Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Woodside clear to sell Browse stake

Woodside clear to sell Browse stake:
Woodside Petroleum says it has received the all-clear to sell part of its stake in the Browse gas project to Japan's Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsui & Co.

Toshiba Corporation, Japan – Client : Mitsubishi Corporation
The Japanese companies will buy a 14.7 per cent stake in the $30 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project through their Perth-based joint venture company, Japan Australia LNG (MIMI).

Woodside on Tuesday said that none of its joint venture partners in the Browse project, including BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron and Shell, had elected to match the MIMI offer.


  1. Was the dredging at JPP based on the draft of the maximum loaded ship?
    Vic Justice in the BCC port report only mentioned large,and not very large LNG ships.
    There is no way JPP would operate for the next 100 years only loading large LNG ships,a plant that size would have to be capable of servicing the very largest LNG carriers.
    A 136,000 cu.mtr. gas tanker with a loaded draft of 11.3 mtrs. needs at least 15.8 mtrs. MW.(Mean Water level).
    A 266,000 cu.mtr. gas tanker with a loaded draft of 12.3 metrs. would need at least another 1.5 mtrs to about 17.3 MW.
    They are a wider and longer ship so the channel would have to be wider and the turning basins too.

    That's a hell of a lot more dredged materiel.

    So if that is the case then the extra dredging would be the subject of another project assessment.

    A quick look at the plan also shows there is nothing about the extra industries to be built around the gas hub.
    This will require specialised handling wharfs,channels,turning basins etc.
    Add all that extra dredging up and we would pass the 60 million cu. mtrs. being done at Gladstone.
    And of course the extra dredging to keep the ports in business,and so on.
    Also,I don't know if it has been taken into consideration,but because of the silt issues the actual depth will have to be even greater than mentioned because of the operating safety factors.To ensure ongoing safe clearances in a 10 mtr tidal zone on a cyclone coast.
    This too of course would be the subject of another project approval process.
    And there is no faith in that anymore.

    Bet we couldn't get that in writing.

    Wonder if Josie Farrer could get back to us on that one?

  2. Port planning


    Site selection for LNG ports.


  3. Reading through the lists it seems the ability of the port to expand to ajoining vacant land seems to be the big plus at JPP.
    However so many of the other things that should be carefully considered immediatly ring alarm bells for JPP.

    JPP will not be an economical port.Fullstop.
    It would seem,without doubt,the same slack minded approach,(to rush the proposal through),has been applied to the discipline of proper construction assessment only for them to wind up with a plan that is an economical disaster.

    Fools everyone of them.Fullstop.

  4. Just in case anyone is thinking these giant ships are too big to go just about anywhere,the first Q Max,named Mozah,was launched several years ago.On the first voyage Mozah loaded with 266,000 cu.mtrs. of LNG,sailed through the Suez Canal and unloaded her cargo in Spain.
    In another couple of years the Panama Canal will have been upgraded to take 80% of the worlds LNG fleet.

    "In 2014, the Panama Canal expansion will be completed. Currently, only 6% of the world's LNG carriers can be accommodated through the canal's locks. According to Silvia de Marucci, head of liquid bulk traffic at the canal, upon completion of the expansion project, 80% of the carriers will be able to transit the canal."




    So thats the future,and Obama is reported today to be "warming"to LNG exports.

  5. Thanks for the court update.The fact that Richard will be heard 1 year to the day since Black Tuesday,is surely a good omen.
    If there is any justice for Richard and his people in their own country,lets hope they hear it this week.Good luck.

  6. Woodside looking overseas for growth and to boost its value

    by: Paul Garvey
    From:The Australian
    July 04, 201212:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size

    WOODSIDE Petroleum chief executive Peter Coleman is wrestling with a difficult proposition.

    Investors, he says, are losing interest in the long-dated, high-cost development projects that have been the company's raison d'etre in recent years. Instead, Woodside needs projects that are capable of moving the needle more quickly, a need that has sparked a global search for new assets.

    WOODSIDE Petroleum chief executive Peter Coleman is wrestling with a difficult proposition.

