Submission Cover Sheet Golden Beach Gas Project Inquiry - EES 6

Request to be heard and participate in No - but please email me a copy of the the submitter conference?: Agenda and any Directions Full Name: Jane Hildebrant Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: See attached submission

Submission to Golden Beach Energy Environmental Effects Statement December 3, 2020

Preamble Please regard this submission as an objection to the GB Energy (GBE) proposal as outlined in the Environmental Effects Statement documentation.1 GBE’s claim that Victoria’s EES process is ‘rigorous and transparent” is quite contrary to the reality for lay persons who have a mere thirty (30) business days to analyse the extensive material put before them. Consequently, the matters discussed in this submission are by no means exhaustive. The EES documentation is not “user-friendly”, the technical reports complex, making its evaluation an arduous process even for expert professionals and extremely daunting for lay persons. The Victorian Farmers’ Federation (VFF) Mining and Petroleum Policy Principles holds that the onus should be on the mining or gas company to prove that their activities will not contaminate, land, air, or water. But, given the EES reports are prepared on behalf of, and paid for by, the company, the information is inevitably biased towards the project. They invariably claim impacts are negligible, insignificant, or able to be mitigated or managed, but never avoided. The conflict of interest is clear. The requirement for lay citizens to demonstrate why this project will have adverse consequences places them at a distinct disadvantage. Yet, people feel compelled to take time out from their normal activities to write submissions for fear that if they do not, the project will be approved unopposed. This process is contrary to the rules of Natural Justice.

Project Evaluation The Ninety Mile Beach (at 94 miles or 151 kms) is the longest stretch of uninterrupted sandy beach in the world. It is one of Victoria’s key tourist attractions based on the natural land and marine environment, including activities such as whale watching, surfing, fishing, camping, walking, swimming and bird watching. Lake Reeve, across which GBE plans to drill a pipeline, is part of the Gippsland Lakes RAMSAR wetlands.

Large sections of the Ninety Mile Beach are managed by Parks Victoria. In the 1970’s, the State Government declared this land unsuitable for development due to its location on the narrow sandy dunes between Bass Strait and the RAMSAR-listed Lake Reeve. Large amounts of taxpayers’ money have been devoted to restoring and protecting environmental assets, like the Gippsland Lakes, waterways, freshwater wetlands and flora and fauna habitat. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that the State Government and the Wellington Shire Council would spend millions of taxpayers’ dollars to repossess the 25km stretch of “inappropriate subdivisions” made during the 1950s and 1960s but now approve an industrial facility at Delray Beach, 4 kms approx. south of Golden Beach township (Ch4, p6).

Legislative Framework I hope that the Panel will closely scrutinise how the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Storage Act 2010 (OPGS) intersects or conflicts with other Acts and key strategic policy, e.g. Marine and Coastal Act and Policy, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, Water Act 1989, Environment Protection Act 2018, Climate Change Act 2017, Safe Drinking Water Act 2003, Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and obligations under international law, such as RAMSAR, Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), China– Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA) and the Bonn Convention (See OPGS Act, Section 69).

Sustainable Development Notwithstanding the provisions of OPGS Act, Section 64, Section 61 states that regard must be given to the principles of sustainable development which invokes the provisions of the other Acts listed in the paragraph above. These include: (a) individual and community wellbeing and welfare should be enhanced by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations; (b) biological diversity should be protected and ecological integrity maintained; (c) both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations should be effectively integrated into decision-making; (d) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

1 Please note: GB Energy has authorised the information in the EES documents. So, where the EES report might state something, I have used the noun “GBE” rather than the consultant’s name for the sake of simplicity.

1

OFFICIAL

The pipeline and infrastructure will intrude into Rural Conservation and Farming zoned land, marine and coastal environments. The Wellington Planning Scheme outlines numerous policies and strategies pertaining to the protection of environmental, landscape, flora and fauna habitat and cultural heritage, coastal and agricultural assets. Although this project may not be subject to the same planning requirements as other developments (Ch 16, p6), Sections 61 and 69 (OPGS Act) do require GBE to apply the precautionary principle and to consider the project’s impacts on communities, future generations, equity issues, biodiversity and ecosystems. However, the words such as sustainable development, equity, future generations and precautionary principle are absent from Chapter 5 Legislative Framework. The Crown retains the rights to underground greenhouse gas and its storage facility if a licence is cancelled or surrendered (Sections 66 and 67), so it is important for the Minister to ensure these matters are fully considered in the interests of local rural communities.

