Environmental Working Group Environmental Working Group Presentation Part III:Presentation Part III:

Selecting an LNG Hub Site in Selecting an LNG Hub Site in the Kimberley?the Kimberley?

Tim Nicol, Resources Liaison Officer, CCWATim 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– No policy on CO2 Emissions for major projects like Browse Basin

5755

66 6771

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990 1995 2002 2005 Projected 2007

Mil

lio

n t

on

ne

s C

O2e

2050 target

Source: Premier of Western Australia (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