LNG is just another dirty fossil fuel

It is a great concern to Redhanded that the general public are being totally mislead about LNG being a clean fuel. Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG is just another dirty fossil fuel. It is produced by compressing and cooling natural gas to very low temperatures of about -160°C (-260°F). Natural gas is a combustible gas consisting mainly of methane (over 80% in volume) with varying quantities of ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, and helium. Methane is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, second only to carbon dioxide, and is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. LNG has 35% higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal .

Its principal uses are for fuel and for the production of chemical products such as fertilizers and plastics. In liquid state, natural gas occupies a volume about 600 times smaller than in gas state. Liquefying it makes it possible to transport it across great distances by ship or truck, allowing it to be extracted from countries that have natural gas resources and sold in countries that need it for their consumption. All of these steps leads to indirect environmental impacts, such as carbon dioxide emissions from changing from gas to liquid and then back again.

It is a major environmental concern over the LNG proliferation is that the billions of dollars now being invested into the LNG importation schemes will continue to delay - for decades - the necessary development of safe sustainable renewable energy sources.

Kimberley Land Council Sits at Woodside's Table

It has come to the attention of Eyesoncountry, through a very reliable source that whilst the Dampier Peninsula communities were standing up for their country, their lifestyles, their culture and heritage with representatives from NDT, even to the point of blockading entry to Beagle Bay, KLC have been in Perth, negotiating with Woodside, bartering with the hopes, dreams and aspirations of all the Indigenous people living in Dampier Peninsula.

Only last week, KLC’s CEO was on the Peninsular meeting with some leaseholders and Beagle Bay community members supporting them to directly bring their major objections and grave concerns about the proposed LNG Gas Hub and the North Head site to the NDT’s representatives at the proposed meetings the following week. KLC were aware that NDT were seeking to inform people of their intention to drill. At no time did the KLC's CEO inform people about being at the table with Woodside.

In addition, our source informed us that Don Voelte, CEO, Woodside has the following options up their sleeves:

• The Burrup is achievable but the Browse gas would need to be processed through the joint venture LNG plant with additional trains built to existing infrastructure (not Woodside’s sole operator plant Pluto)

• Floating platform is a very serious option. This is the cheapest option and will be the way of the future (generally speaking) to give more flexibility. LNG deposits are becoming increasingly smaller and this option makes sense for the future direction of the industry. The problem at this stage is that the technology is untested and would be built at considerable risk

• And of course North Head and apparently Perpendicular is still on their agenda!!!!!

• According to our source, the Beagle Bay Blockade was the first time Woodside’s CEO had heard that there was an Indigenous problem. Apparently, Woodside had honestly thought that KLC had won the hearts and minds of all Indigenous people.

We understand that KLC is a Prescribed Body Corporate that represents Traditional Owners, however, Eyes On and Hands Off Country believe that KLC have an ethical duty of care to ensure that all Indigenous people have an equal say in something that will change their lives, their culture and heritage forever.

KLC, Woodside, Northern Development Taskforce, State Government Departments, Premier's Office and the Department of Indigenous Affairs, when are you going to be open and transparent, consult and inform all major stakeholders: Traditional Owners, Leaseholders, Stolen generation, long-term community residents?

What part of country are you negotiating over?

At what point in this ”process” will the people of the Peninsula’s objections and their categorical “No’s” be heard, listened to and taken seriously?

Please view for yourselves, people’s adverse reactions to the prospect of a gas hub on the Peninsula.

Barnett facing fresh conflict of interest claims

Premier Colin Barnett was facing fresh conflict of interest claims in his State Development portfolio last night after it was revealed that his daughter-in-law Sasha Pendal works as a senior executive with gas giant Woodside.

Mr Barnett has insisted that Environment Minister Donna Faragher refer issues concerning Woodside to Planning Minister John Day because her husband Scott Faragher works for Woodside in government relations.

Ms Pendal, who is married to Mr Barnett’s son Russell, is Mr Faragher’s boss in her position as Director of Government Relations and Sustainability on Woodside’s Sunrise LNG project in the Timor Sea.

Although Mr Faragher transferred to the Sunrise project when his wife became Environment Minister in order to avoid any conflict of interest concerns, Mr Barnett told The West Australian this week that, on the advice of the Crown Solicitor, he had put in place a procedure for the Planning Minister to deal with any issues related to Woodside and the environment in Mrs Faragher’s place.

A Woodside spokesman said yesterday that Ms Pendal, the daughter of late Liberal and Independent South Perth MP Phil Pendal, dealt with the Australian, East Timorese and Northern Territory governments in her position but not the WA Government, although she is based at the company’s Perth headquarters.

Mr Barnett issued a one-line statement yesterday claiming that his situation was materially different to that of Ms Faragher’s and her husband.

“The situation outlined does not involve a spouse or a direct dependant,” the statement said. “There is, therefore, no conflict that would prevent the Premier dealing with Woodside.”

But Opposition Leader Eric Ripper said while he agreed the relationship did not have the same direct prospect of a conflict of interest, Mr Barnett had to demonstrate how he was going to manage the situation.

