Environmental Working Group
Presentation Part III:
Selecting an LNG Hub Site in
the Kimberley?
Tim Nicol, Resources Liaison Officer, CCWA
Ranking Sites is Premature
• Kimberley is world class
environment deserving of world
class decision:
– Scientific knowledge is lacking
– Heritage assessment is incomplete
– TO consultation rushed for such a
complex issue (informed consent)
• Inadequate information to make
a decision on any site
• Default position should be no
decision until information
provided (Precautionary
Principle)
Which Site Can Be Sacrificed?
• Kimberley has outstanding
natural and cultural values
• The case has not yet been
made that any site can be
sacrificed for development
• Considered unlikely that
environmental impacts will
be acceptable for any
Kimberley site
Alternatives need to be
Considered…
• With appropriate
assessment consider:
– Offshore FLNG
– Pilbara (not Barrow or
Burrup)
– No development option
Browse Basin LNG Development
and GHG Emissions
• Processing Browse LNG will result in significant CO2
emissions for WA
– WA Government target ~26mtpa by 2050
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mt CO e)
– No policy on Western
CO2Australia's
Emissions
for major projects like Browse Basin
2
Sources: WA Greenhouse Task Force (2004) and Australian Greenhouse Office (2007)
80
71
70
Million tonnes CO2e
60
66
57
67
55
50
40
30
2050 target
20
10
0
1990
1995
2002
Source: Premier of Western Australia (2007)
2005
Projected 2007
Inpex +
Woodside
approx
18mtpa
Browse LNG Developments and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• No robust sequestration
options identified
• Biosequestration
unacceptable for this
magnitude of emissions
• No GHG plan = No
Development
What about Renewable Energy?
• WA far behind on
renewable energy
opportunities:
– California: Ausra 175MW,
BrightSource 200MW
baseload solar thermal
– Massive wind capacity
– Geothermal underinvestment
– LEED fund 35m over 5
years, adequate???
– CETO wave project, where is
it now?
• Where is the R.E.D.T.?
Key Impacts: Dredging
• Gorgon: Largest dredging
project in WA
• EPA recommendations: One
of 5 key reasons Gorgon
rejected by EPA
• Dampier Port lost 23-35%
coral cover – EPA limit 10%
• Geraldton Port – Investigated
by then DEP after dredge
plume damaged extensive
sea grass
Key Impacts: Shipping
• Gorgon – EPA quarantine
concerns
• Increased shipping
• Turbulence
• Spills?
• Interference with wildlife
• Loss of remote and natural
amenity value
• Introduced marine pests
Key Impacts: Water
• Gorgon project (from ERMP)
uses 1.9 GL/year
– Cape Leveque Coast:
8.3GL/year
– Isdell River SWMA: 4.3GL/year
– Prince Regent River SWMA:
4.2GL/year
– King Edward River SWMA:
4.2GL/year
– Drysdale River SWMA:
4.2GL/year
• No water management plans
for these areas
Key Impacts: More People
• More fishing, cars,
towns, boats, marinas,
roads etc
• Busselton Experience
Key Impacts: Remote, Natural
Experience
• This experience increasingly
rare in the world
• Kimberley place of
exceptional natural beauty
and remote: irreplaceable
• Valued by many people
around the world
The Environmental NGO
Experience of Environmental
Impact Assessment
• Esperance Lead
Pollution
• Dredging at Geraldton
• Predictions and
commitments in EIA do
not always translate to
reality
• Any development is a
risk
The Environmental NGO
Experience of “the Boom”
• Environment and Aboriginal
heritage comes second to
industry:
– Eg. Hope Downs and Weeli Wolli
Creek in Pilbara
– Eg. Windarling Range in Goldfields
– Eg. Pluto LNG Plant on Burrup
– Eg. …
• As development increases,
more exploration, more mining,
more problems for the
environment
• Difficult to stop: Thin edge of the
wedge
Martu Idja Banyjima Traditional Owner Slim
Parker speaking in front of flooded Weeli Wolli
creek on YouTube and at Conservation Council
event in Perth.
Ranking Sites is Premature
• Commend the
commitment to process
thus far, but only a start
• Complex decision in a
complex time
• No need to rush