Social Impacts The citizens of Gippsland are fed up with having to defend their rights to live peacefully in a clean and healthy environment; to defend their homes, businesses, health and wellbeing from the predation of alien companies only interested in profit for themselves with absolutely no interest in local people. We Gippslanders are under constant onslaught from inappropriate developments, such the Hazelwood mine fire, onshore gas, a gold licence stretching from Toongabbie to the high country, the Kalbar mine, and now this. In March 2020, following the lengthy Inquiry into Onshore Unconventional Gas, the Andrews Government decided to permit onshore exploration but banned fracking. Haunted by the spectre of renewed onshore gas exploration affected residents and farmers are in an ongoing state of anxiety and psychological distress. Although GBE plans to drill two offshore wells to extract offshore gas and then use them for future gas storage, the plant and pipeline infrastructure will be onshore. The project’s impacts will be felt onshore as well as in the marine environment.

The endless voicing of objections and submission-writing takes a heavy toll on people’s mental health, exacerbated by the Covid19 pandemic. “Rural Australians experience a range of health inequities—including higher rates of suicide—when compared to the general population”2. Yet, mental health impacts are never factored into decision-making. The exponential effect on health and morale inside rural communities, already classified as disadvantaged, exceeds ANY perceived economic benefits. It is extremely galling that any benefits are inevitably bestowed on others living far away, while all the environmental and socioeconomic disbenefits fall on country people. We pay the same tax rate as city folk and pay much higher council rates; in return we receive a lower level of services. Should we now expect a degraded quality of life as the norm? It seems country people just don’t count. Companies facilitated by our governments are free to ride roughshod over us. Even our local politicians let us down. And whatever Nationals’ politicians like Barnaby Joyce or the VFF say, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a lifetime’s labour of love in building a property, a business, or for the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home. And above all, to feel safe.

Amenity Impacts GBE considers that the project’s potential to generate negative social impacts is limited and rates all negative impacts as “minor negative”. This includes noise from the compressor station on “one nearby dwelling” and “irritation and stress” caused by “an impost on their personal time and energies of a small number of farming families” (Social Impact Assessment, Technical Report, p4). “There may be amenity impacts to surrounding potentially sensitive receptors during construction, operation and decommissioning including those related to accessibility, air quality, noise and vibration and visual impact” (Ch 16, p4).

Noise The Gippsland Water site for the gas compressor station was rejected because the “Victorian Government Land Transactions Policy … would likely cause Project delays in obtaining tenure” (CH 3, p22). So instead, “a midline compressor station [is to be located] on private freehold land, immediately adjacent to Gippsland Water land (accessed from Sandy Camp Road). Its footprint would be 25 hectares (500m x 500m). The construction of the onshore gas compressor station, which includes “a site office, car parking, equipment and material laydown areas, workshops and other facilities as required, …is estimated to take approximately 12 months. An access track with an approximate width of 10 metres would be constructed from Sandy Camp Road in an easterly direction to the site. The access track would be approximately 1.9 kilometres long and co-located along the pipeline easement” (Ch4, pp6 and 26). That is a sizable excision from, and industrialisation of, private rural

2Alison Kennedy 1,* , Jessie Adams 2, Jeremy Dwyer 3 , Muhammad Aziz Rahman 1,4,5 and Susan Brumby, Suicide in Rural Australia: Are Farming-related Suicides Different, Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020 17 2010.

2

OFFICIAL

land. No delays here, however, because the Pipelines Act provides for the proponent to seek Ministerial agreement to compulsorily acquire a pipeline easement over private land in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) where consensual negotiation has failed or is not possible” (Ch5, p9). The station “would operate continuously and emit noise which may be audible in the surrounding area” (Social Impact Technical Report, Table 1-2, p16).

