Monday, October 21, 2013



on ROBIN CHAPPLE: I assure the Attorney General that the scuttlebutt comes from informed sources. At that time the Kimberley Land Council was really concerned about compulsory acquisition. It had earlier told the Premier that it was having trouble because too many diverse groups were making decisions, opposing or arguing among themselves, and it did not think that it could come up with an agreement for the Premier within the time frame. It was suggested to me that members of the KLC and the Premier determined that one of the ways to fast-track this proposal was to opt for compulsory acquisition. As I say, it is scuttlebutt—I cannot prove it—but, clearly, compulsory acquisition then took place. The Premier originally stated that only 2 500 hectares of land would be compulsorily acquired. Subsequently, he changed the number to 7 500 hectares and 2 500 hectares of seabed. That information was announced by Erin Parke on the ABC. After the compulsory acquisition, details of which appeared at page 90 of The West Australian on 15 April 2009, the compulsory acquisition was challenged by Phillip Roe and Neil McKenzie. Chief Justice Martin ruled in 2011 that the compulsory acquisition process was invalid because the three notices of intention to acquisition did not include descriptions of the land. That was a fundamental mistake. It was only to be botched a second time when an attempt was made to fix the first problem.
A second compulsory acquisition was lodged in March 2012 and again was ruled invalid. Mr McGowan said at the time that the Premier’s intervention, and his decision that he knew better than commercial proponents, Aboriginal people and the people of the Kimberley, had resulted in that outcome. Mr McGowan said that all of the blame lies with the Premier. As I have long said, those who botched this from the very beginning are those in the Department of State Development. The department has repeatedly been incompetent when deciding on major developments in this state, whether it be around Geraldton or other locations. I remember the proposals of Premier Geoff Gallop to guarantee eight projects for the Burrup, yet none of them eventuated. Minister Grylls has admitted that mistakes have been made by the department in compulsory acquisition. Unfortunately, the government had made so much investment in Broome on the back of a functioning gas processing facility north of the town that he was concerned that if that investment did not push ahead, it would not have any particular value. Every time we deal with these matters, we lose money. There are bad processes and there is no real structural integrity. When I worked for BHP, we would do a complete cost analysis, evaluate everything and hopefully come up with a well-defined project in which all the boxes were ticked. An absolute litany of mistakes seems to have been made here. That is why I believe an inquiry is needed, not necessarily to badger the government, but to look at the departments that have been behind the development of these proposals, their presentations to the government and the way the government has had to deal with the fallout of the failure of just about every inexorable part of these proposals. I believe those agencies that have provided incorrect or misleading information to ministers and the government need to be held to account in some way. I admit that I did not like the proposal, but what we are seeing is a level of abject incompetence through all departments. I have a lot more to say and I have only a minute left.
The compulsory acquisition process was a failure. I did want to deal with the Department of Indigenous Affairs. I am sure the minister was waiting for me to refer to that. Members should know that the department had all the reports on which the EPA had based its decisions that there should be no development in that area, yet it came to the estimates hearings and said that it had only just found out it had all the reports that recommended there should be no development. They had written a briefing note to the Department of State Development identifying the very same reports that DSD should have got, but then it found out that it had written this report and that it may never have been sent. The department had the information. When the minister’ two officers went to James Price Point, they were handed the documents; they determined it was a site.


  1. Spot on by Robin Chapple again and a great post by Redhand.

    There was no shortage of comment here and elsewhere at the time about the KLC wanting the CA so badly to seal the deal once and for all.

    Bergman,Parriman,Hunter,"Tiny Tears" Barker and all.

    There must be an enquiry into all this because when the truth starts coming out it will lead to a Royal Commission that will make "WA Inc" look like a Sunday School picnic.


    Here we are 6 months on from Woodside scrapping the plan and there are many people leaving Broome and looking elsewhere for work and quite likely somewhere they can rent out a house for $2000 - $3000 a week.

    "Gas omission blamed for Broome economic exodus"

    ".........Property analyst Gavin Hegney, agrees that Woodside's decision not to proceed with the construction of a gas processing facility at James Price Point north of Broome has caused a downturn in the local economy.

    "I was getting a lot of questions...probably over the last six to nine months, 'What about Broome?'... Should I be investing there?... Is there going to be a lot of work opportunities?'" Mr Hegney says.

    "So there's probably already been a speculative lead up... Perhaps it hasn't come to fruition as they expected and may be going on to GREENER PASTURES elsewhere."

    Come to think of it ......there was a fair bit of scuttlebutt going around at the time of the CA that certain well placed KLC people were planning to rent out their houses from the property deal for these $2 - $3000 sky high rents.


    I know I shouldn't but just can't help it!

    Had to laugh today when the KLC's leading NIMBY Bergman was at the receiving end of some of Collier's bullshit ....hahaha.

    "Buru cleared over Indigenous land clearing complaint"

    "...........The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) has spent a year looking into the complaint.

    The DAA has found that, although the overall area is likely to contain sacred sites, the complaint area was not a registered site and therefore no breach occurred.

    KRED Enterprises, which represents the Nyikina Mungala traditional owners, has written to Aboriginal Affairs Minister Peter Collier to complain about the findings.

    KRED says it went to great lengths to provide evidence the site should be registered as sacred.

    The letter accuses the department of "failing to fulfil its duties and obligations" under the Act.

    KRED chairman Anthony Watson says evidence provided to the department by six independent experts shows the site should be protected.

    "The site has over 1,000 engravings and artworks. It's the biggest of its kind in our state and it's just been ignored as a heritage site," he said.

    "So I just found it disappointing that the department ignored a lot of those recommendations."

