benkendorff, and their colleagues. This reflection is not intended to replace or summarise their work comprehensively. Instead, it is a personal reflection inspired by their publication. Readers interested in the full discussion, evidence, recommendations, and context are encouraged to read the original paper.

Reflection: Ocean Literacy Begins with People

Inspired by Francis, P., Kelly, R., Swanson, L., Adyel, T. M., Arthur, B., Benkendorff, K., and colleagues (2026). Strengthening Ocean Literacy: Marine Science Education and Training to Ensure Australia’s Blue Future. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs.

One of the privileges of reading academic work is recognising the immense effort behind it. This paper represents more than a literature review or a collection of recommendations—it reflects collaboration among researchers, educators, practitioners, and institutions who share a common aspiration: to strengthen Australia’s relationship with the ocean through knowledge, education, and collaboration. I sincerely acknowledge the authors and everyone who contributed to this vision. Their work provides an important foundation for future conversations about ocean literacy in Australia.

As I read the paper, one idea remained with me throughout: ocean sustainability ultimately depends on people.

The authors describe ocean literacy not simply as learning facts about the sea, but as developing understanding, stewardship, participation, and informed decision-making. They argue that marine science, education, government, industry, Indigenous knowledge holders, and communities all have a role in building a society capable of making better decisions for the future of our oceans. Rather than separating science from society, the paper encourages stronger connections between them through trust, dialogue, and collaboration.

Reading this paper also helped me understand where Oceaninminds sits.

Oceaninminds is not intended to duplicate the important work already being undertaken in ocean literacy, marine science, or environmental education. Instead, it offers a complementary perspective. While this paper focuses on strengthening ocean literacy through education systems, research, communication, and governance, Oceaninminds is interested in another question:

How do human mindsets shape our relationship with the ocean before knowledge becomes action?

Knowledge is essential, but people do not always act according to what they know. Values, identities, beliefs, lived experiences, culture, and social environments influence how knowledge is interpreted and whether it leads to meaningful behavioural change. Oceaninminds is curious about this human dimension—the internal processes that connect understanding with action.

This reflection also reminds me of my own research journey through Maritime Identity Development (MID) and Social Mindset Restructuring (SMR). My research has long explored how identity and mindset evolve through social interaction and collective experience. Reading this white paper suggests that these ideas may contribute another layer to conversations about ocean literacy. Ocean literacy can explain what people need to understand; Maritime Identity Development explores who people become in relation to the ocean; and Social Mindset Restructuring considers how societies gradually transform the ways they think and act over time.

Rather than viewing these perspectives as competing, I see them as complementary. Ocean literacy provides a strong national framework for building informed citizens. Oceaninminds seeks to explore the cognitive, cultural, and social pathways through which that literacy becomes part of people’s identities and everyday decisions.

One aspect of the paper I particularly appreciate is its recognition that meaningful progress depends on collaboration across disciplines and sectors. The authors acknowledge Indigenous knowledge systems, interdisciplinary education, community participation, co-produced research, and dialogue between science and society. This openness creates space for different perspectives to contribute toward the shared goal of healthier relationships between people and the ocean.

For me, this paper does not define the destination for Oceaninminds; rather, it helps clarify its direction.

If ocean literacy asks how society can become more informed about the ocean, Oceaninminds asks how people come to see themselves as part of the ocean’s future.

Perhaps these questions are not separate at all. Perhaps they are different parts of the same journey.

Tonight, I leave this paper with gratitude—for the generosity of its authors, for the collaborative spirit it represents, and for the reminder that sustainable oceans will always depend on the ways people learn, think, connect, and ultimately choose to care.

A note to readers

This reflection represents my personal learning journey after reading the authors’ work. It should not be interpreted as a review or a substitute for the original publication. I warmly encourage readers to explore the original white paper, Strengthening Ocean Literacy: Marine Science Education and Training to Ensure Australia’s Blue Future, by Prue Francis, Rachel Kelly, Louise Swanson, Tanveer M. Adyel, Benjamin Arthur, Kirsten Benkendorff, and colleagues. Their work provides a comprehensive and thoughtful vision for advancing ocean literacy in Australia, and this reflection simply captures how it has informed the evolving perspective of Oceaninminds.

Why Ocean in Minds?

The ocean is more than a physical environment. It shapes our identities, cultures, livelihoods, governance, and the future we share.

Ocean in Minds was created from a simple belief: that the future of our oceans depends not only on scientific knowledge, but also on how people think about the ocean and their relationship with it.

This platform is a space for research, reflection, and interdisciplinary dialogue. It explores the human dimensions of the ocean, connecting ideas from marine science, social science, governance, and public policy.

Whether you are a researcher, student, policymaker, practitioner, or simply curious about the ocean, I hope these reflections encourage new ways of thinking and meaningful conversations.

Welcome to Ocean in Minds.