The Shore Crossing Facility “would be contained within a fenced compound approximately 60 m by 40 m. The largest proposed structure has a height of 2.9m above ground level. [It] would be visible from nearby rural areas within approximately 200 metres…would operate continuously and emit noise which may be audible in the surrounding area” (Social Impact Technical Report, Table 1-2, p16). Chapter 12 Noise and Vibration reveals that noise from the onshore facilities and onshore pipeline construction will be continuous from 6 am (7am on Sunday) to 6 pm seven days a week. Anyone who has had to endure noise even for a short time knows that it causes considerable anger and depression. I know people who have had to leave their homes because they simply cannot stand the noise of machinery or even loud music. Certain frequencies or throbbing can be intensely irritating; vibration that can affect a structure can be continuous, intermittent, or impulsive. Noise carries across the landscape, especially at night. Noise is definitely audible even kilometres away (Ch12, p5). On a still morning, I can hear the Vline train 10kms from my home, so 300 metres buffer is quite inadequate (Ch12, p3).

The belief that “affected residents would likely cope well with the proposed construction regime assuming construction noise and associated impacts are managed as per the recommendations set out in Technical Report F, Noise and Vibration” is unproven (Social Impact Assessment Report, p48/63). This area of the Ninety Mile Beach is relatively undeveloped. There are “no visible land-based structures” and “no boat ramps near the Project”. Residents and visitors currently enjoy a quiet, tranquil coastal ambience so it is expected that this noise will be extremely intrusive. The overwhelming response to intolerable noise is: “this is driving me crazy!” It is likely that objections to noise will only arise when the noise begins.

Lighting The shore crossing facility, gas compressor station and metering facility would be lit at night. Lighting would be designed to minimise light spillage into surrounding areas, whilst still providing sufficient lighting for security purposes and safe working conditions. How does GBE know that night lighting from the compressor station would not be intrusive on neighbouring residences (CH4, p13)? This is not an urban area so the standard as to what is, or is not intrusive, is much higher. Where there is no lighting, any lighting is intrusive. Where you are accustomed to silence and darkness at night, continuous machine noise and lights are terrible and will affect mental and physical health. These disturbances continue beyond the short-term noise of pipeline works and would continue for the life of the project – 40 years. Sadly, the net-community benefit assessment counts the significant Nuisance experienced by a small number of people as “negligible”. (Social Impact Technical Report, p21/63). However, the recent Supreme Court decision (18 August 2020): Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd v South Gippsland Shire Council and six other defendants upheld the Council’s finding that the wind turbine noise was affecting the wellbeing of nearby residents even though the operator had complied with all permit conditions. As Principal lawyer at DST Legal Dominica Tannock, representing the South Gippsland Shire Council and five landowners in this case, stated: "Just because people are out in the country doesn't mean that they should be sacrificed so people in the city can have their lights on at night time and their air conditioning running during summer.”3

Another issue not considered in the EES is the reduced valuation of properties affected by ongoing noise and lights. For many older farmers, their farm is their “superannuation”. If they cannot sell when they want to retire they are trapped in an amenity nightmare and incrementally impoverished, as have the many families affected by the PFAS crisis. GBE should be required to compensate landowners for the reduction in property value.

Biosecurity and Risk Management for Farmers GBE plans to construct a pipeline across private farmland. “Inland, the Project traverses CGRWC land that is zoned for Public Use and accommodates water treatment assets and commercial farming operations. It also crosses rural land near Longford which supports a variety of uses including beef production, equine activities and forestry” (Ch 19 Social Impacts, p8).

3 Supreme Court of Victoria: Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd v South Gippsland Shire Council [2020] VSC 512 (18 August 2020)

3

OFFICIAL

All livestock farmers have a legal obligation to comply with the Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) Program and National Vendor Declarations (NVDs). Farmers must have a risk management plan and keep accurate records to ensure that of all activities affecting their livestock meet stringent requirements of domestic and export markets. The LPA Program is run by Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA). It is a legal pledge by farmers that their meat is produced safely, according to strict biosecurity and animal welfare standards. LPA accreditation means that farmers understand the risks to the integrity of their operations and are accountable for the quality of their product. Non-compliance leads to loss of certification; the farmer goes out of business.

