Hi Everyone,
I've just heard back from the publicity officer of Inpex Pty Ltd regarding
my enquiry about the release of the EIS. Apparently, the release date for
viewing by the general public will not be until mid- to late-2008.
Simon, I'm a lot more cynical about this project than you are and believe it
is a foregone conclusion. As someone who carried out ecological research on
Barrow Island in the early 1990s, I'm aware first-hand of the immense
conservation value of islands along the Pilbara and Kimberley coastlines. In
many ways they are Australia's Galapagos Islands. Both the WA Department of
Conservation & Environment & the EPA of WA opposed the use of Barrow Is for
the Gorgon Oil Project, but it was still given approval by the WA & Federal
Governments. The proponents (Chevron) argued that the Gorgon Project would
inject about $20 billion into the Australian economy, which is probably why
it was approved. I suspect that the economic benefits of the Maret Is
project will similarly outweigh the environmental considerations, but I hope
I'm wrong.
Regards,
Stephen
Dr Stephen Ambrose
Ryde, NSW
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Simon Mustoe
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 5:49 PM
To:
Subject: Kimberley LNG plant - PLEASE READ
HI,
I have had the pleasure of just returning from a WWF workshop in which the
strategic scope for development of the Kimberley coast in terms of a
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facility was discussed. The workshop was
attended by senior Ministerial delegates and decision-makers. Anyone with
concern about this needs to know the facts, as they pertain to a novel
process that the WA EPA / DEC and the Federal government is embarking upon.
You will have plenty of time to comment and I would encourage everyone to do
so, including the conservation groups. This is a chance to make a real
difference. If you do not take the time to understand the process, your
criticism will at worst defeat the purpose and at best have little or no
positive impact on any decisions made.
Please read and understand the following:
1. The location of any LNG facility does not appear to be a foregone
conclusion.
2. The governments have rejected ad hoc development of LNG, and instead are
embarking on their own minimum 6 month process to identify strategically
placed options for location within and outside the Kimberley.
3. The strategic identification of options and a preferred site will be done
with consideration of indigenous and western environmental, social and
economic factors and be run by the government (drawing on substantial
technical expertise outside the oil and gas industry).
4. The governments insist that any LNG development will be done at a central
hub that all companies can use. This is to avoid normal practice, where
companies could put in applications for several different facilities (as has
been the case conventionally). In fact, there are such applications in now,
or pending. As identified here, the Maret Islands is one such example.
However, I understand no decision will be made on whether this or any other
site is suitable until a full assessment of potential sites has been
completed. These sites could end up not appearing on the shortlist.
5. Once alternative sites are chosen, there will be a 2-year bilateral
process of EIA before any decision is made to approve any given project - in
other words, the 6-month assessment is not final.
6. Parallel to the process of choosing alternative sites for LNG is
consideration of world heritage listing for parts of the Kimberley.
The governments are taking the very important step of choosing alternative
sites and it would be a risky process if it were to fail. If it does, we go
back to the way things were, which entitles anyone to apply to put any
industry anywhere. The government has one chance to get this right and they
are patently aware of this, so it would fitting to see the knowledge of
people on this forum collated and put to the government for their
consideration. Don't forget, no-one can act on information they do not have.
Under conventional EIA practice, choosing sites and alternatives falls to
the proponent but is rarely if every done. When it is done, it is done
poorly. The current process is a new and potentially very important step in
the way we approach major industrial development at a strategic level in
Australia. We really need this to work and for that to happen, all relevant
information must be provided to the government so that they may act on it.
Terms of reference for the strategic assessment are going on public display
soon. Please, please, please, read and make comments on these. Also, make
sure that you provide criticism only where it is necessary. More
importantly, try to support the process through submission of knowledge as
this is far more crucial. The government are more at ease with receiving
public knowledge to inform these processes and the avenues for involvement
are more open than for EIA processes, which often require costly legal
intervention.
To read more about the governments' decision, see
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/05/bloomberg-australia-to-pick-single-
site-for-kimberley-lng-plant-update2/
Regards,
Simon Mustoe.
Director, AES Applied Ecology Solutions PL.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx==========www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===========
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