    Investors, he says, are losing interest in the long-dated, high-cost development projects that have been the company's raison d'etre in recent years. Instead, Woodside needs projects that are capable of moving the needle more quickly, a need that has sparked a global search for new assets.


  7. And don't take too long about it either


    A popular travel website has encouraged tourists to "give WA a wide berth" until the mining boom is over.

    The Sydney-based Global Travel Media says that the boom has led to a massive escalation in the cost of restaurant meals, drinks and hotel rooms in Perth.

    And it said that a speech by Premier Colin Barnett to 1300 delegates at last month's Australian Tourism Exchange had exemplified the fact WA had a "preoccupation with mining".

    The State Government spent $3.4 million to host the exchange, where international buyers met Australian tourism operators.

    But the website, in an article written by Queensland reporter John Alwyn-Jones, said that efforts to host the exchange in Perth might have been wasted by the "astronomical costs being experienced by delegates".

    "I spoke to both sellers and buyers at ATE and all are appalled at the cost of restaurant meals, drinks and hotel rooms, with the majority saying they could never recommend their clients visit Perth," Alwyn-Jones wrote.


  8. The proposed Broome boat harbour at the jetty is on hold because site investigation has found there is only sand there and that will not support any heavy structures.To try and build it there the cost would have to double to $70 million +.

    So how do they propose to build their massive structures at JPP on quicksand?

    When will Barnett admit his site selection criteria,"it's flat country on an unremarkable coast,"is a complete disaster?

    This is a fiasco that has been caused by making money the only criteria for anything.
    Barnett,Ferguson,KLC,Shire,BCC,they are all clueless idiots.In fact after the way they have treated the Broome community this goes double for them.

  9. With Shell,Inpex and Chevron all wanting to use Broome port for their developments,and the port and the BCC,shire etc,all being obsessed with a new port at JPP,we are about to experience the mother of all bottlenecks.
    Once again poor planning will cause us to loose a heap of work.
    The jetty extension should have been a priority 2 years back,securing land for lay down areas should have been underway for a long time,out of town of course.
    But no,more important to spend their days lieing and cheating trying to put a gas hub in the most stupid place,purely for their mates at the big end of town,and to jack up their real estate swindles.

  10. Some interesting facts have come out of the Shell Artic drilling spill response plan,or perhaps we should say,the lack there of.

    As Shell’s rigs head toward the Arctic to exploit melting sea ice to drill for more oil, the company took a small step this weekend in clarifying what would happen in an oil spill during the company’s planned Arctic drilling operations this summer.

    Despite the oil industry’s spin, experts know it is impossible to recover more than a small fraction of a major marine oil spill, as retired Coast Guard Admiral Roger Rufe told NPR: “But once oil is in the water, it’s a mess. And we’ve never proven anywhere in the world — let alone in the ice — that we’re very good at picking up more than 3 or 5 or 10 percent of the oil once it’s in the water.”

    So how is it possible, according to the New York Times, that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “said he believed the company’s claims that it could collect at least 90 percent of any oil spilled in the event of a well blowout.” These sorts of claims have raised eyebrows among advocates and scientists who study offshore oil drilling — they aren’t just unbelievable, they’re laughably, outrageously impossible. NPR’s Richard Harris cuts through Shell’s spin, and explains what these numbers really mean:

    “They have a miniscule number of boats compared to what was available in the Gulf of Mexico,” [Peter Van Tuyn, and environmental lawyer in Anchorage] says, and in the Gulf, “they didn’t have to deal with the extreme weather conditions that we’ve got in the Arctic.” High winds are the norm, and sea ice is always a possible hazard, “and yet they [Shell] claim they can collect as much as 95 percent.”

    In the relatively calm conditions of the Gulf of Mexico, with thousands of response vessels, only a small fraction was recovered from the BP oil disaster. Despite shameful efforts to spin its announcement, a government report found that 4% of the oil was skimmed, and another 6% was burned. And as oil spill expert Rick Steiner observes, even those estimates might be too high, and burning oil isn’t really removing it from the environment: “It either went into the air as atmospheric emissions, and some of that is pretty toxic stuff, or there’s a residue from burning crude that sinks to the ocean floor, sometimes in big thick mats.”