    Mr Collier says he is satisfied with the department's comprehensive investigation and is comfortable with the department's decision not to pursue prosecution in this instance."

    Well well well - not so funny now is it boyos.


    And another one in the eye for the Emperor today when none other than Conoco,Exxon & Santos gave evidence at the FLNG enquiry that they were all considering the FLNG alternative to land based sites.......OUCH!

    And re the 1% difference between land and FLNG - that is before considering FLNG being delivered on time and budget Vs. the 30% to 50% + cost blowouts and time blowouts of land based plants.

    Especially at a very difficult site from all angles like JPP.


  2. Browse cost case on FLNG not so clear cut

    The Australian

    ENERGY: Floating liquefied natural gas technology will add as little as one percentage point to the economics of the Woodside Petroleum-led Browse LNG project, an inquiry into the controversial new technology has revealed.

    Fran Logan, deputy chairman of the Western Australian government's economic and industry standing committee inquiry into FLNG, told yesterday's hearing in Perth that an unreleased submission to the inquiry put the return on investment from the FLNG option at 12.5 to 13 per cent, compared to an 11.5 per cent return on investment from the scrapped onshore processing option.

    Mr Logan said the numbers had come from "a major organisation" involved in Browse.

    Woodside earlier this year walked away from a proposal to develop the huge Browse gas fields off northern WA through an onshore LNG plant at James Price Point, north of Broome. Woodside and its partners in Browse have since committed to study the exploitation of the fields through FLNG, which involves packing LNG processing facilities on to massive barges, which then sit above the gasfields out at sea.

    The FLNG process requires less infrastructure than onshore LNG plants and increases the amount of construction work that can be done in cheaper markets internationally. WA Premier Colin Barnett has been a fierce critic of plans to use FLNG at Browse, warning that it will risk thousands of jobs and billions of investment during the construction phase.

    BP representative Trevor Caldwell, general manger overseeing BP's minority stake in the Browse project, told the inquiry he expected the capital cost of an FLNG development at Browse to cost "significantly less" than the James Price Point development.

    But the committee noted that the billions of dollars in upfront capex savings would be substantially offset by higher operating costs during the life of the development, due to the added complexity of servicing and maintaining a processing facility out at sea.

    Committee member Jan Norberger questioned whether the studies into James Price Point had reflected the easing in cost pressures under way across the resources sector, noting that while costs in Australia had been high in recent years the main spending under the James Price Point proposal would have taken place once the current construction boom had passed.

    Mr Norberger questioned the definition of commercial viability used by the partners, noting that they could set their parameters for viability to support the FLNG plan and provide a convenient line for scrapping James Price Point. Woodside and BP have told the inquiry the James Price Point plan was not commercially viable.

    Mr Caldwell countered that the partners had spent an estimated $2 billion studying the feasibility of James Price Point, while the costings were based on the submissions of contractors who would have been factoring in their expectations of future market conditions.

    The committee challenged Mr Caldwell's assertion that the James Price Point plan carried several risks, noting that Australia appeared to carry a much lower level of risk than other regions where BP was active while the James Price Point plan had support from the state and federal governments.


    Unfortunately it didn't go into the ongoing costs for maintenance on 1000's of klms of pipelines or the lifetime dredging at a very unsuitable site like JPP.

    While the 12.5 - 13% on FLNG would most likely improve the 11.5 % at JPP could only get worse.

    11.5% sounds like the most optimistic case with a more realistic case being closer to 10% (or less) given the risks of the JPP site.

    Also worth remembering BOTH Liberal and Labour wanted the land based option so a good deal of bias on this committee.

  3. Martin Ferguson thinks he's the Eddie "everywhere" McGuire of oil and gas.

    Ferguson joins UWA board

    Tuesday, 22 October 2013

    INDUSTRY heavyweight Martin Ferguson has joined the University of Western Australia Energy and Minerals Institute, adding another resources title to his belt.

  4. Russia deadly serious on Asian LNG.

    Russia moves to supply Asian gas

    DAEGU, South Korea, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Russia expects to liberalize its liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Jan. 1, and a bill will be submitted to parliament shortly, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Wednesday.

    Novak also said Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) are expected to reach an agreement on gas supplies by the end of this year.

    President Vladimir Putin said earlier this month that Russia, the world’s biggest energy supplier, would press ahead with opening up LNG exports in a move to meet growing demand from Asia-Pacific markets.

    …Removing restrictions on LNG exports would be a big blow to state-controlled Gazprom, which holds a monopoly on Russia’s gas exports.

    The prospect of an end to that monopoly has injected urgency into its talks to supply China with pipeline gas, which have gone on for more than a decade.

    …Asked about a Gazprom deal to supply gas to China, Novak said: “We really expect Gazprom and CNPC to reach agreement by the end of this year.”

    Russia has three or four LNG terminals in planning (plus the planned pipeline) depending upon who you ask totaling 40 or 50 million tonnes per annum output. The majority is destined for Asia from 2017-2020.


    Japanese LNG imports dropped 7.7 percent in September with all nuclear plants shut

    Monday, 21 October 2013

    Japanese LNG imports dropped 7.7 percent in September and cargoes cost an average of $790 a tonne per delivered cargo on a Customs-cleared basis, according to preliminary figures.


    Australia's Santos makes progress across all of Gladstone LNG and 200 wells drilled

    Friday, 18 October 2013

    Australian energy company Santos said it made strong construction progress across all aspects of the Gladstone LNG project, with the 200th coal-seam-gas well for the year spudded in October, and said the Papua New Guinea LNG plant will definitely come on stream in the second half of 2014.