• How will farmers know if GBE contractors are following biosecurity measures, eg chemical contamination of machinery, equipment and clothing when they have no control over those contractors? • Will farmers be in breach of obligations to conduct technical due diligence under the Environment Protection Act 2017 if their land is contaminated?4 • What are GBE’s legal obligations in respect of biosecurity measures to prevent contractors from importing livestock diseases and weeds as they move from one property to another? • How can farmers assess the Property Risks & Chemical Contamination issues of their own farms when GBE does NOT have to disclose what materials they are using when constructing the pipeline? • The NVD requires farmers to report introduced disease. If contractors import disease to a disease-free property and the farmer does not find out until after the fact, the ramifications for the farmer and the whole meat supply chain could result in shutting down the industry.

Animal welfare is becoming very important for consumers putting farm management practices under increased scrutiny (See Landline, 15/11/20) and Country Hour, ABC, 19/11/20). GBE should have to submit a plan to manage on-farm issues such as biosecurity, animal welfare and associated risks including stopping works during critical times such as calving, lambing, and foaling.

If mining/gas companies cause disturbance or pollute land beyond the mine boundary, it is generally incumbent on the manager of the disturbed land to seek restoration by litigation. This places an unacceptable financial burden on farmers to seek compensation through the courts. GBE should have to put up an upfront cash bond to ensure compensation is fully-funded and available to aggrieved landowners.

Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 The Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018’s new general environmental duty (GED), to be introduced in July 2021, will require management of operational noise impacts because noise is now defined as pollution. Tje Environment Protection Authority [EPA] is the primary responsible regulator but if the EPA fails to take action, third parties may also sue for breach of the GED and seek compensation for injury, loss or damage, with possible civil and criminal penalties of $1.6 million and $3.3 million respectively 5. As of October 2020, the Climate Change Act 2017 also requires the EPA to have regard for the potential impacts of climate change and their contribution to Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) when making works approvals and licencing decisions.6 The phrase ‘to have regard for’ is vague but its synonym ‘consider’ has the meaning: to think carefully about (something), typically before a decision is made. It is sincerely hoped that the EPA will think carefully about the impacts of this project on climate change.

Economic development GBE claims that the direct and indirect jobs created in the local region would result in a number of social benefits and support the local community and industry at a critical time for an area that has experienced a loss of jobs due to the closure of coal-based power plants in the region. Table 1-1, Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, p13/63, states there could be 560 jobs during the construction phase, but only 9 jobs in the operations phase (5 managerial; 4 offshore drilling works) with a further 330 during decommissioning in 2060 (40 years on, the project’s planned end). However, Table 6-3, p52/63 cites a larger number of jobs: 840 workforce (although this may include the decommissioning jobs in 2060 (890 versus 840 respectively) but the increase from 9 to 20 managerial jobs is unexplained. Conversely, the Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, p60/63, states that the operation phase “would generate minimal direct employment (4 field positions and 5 managerial positions)”. Inconsistencies such as these abound in the EES documentation, which makes understanding the project so confusing. Nonetheless, this is a lot of social and environmental damage for only 9 permanent local jobs over 40 years.

4 Herbert Smith Freehills, A Seismic Shift in Victoria’s Environmental law, legal briefings by Heidi Aston, David Griffin, Thomas Ellicott, 28 June 2018. 5 Ibid. Also www.maddocks.com.au.insights/general environmental duty, 6 Parliament of Victoria Legislative Assembly Environment and Planning Committee, November 2020, p11 (51/352).

4

OFFICIAL

Chapter 19, p3 &13/16, states that “economic analysis by Ernst & Young7 found that during the peak of the construction period, the Project would provide a total direct and indirect gross output in the Victorian region of $692 million”. But in Chapter 2, the figure quoted is “$268 million [defined as] “the value of goods and services produced after deducting the cost of goods and services used” but only during the peak of construction. During the operation stage, this sum is reduced to “an average annual direct and indirect value add of $6 million”, which multiplied by 40 years (the proposed life of the project) equals $240 million in total. The “annual average of 41 direct and indirect jobs in Victoria” (Ch 19, p14), amounts to one extra job per year over the life of the project. Added are “anticipated” royalties and income tax of $10 million and $500 million respectively (Ch2, p8).i Although these are very much hypothetical figures, 510 divided by 40 equals $12.75 million p.a., assuming, of course, that the gas generated is still being used in a zero-carbon economy in 2060 or earlier. These estimates do not account for the real rate of return adjusted for inflation.