    And the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound? Steiner explains in “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill a Cautionary Tale for Arctic Ocean Drilling:

    And today, 23 years later, most of the fish and wildlife populations and habitats injured by the spill have yet to fully recover, and there is still residual, toxic oil in beach sediments. It is becoming evident that the injured Alaska coastal ecosystem may never fully recover from the Exxon Valdez spill.”

    What of the promised “state-of-the-art spill response”? Despite a three-year, $2 billion effort by Exxon, the response was a spectacular failure, recovering less than 7 percent of the spilled oil.

    Oil that Exxon might have “encountered” decades ago, still remains today, as do the impacts to the ecosystem and the wildlife and communities that depend upon it.

    By. Joe Smyth

    Joe Smyth is a Media Officer with Greenpeace.


  11. Scott Rosenburg,editor at Grist magazine,translates the latest speach by Exxon chief Rex Tillerson.Rex says we,the public,are too dumb to understand him.



    It requires a lot of education, requires taking an illiterate public — illiterate in the sciences, engineering and mathematics — and trying to help them understand why we can manage these risks. And that’s a very intensive, almost one-on-one process — town by town, city council by city council, state by state. So it takes a while. And we’re not particularly aided in our efforts by the broad-based media, because it’s a lot sexier to write the fear stories than it is to write the here’s-how-you-manage-it story.

    Translation: Do not think that we buy advertisements and pay lobbyists in order to influence public policy in our favor. At Exxon, we re having one-on-one conversations with our community. Sadly, journalists sometimes help out those fearmongering ignoramuses by repeating their lies. So we have to spend lots of money setting the record straight.


    And the consequences of a misstep by any member of our industry — and I’m speaking again about the shale revolution — the consequences of a misstep in a well, while large to the immediate people that live around that well, in the great scheme of things are pretty small, and even to the immediate people around the well, they could be mitigated.

    Translation: Accidents don’t happen if you do things right, and at Exxon, we always do things right. And even if there is an accident with fracking, which sometimes is done by people who don’t work for Exxon who might not do everything right, it will only wreck the lives of a limited number of people in a small number of communities. So who cares?

    These are not life-threatening, they’re not long-lasting, and they’re not new. They are the same risks that our industry has been managing for more than 100 years in the conventional development of oil and natural gas. There’s nothing new in what we’re doing, and we’ve been hydraulically refracturing (sic) wells in large numbers since the 1960s; first developed in 1940. So this is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies. So the risks are very manageable.

    Translation: If you look at the history of our industry, why would anyone worry? It’s not as if there have ever been any accidents, right?

  12. The oil and gas companies say there will be job losses if anyone tries to change our energy base.Not true,exactly the opposite is the truth.

    The stodgy National Renewable Energy Laboratory says that renewable energy like wind and solar can meet at least 80% of our electricity needs by 2050. (Note: most forecasts of renewable energy generation by "reputable sources" lowball it, by a lot). This isn't just long-term energy, it's infinite. There are no refills on natural gas.

    Two thirds of American states have the local resources to meet their entire electricity needs with renewable energy like wind, water, and solar. Within a decade, 100 million Americans in the largest metropolitan areas will be able to get cheaper electricity from solar on their rooftop than from their utility.

    And what about the economy? Solar and wind create several times the jobs per megawatt of electricity capacity (Data below from Putting Renewables to Work published by UC Berkeley). Local ownership of distributed renewable energy resources can double and triple, respectively, the jobs and economic impact of our energy generation.


  13. Scary reports that the Chinese want to get their hands on 100,000 hectares of land near Broome for aquaculture.


    That is a mindboggling 1000 sqklms!!!

    Or a strip of land from Broome to Derby 4 klms wide.

    Another bloody disaster on our doorsteps,when will these dumb ass pollies wake up?

  14. Japan gets some N power back:

    July 5 (LNGJ) - Japan regained some supply of nuclear-generated electricity when a reactor at the Oi plant in western Japan was connected to the generator and transmission grid, with all other reactors in the country remaining off-line for prolonged check-ups in the wake of last year's Fukushima nuclear crisis, officials said. The Japanese LNG requirement for gas-fired power will fall as N-power increases, but only if nuclear regains a certain high level..