Woodside's fast track application under scrutiny - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Woodside's fast track application under scrutiny - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A proposal to fast-track approvals for Woodside's Kimberley gas hub development had attracted 1,700 submissions by yesterday's deadline.

The broader LNG precinct, north of Broome, has already been ticked off by the Environmental Protection Authority.

But, the EPA now needs to consider whether or not to approve Woodside's facility within the hub.

Woodside wants its processing facility to be treated as a 'derived proposal', or part of the already approved precinct project.

Hands Off Country's submitted the following:

Submission on Woodside’s request to declare a derived proposal for Browse LNG precinct.

We submit that the EPA must refuse to declare the referred proposal to be a derived proposal as the environmental issues raised  were not adequately assessed when the strategic proposal was assessed;

We submit that there has been a systematic failure at all levels in the assessment process in failing to take account of the very real threat of climate change on this proposal. 

·      As reported 26/11/09 in the Broome Advertiser, the federal Climate Change and Water Minister, Penny Wong espoused that ‘major coastal infrastructure’ will be ‘at risk from climate change’ through destructive ‘storm surges and higher than normal tidal movements’. Using a conservative sea level rise scenario (up to 1.1 meters by 2100) the Department Of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency ‘estimates over $226 billion’ worth of commercial and residential assets and accompanying infrastructure are ‘exposed to hazards associated with inundation and erosion’.[1]

·       In Broome it is estimated there is significant potential for roads to be compromised,[2] with the ‘extensive expansion of Dampier Creek ’ and  ‘large areas of the Broome peninsula inundated’, with as much as 21% of the town area submerged.[3] ‘The capacity of local emergency services to cope with increases in the frequency and or severity of coastal storms and floods, as well as the community health implications of extreme weather events’ is a major concern.[4]

·         In Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 353, the High Court held that there was a legitimate expectation that decision makers would act in accordance with conventions which had been ratified by the Commonwealth government. Suggesting, that at a decision-making level, reference must be made to the provisions of such international treaties  as the Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by the Australian Government and which acknowledges climate change.

·         The Kyoto agreement was the culmination of a plethora of scientific data about phenomena such as global warming, ozone depletion and the universal loss of biodiversity, and highlighted the trans-boundary implications of nation states activities within and outside their borders. The Climate Commission is documenting contemporary physical and biological changes in Australia, and the  “Observations coupled with models of ice sheet, ocean temperatures, and sea levels all point in one direction: that it is highly likely that human activities are inducing climate change”.[5]  

·      We submit that research, literature and policy on planning for climate change, emphasizes the need to situate adaptation within a sustainability framework.[6] The principles of ecologically sustainable development appear in the Commonwealth National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development(1992), and in numerous Commonwealth and State environmental legislation, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) and is the ‘principal mechanism’[7] and appropriate tool to solve environmental concerns.

·         ESD[8] is the environmental component of sustainable development  and is  achieved partially through the use of the precautionary principle. This is a ‘common sense principle’ which is incorporated into Commonwealth strategies, international documents and legislation and dictates, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. What is appropriate is a risk weighted assessment of the consequences of various options, as per Preston CJ who reiterated ‘ the precautionary principle…is the satisfaction of two conditions – the threat of serious/irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage’.[9]

·         One key question and concern raised in recent court cases is weather the impacts of proposed projects on Climate change should be considered by decision  makers and/ or the Court in deciding whether to ultimately go ahead. The Minister should have regard for the High Courts rulings in regard to the external affairs head of power in the context of environmental protection as per Richardson v Forrestry Commission (1988) 164CLR261, and Lemonthyme and Southern Forests(Commission of enquiry) Act1987 (Cth) whereby , it is clear the Commonwealth can legislate in areas where there is  a reasonable belief that they might possess world heritage characteristics, that could be damaged unless such legislation is enacted.

·         We submit that to meet International obligations and national standards, consideration should be given to the issue of climate change in reaching its decision on whether to determine the Woodside development as derived. As per Gray[10]  Justice Pain, held  the decision failed to take into account the precautionary principle , nor intergenerational equity, while in Walker[11]  Justice Biscoe considered the Ministers failure to consider the increased flood risks to the development as a result of climate change invalidated the consent.  Also the validity of approvals on the grounds that the Minister failed to consider the impact of the projects on climate change as required to do as part of his duty to consider the public interest was examined in Haughton.[12]

·         According to report 4 of the National Sea Change Taskforce,[13] there is legal uncertainty in regard to responsibility and potential liability in regard to development in areas exposed to climate risk and rising sea levels. The legal risks associated with inadequate assessment of planning for climate change adaptation, through granting development approval in areas ‘vulnerable to coastal processes’ is the potential inundation of ‘liability claims’.[14]   Liability claims will arise as this proposed   development is in a  location where “harm is foreseeable” and there has been a “failing to include adequate protective standards in the planning scheme”.[15]

·         We submit that guidance material was non existent or ‘insufficient’ in relation to the provision of information about climate risk and lacked reference to the  potential liabilities’[16] in regard to climate change.