The Social Impact Technical Report, p30/63, expects Golden Beach and Paradise Beach to experience “incremental growth”. Residents in the study area may be able to obtain a small amount of temporary employment which “would result in a minor positive impact” (Ch 19, p13). However, the populations of Golden Beach and Paradise Beach largely comprise “retirees and/or semi-retired persons”8, so it is most unlikely these people will be eligible for GBE jobs. In any event, the “majority of workers [would be] sourced from outside the local area” because the highly specialised nature of construction works require specific skillsets (MM-SE05) (Ch 19, p12). This report proposes that the peak onshore workforce (direct jobs) of 180 personnel [another inconsistent number would add a small (1%) increase to the population of the study area with minor socioeconomic benefits for Golden Beach. Accommodating the workforce in Golden Beach and Sale would stimulate spending and provide minor economic stimulus in each town (Ch19, p13/63). However, there is no guarantee outside workers requiring short-term accommodation (3 to 9 months) during construction would reside in Golden Beach. Their accommodation would rely on available short-term rentals. Offshore workers would live on the drill-rig and offshore vessels and would have no contact with the local population [nor any] potential to alter socio-economic conditions in Golden Beach or nearby areas... [The largely] male workforce “are not expected to relocate partners or families to Gippsland”.9 This is a drive in- drive out temporary workforce with little or no economic benefit for the local area, especially Golden Beach and Paradise Beach. In comparison, the long-term economic benefit from tourism and recreation far outweighs any perceived return from this project. Most local jobs rely on tourism, which would be lost if the works were seen to compromise the environmental values of the area (Social Assessment Technical Report, pp 31,37,39,48/63).

The economic opportunities associated with decarbonising Australia’s economy are enormous10 compared to the gas industry. The Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) (25% in 2020, 40% in 2025 and 50% by 2030) is estimated to create up to 10,000 jobs. Economic modelling by Deloitte Access Economics estimates that Australia’s economy could add over 250,000 jobs by 2070 if it reaches net zero emissions, along with the rest of the world.11

Groundwater Groundwater is water stored in aquifers: porous geological formations. The interaction between groundwater and surface water means that what happens underground affects wetlands and waterways above. It is important to understand how water enters an aquifer, moves through the water-bearing rock and how long it resides underground, so that the resource can be protected from contamination and overuse. Although knowledge about the behaviour of aquifers is improving, there are still “significant uncertainty in the nature of the [Gippsland] aquifers”.12 Australian Government Bioregional Assessments Groundwater Quality (Sec 1.1.4.2) cites a comprehensive study by Hofmann and Cartwright (2013) which confirmed: “There is limited published research about the hydrogeochemistry of the Gippsland Basin for understanding groundwater flow patterns and inter- aquifer mixing. This study found that “inter-aquifer mixing and leakage may be significant”.

7 Ernst and Young (EY) (2020) The Golden Beach Energy Storage Project – Stakeholder Engagement Pack, March 2020 [PowerPoint presentation]. 8 Social Impact Technical Report, 4.3, p31/63. 9 Ibid., p53/63. 10 Example: Garnaut, Ross, Superpower: Australia's Low-Carbon Opportunity, Black Inc., 2019. 11 Parliament of Victoria Legislative Assembly Environment and Planning Committee, November 2020, pxii, (12/352). 12 Sinclair Knight Merz (2008), Groundwater Resource Assessment of Deeper Aquifers in the Lindenow region, East Gippsland. Final 4, August 2008. SKM unpubl report to SRQ, Rep No. VW04107; RO1_KMB_LINDENOW_FINAL4.doc.