“It’s not quite the same as a marriage where there are shared finances, I wouldn’t imagine that Mr Barnett and his daughter-inlaw have financial interests in common, nevertheless I think Mr Barnett is going to have to carefully manage separation between family and business activities,” Mr Ripper said.

The Opposition kept up the attack on Ms Faragher’s position in Cabinet, pointing out that ban on her dealing with Woodside on environment matters did not preclude her staying in Cabinet while other issues to do with Woodside were discussed.

“And how does Ms Faragher propose to deal with Woodside’s partners?” shadow environment minister Sally Talbot said. “That list includes BHP Billiton, Shell, Chevron and BP. What about Woodside’s competitors and customers?”

Ms Faragher has said she would only disqualify herself from issues “that specifically related to Woodside”.

ROBERT TAYLOR
STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
West Australian
Tuesday 4 November, 2008

Broome Advertiser 30 October 2008

Thank you Broome Advertiser, for keeping the proposed LNG gas hub on the Dampier Peninsular in the public domain, you’ll be pleased to know that the Broome Advertiser is in cyberspace before publishing date!

“Banners sprout in Broome as LNG campaign grows. Protests anger authorities.”

Red hand’s first response to this article is to Councillor Chris Mitchell. He describes the banner as “a visual distraction which would cause accidents”. That’s exactly what we think the gas hub would be on any of the four proposed locations, an enormous distraction that has the potential to cause massive environmental and social accidents.

“Its un-Broome like” to us to support an industry that will destroy the very fabric of the heritage and industries that have sustained and supported Broome for nearly 125 years. How would the Shire President advise the Broome community and Redhand to object to this proposal?

Carol Martin, we are sorry you are not bothered about the banner outside your office because we are very concerned about climate change, damage to the environment, taking land off people who have lived there for generations and destroying cultural connections. We are also concerned about destroying recreational opportunities for Kimberley people who go to James Price Point. It’s priceless. Also “development was about breaking the poverty cycle for Indigenous people.” This is about people, people being forced off their country and to give up their country just to receive services which most people in Australia consider basic or essential. It is not reasonable or equitable.

So Carol, you want to use the banner for recycling? Fantastic! We approve of recycling because we can rest assured that future banners will be recycled as well
“........the majority have made it clear we need development.” If this is fact based on accurate research, would she please provide her constituents access to these findings? Red hand would be very keen to publish her research on handsoffcountry.blogspot.com.

We will not give up the Kimberley without a fight. Hands off country and stand up for the planet.

Gift to Hands off country

Red hand would like to acknowledge the very generous gift from a friend of Hands off country. This vehicle will provide assistance for Red hand and Blueye to bring you, out there in cyberspace, more information, photos, videos and most importantly the stories.

Interview with Kerrianne Cox, speaking about proposed LNG Hub planned for her country

Youtube: http://youtu.be/Vs66-XG6JkA

Kerrianne Cox speaks about the impact of the proposed gas processing hub on her country and the far-reaching and the extremely negative consequences for both her community of Beagle Bay and the outlaying Indigenous Outstations and eco tourism ventures.

Gas processing and explorations will result in the destruction of traditional Indigenous economies and communities. The Indigenous peoples of the Dampier land have legitimate reasons for being deeply concerned about the planned gas hub in their country as developers interests normally prevail
wherever and whenever Indigenous peoples interests and rights clash with development projects.

http://www.kerriannecox.com/

WE HAD TO SPLIT THE INTERVIEW INTO TWO PARTS BECAUSE YOUTUBE HAS A RESTRICTION FOR BIG FILES (sorry for the inconvenience)

- INTERVIEW TEXT -Date & Location : saturday 20 October 2008, 5.20pm, Beagle Bay - Dampier Peninsula - Western Australia

( the text of the interview will be online soon )

Youtube: http://youtu.be/BCG0XalcRCU

Interview with Mr. Camel Wongi

We had the pleasure to meet Mr. Camel Wongi and ask him what he thinks about the GAS LNG processing plant proposed to be 10 km from his home by Mr. Barnett.




-INTERVIEW TEXT-
Date & Location : saturday 18 October 2008, 4.08pm, Munget Community - Dampier Peninsula - Western Australia

Mr Camel Wongi: ............
Francesco: Thank you.

http://youtu.be/Zl96FnK_6A8

What does an LNG gas hub mean?

We must imagine what it will be like to live next door to an LNG gas hub, what will the horizon look like, perfect starry clear nights will nights of the past never to be seen again. The smell will be terrible. Imagine the impact on the very few people who live here,for the thousands of visitors we welcome every year, care and love for country will be damaged for ever.
The Northern Development Taskforce Site Evaluation report Part A indicates that consultants recommend that “a 950 hectare site be identified for a hub which would allow for
up to 10 gas trains (50 -70 Mtpa LNG), a gas to liquids plant and an ammonia plant.
In addition to the industrial land area, the site would need to offer appropriate buffer
zones between the plant and other areas of occupation. The hub will require
additional land for an airstrip should it be located away from existing infrastructure,
and worker accommodation, work camps and associated areas may be sited outside
of the hub industrial precinct to integrate better with local area planning.....”
Who knows how much extra land will be needed outside of the hub area to accommodate people, services and an airport? Perhaps double that size? This question must be answered now.