---

[1] Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 2012.

[2] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart.  March 2012. P 13.

[3] Broome Advertiser ‘Grim picture is painted over rising sea levels’ 26.11.2019 .

[4] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March2012. P 47.

[5] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March 2012 .P11.

[6] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March 2012.

[7] Sharon Beder (1993).

[8] The Environmental Law Framework for Sustainable Development – Principles of Sustainable Development in International, National and Local Laws Ilona Millar, Senior Associate, Baker & McKenzie.

[9] The Environmental Law Framework for Sustainable Development – Principles of Sustainable Development in International, National  and  Local Laws. Illona Millar, Senior Associate, Baker & McKenzie.

[10] Gray v Minister for Planning & Orrs(2006) 152 LGERA 258

[11] Walker v the Minister forPlanning and Orrs [2007) NSWLEC 741

[12] Haughton v Minister for Planning and Macquarie Generation and Haughton v Minister for Planning and Delta Electricity.

[13] Gurran, N, Norman, B, Gilbert, C Hamin, E, 2011, Planning for climate change adaptation in Coastal Australia: State of practice, Report No. 4 for the National Sea Change Taskforce, Faculty of Des Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney November 2011.p 9.

[14] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March 2012 .P9.

[15] Baker & McKenzie 2011 in Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March 2012. P 23.

[16] Preliminary Report  2012 Australian Coastal Councils Conference. Hobart March 2012. P 23.

Woodside extends global gas push

So interesting that Woodside can not manage a small remote Australian community of Broome and the fact that their security force were made fools of time and time again with lockons, and breaches to their tower and equipment, over the last two years. They do not have the security skills, even two grandmothers made idiots of Woodside when they lockedon earlier this year to a van that forced the workers and the convoy to return to Broome. One women and her dog has also managed to turn back Woodside convoys. Get real Woodside, Israel is a completely different story, its for keeps.

The Australian-
WOODSIDE Petroleum chief Peter Coleman is bullish about the company's financial heft and its ability to develop both its newly acquired ...

The low price tag was attributed in part to the security risks associated with building a multi-billion-dollar LNG facility in such a politically sensitive part of the world, but Mr Coleman said he was comfortable with the challenges an LNG plant in Israel would present.

"We've made our own assessment of the security risk. We have spoken not only to Israeli security forces and we've viewed the potential sites for the onshore facilities and made our own risk assessment around that. We feel that's manageable and we also feel that the investment market will see that the risk is quite manageable," Mr Coleman said.


Woodside poised to take punt on $1.3b Israeli gasfield
Sydney Morning Herald-

Woodside takes giant strides
The Australian Financial Review-

Slashing of 'green tape' put at risk as activist bodies unite

NATIONAL AFFAIRS

BY:GRAHAM LLOYD, 
ENVIRONMENT EDITOR From:The Australian December 03, 2012 12:00AM

ENVIRONMENT groups have formed a "council of war" to combat business and state government demands to cut "green tape" they fear will weaken protection and lead to a US-style wave of litigation.

A standoff has developed between federal En

vironment Minister Tony Burke and state governments over who should have the final say on whether a project meets commonwealth obligations.

A series of decisions involving Woodside's James Price Point gas hub in Western Australia and Rio Tinto's South of Embley bauxite mine in Cape York has brought the issue to a head.

The Business Council of Australia has driven the "green tape" reform agenda, claiming over-regulation is jeopardising $900 billion worth of projects. The council is due to meet on Thursday, before Friday's Council of Australian Governments meeting at which the "green tape" agenda is expected to be set for early next year.

BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott said yesterday that reducing the delays and costs associated with the environmental approvals process was vital to the strength and resilience of Australia's economy.

"It is not about reducing the environmental protections which are important to protect our natural heritage," she said.

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett said the commonwealth should limit its role to matters of biodiversity.

"I think the commonwealth government needs to stay out of environmental assessments and approvals," he said. "I am not saying there aren't issues, and sometimes things go wrong, but this overlay of commonwealth law on top has been the sole reason for this green tape."

But green groups claim the COAG "green tape" reform process has gone too far, with a proposal to remove the federal minister from the approvals process and attempts to weaken the environmental test for developments.

"In our view there is the scope for efficiencies in how environmental assessments are done but the negotiations have become tangled because there is now a push for full environmental approval powers to be delegated to the states," Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Don Henry said.

"Assessments are very different to who makes the final decision.

"I think that would be a disaster for the exercise of Australia's national environment laws and I think it would also deliver great uncertainty for business so I think it is a quite a naive push."

State governments are understood to be seeking a full delegation of authority from the commonwealth. This would mean the federal minister would have no say over individual projects and could only act by revoking the delegation to a state after what were considered to be a series of poor decisions.

