Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 22 June 2011:

(1) Is the Minister aware of recent announcements from Shell and Woodside that they are proceeding with the development of floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facilities in their respective Browse Basin (Prelude) and Timor Sea (Sunrise) fields.

(2) Is the Minister aware that Woodside has rejected appeals from the East Timor Government to build a land-based LNG processing facility on Timor, in favour of adoption of floating LNG technology for its Sunrise field.

(3) Is the Minister aware that in rejecting the appeals of the East Timor Government, Woodside has stated that $13 billion in benefits will flow to the East Timorese despite the adoption of floating LNG facilities.

(4) Given that in November 2010, Senator Conroy stated that, 'The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will make his decision on whether or not to approve development of an LNG [gas] precinct at James Price Point only … [if] satisfied that the requirements of the EPBC Act [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999] and strategic assessment terms of reference have been [met]. This includes being satisfied that 'he is in possession of a full and comprehensive suite of information'. Among other things this suite of information must include an assessment of possible sites outside the Kimberley':

(a) is the Minister aware of the superficial, biased and out-of-date assessment of LNG processing options outside the Kimberley, including floating LNG, contained within the strategic assessment report (SAR);

(b) is the Minister aware that most of the SAR's analysis of the floating LNG option and other options outside the Kimberley is derived from the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) report by consultants GHD Ltd which the previous Minister (Mr Garrett) described as, '[A] desk top review…not a comprehensive nor definitive analysis of these sites. I am aware that additional investigations in relation to alternative sites are likely to be necessary';

(c) is the Minister aware that these additional investigations never occurred; and

(d) as the floating LNG and other options outside the Kimberley have not been adequately addressed in the SAR, will the Minister require a full and reliable analysis of options outside the Kimberley prior to making his decision on whether or not to approve the gas precinct at James Price Point; if not, how will the Minister satisfy himself that he has in his possession a full and comprehensive suite of information upon which to base his decision.

(5) Under the published Terms of Reference for the joint Commonwealth-Western Australia Governments strategic assessment of a plan for a common-user LNG natural gas hub precinct to service the Browse Basin gas field, at section 4, dot point 7, there is a requirement for, 'an analysis of technically and economically viable gas processing options outside the Kimberley, focussing on locations that already have substantial industrial infrastructure, inclusive of floating LNG':

(a) does the Minister intend that this requirement is met prior to making his decision on whether or not to approve the gas precinct proposed for James Price Point; if not, why not;

(b) is the Minister aware of the major industrial port expansion works currently underway and planned at Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, to cater for more and larger ships;

(c) is the Minister aware that the Port Hedland Shire Council passed a resolution supporting the location of a Browse LNG processing facility at Port Hedland; and

(d) is the Minister aware that SAR rejects Port Hedland on the grounds that it does not have deep enough water or high enough land, even though both those claims are patently false.

(6) Under the Endorsement Criteria, 'Attachment C' of the Strategic Assessment Bilateral Agreement, it states that the Minister, in determining whether or not to endorse the Plan: will have regard to the extent to which the Plan meets the Objects of the EPBC Act. In particular, that it:

Accordingly, the Plan should:

- prevent actions from being taken in any location that have an impact on matters of National Environmental Significance or of high biodiversity or heritage value [unless unavoidable];

(a) given this ministerial endorsement criteria, and the failure of the SAR to adequately address alternative locations to a James Price Point site, how will the Minister make his decision in accordance with the endorsement criteria;

(b) the ministerial endorsement criteria also highlights the importance of the Plan incorporating the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the precautionary principle and, 'in particular, intergenerational equity, in relation to areas containing matters the Minister considers have a high likelihood of being potentially eligible for listing as matters of National Environment Significance (sic), will also be considered':

(i) given this criteria and the existence at James Price Point of a wide range of matters of national environmental significance, including a range of values likely to result in National Heritage listing of the area, all of which will be damaged by the project if it proceeds, how will the Minister ensure that intergenerational equity is upheld in this area,

(ii) when the above criteria was first drafted by the Commonwealth, did it originally say, 'potentially eligible for listing as National Heritage'; if so, why, and at who's instigation, was it changed.

(7) Given the high level of greenhouse gas emissions planned to be released by the Browse LNG project if it proceeds at James Price Point, has the Minister been advised by his department of the likely relative life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of floating LNG technology as compared to piping to a land-based gas processing facility; if so, what was that advice.