Wilderness Society national campaign director Lyndon Schneiders said: "If the BCA's proposal (for approvals) was in operation at the time and the commonwealth government exited from environmental decision making, the Franklin would have been dammed, the Wet Tropics would still be logged, the Great Barrier Reef would be full of oil rigs, Fraser Island would be sand-mined and the Traveston Dam would have been built."

Mr Schneiders said the system could lead to a wave of US-style litigation by environment groups to overturn state decisions.

"If its campaign is successful and Colin Barnett and Campbell Newman become the guardians of our world heritage and national heritage sites, then a new era of litigation to protect these sites from development by environmental groups will be heralded," he said. "We will follow the lead of environment groups in the US and look to the courts to enforce the environmental standards expected by the broader community and to which Australia is committed through a large number of international treaties."

The heads of Australia's biggest environment groups, including ACF, Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, have over the past week discussed strategy to combat what they consider a grave threat to the nation's environmental regulation.

World renowned naturalist and broadcaster David Attenborough has signed a letter prepared by the Humane Society International to Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the issue. A gathering of environmental groups is planned for Canberra on Thursday to oppose the government's decision to delegate environmental responsibility to the states.

Green groups were also concerned that proposed amendments to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act would weaken protections for endangered and threatened species.

They said the term "significant impact" under the act had been broadly defined by the courts as being an "impact that is important, notable or of consequence having regard to its context or intensity".

Proposed amendments would change this to "a proposal that would destroy a breeding population of a listed species such that the species is likely to be listed in a higher category of endangerment".

"This is plainly a narrowing of the test because it requires impact at the population level, rather than just an impact at the local level," Mr Schneiders said.

Mr Burke said discussions were continuing with the states and business community. "The basis for this entire discussion with the states has been that there would be absolutely no lowering of environmental standards," he said.

       

Media Release

Monday 3 December 2012

Call on EPA to withdraw new Woodside

gas hub application

The WA EPA is currently considering an application from Woodside to avoid any specific environmental assessment of its proposed ‘foundation’ LNG plant at James Price Point.

Conservation groups have written to the EPA* requesting that Woodside’s application be withdrawn or rejected because the company has clearly failed to comply with the EPA’s requirements as set out in its recent strategic assessment report on the proposed multi-user gas hub.

WA State Coordinator for the Wilderness Society, Peter Robertson, said Woodside’s request that its 25 million tonnes per annum LNG plant be declared a 'derived proposal' by the EPA would, if successful, mean no public scrutiny of the project.

"In Report 1444 the EPA stated clearly and repeatedly that Woodside would need to provide detailed environmental information and show how they consulted with stakeholders before making this derived proposal request and they have failed to do so," said Mr Robertson.

"The EPA has no choice but to withdraw the obviously rushed and incomplete proposal from advertising until Woodside complies with the EPA's previous ruling," Mr Robertson said.

Environs Kimberley Director Martin Pritchard said that WA Premier Colin Barnett had promised in Parliament in August 2011 that Woodside’s foundation project would have to undergo a full environmental assessment process.

"The Premier needs to follow through on his statement in parliament and make sure that the public and independent scientists have a chance to look at this properly and not just allow Woodside to ride roughshod over EPA recommendations," said Mr Pritchard.

FOI documents obtained by the groups show that the Premier’s Department of State Development has been pushing the EPA to sign off on any ‘derived proposal’ application.

Media contacts
Peter Robertson 0409 089 020

Martin Pritchard 0427548075

Prelude opens a new chapter for liquefied natural gas industry | The Australian

Prelude opens a new chapter for liquefied natural gas industry | The Australian:

"I think it's a capital N and a capital O," he says of James Price Point.

The lone voice on St Georges Terrace.

"Support for the project being based on the Kimberley seems to have dwindled to a lone voice on St Georges Terrace.

A Derived Proposal, Designed to Deceive

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) announced on their website on Wednesday 28 November that Woodside had sent them plans to build gas refineries, port and other infrastructure at James Price Point.

Woodside has requested these plans be considered a ‘derived proposal’ claiming that the work comes under the ‘Strategic Assessment’ that the State Minister for the Environment, Bill Marmion, has recently approved.

If the EPA agree that the work can be considered a ‘derived proposal’ then no more environmental assessment will be required. Only seven days is provided for public comment on this request

Minister Marmion has removed the emissions requirements from the Browse development proposal, claiming that to include them would not be complementary to the Federal carbon pricing mechanism. However one of the requirements of a ‘derived proposal’ is to “demonstrate best contemporary practice (as defined in EPA Guidance Statement No. 55) for all construction and operational impacts (for example atmospheric emissions, marine emissions and noise)”. 

“The Browse LNG precinct has the capacity to add up to 41 MTPA CO2-e to Australia’s emissions profile, as much as 52 percent of WA’s total emissions, with no abatement plan, which would deem it non-compliant with the requirements for a ‘derived proposal’ by the EPA’s own standards