5

OFFICIAL

Latrobe Aquifer in Decline13 The authors of the CSIRO 2004 report (Hatton et al., 2004) state, p5: “It is a matter or record that groundwater pressures within the Gippsland Basin, particularly those associated with the Latrobe Aquifer, have dramatically declined over the past decades” – “at average rates of around 1 m/year”, according to the CSIRO 2010 Hydrodynamic Assessment of the Gippsland Basin, p9. The advice that the Latrobe Group Aquifer is “already stressed with significant regional declines observed over a number of years” is confirmed in a Sinclair Knight Merz February 2009 report to Southern Rural Water in relation to a VCAT hearing (p2316/2008) (p8/119).14 SKM also notes, p46/119, that the Latrobe Group aquifer “is pumped extensively in the Latrobe Valley for mine depressurisation and oil and gas extraction offshore…”.

GBE believes it will not have significant adverse effects on groundwater levels, flow, quality and yield, with “low potential for adverse impacts on groundwater levels due to depressurisation of the Lower Aquifer System… expected to be minor in the context of regional scale influences from onshore groundwater extraction and offshore oil and gas development” (Ch13, p3). But in the same report (Ch 13, 13.7, p11), contradictory advice states: “Gas extraction would lower the pressure in the gas reservoir (depressurisation). This would induce groundwater to flow into the reservoir void space (internal displacement) following gas extraction, causing a reduction in groundwater pressure, which would propagate to some degree through to the confined Lower Aquifer System in the study area (within the onshore extent of the Lower Aquifer System.” However, it expects the “potential groundwater level reduction from operations to be small compared to water level reductions from existing groundwater extraction for onshore agricultural purposes and offshore oil and gas development… [because the GBE] “gas field and scale of gas extraction is small… relative to other offshore gas and oil extraction in the Gippsland Basin…[and the] total volume of groundwater extracted as ‘associated water’ during gas extraction will be very low” CH13, p12). In other words, in the context of existing aquifer decline due to offshore gas extraction, which Hatton et al, p3, describes as a “significant component of aquifer decline”, GBE’s impact will be “small”. This assessment fails to account for the cumulative effects of groundwater extractions over the decades.

Salinity The CSIRO 2010 hydrodynamic assessment confirms that the “large-scale petroleum and groundwater extraction in the Gippsland Basin have undoubtedly modified the natural flow systems” CSIRO 2010, p44. The water balances described in the CSIRO 2010, Table 2, p59, also show that “present day production induces significant inflow of seawater from the offshore boundaries.”

GBE’s belief that: “Shallow onshore groundwater and its users are unlikely to be affected from offshore operations as there is limited hydraulic connection between shallow aquifers and the underlying confined Lower Aquifer System” (Ch3, p3/14) is wrong because the Hatton report, p5 noted: “The impacts of falling aquifer levels include irrigators’ need to deepen bores and land subsidence leading to coastal erosion, inundation, waterlogging and onshore salinisation”. Following the CSIRO Flagship Report 2007, the State government subsidised farmers in the Yarram Water Supply Area to lower their bores. As the Gippsland Region Sustainable Water Strategy [GRSWS] confirms:

“Falling groundwater levels in the Latrobe Group aquifer near the coast have been well documented. Declines have been observed in State Monitoring Bores of up to about one metre a year since the mid-1970s from south- west of Yarram to south-east of Bairnsdale. This has affected farmers in the Yarram area by reducing their access to groundwater and increasing the costs for bore construction, pumps and operating costs (such as power). Falling water levels may be due to several causes, including offshore oil and gas extraction, reductions in rainfall and irrigation use” (GRSWS, p29).

The declining Latrobe Group Aquifer also services many town water supplies, including Sale’s [Boisdale aquifer] so it is not only irrigation that is affected. In the recent three-year drought, town water supplies across Gippsland were stressed. Predicted lower rainfall and fewer opportunities for aquifer recharge due to climate change and increasing salinisation due to offshore gas extraction places potable water supplies at significant risk. Water is the lifeblood of any community and deteriorating water supplies have serious economic impacts which no

13 Hatton, Tom, Claus Otto and Jim Underschultz, CSIRO Report Wealth from Oceans Flagship Program Land and Water Petroleum Resources, September 2004, Falling Water levels in the Latrobe Aquifer Gippsland Baisn: Determination of Cause and Recommendations for Future Work. Also, June 2006, Offshore Aquifer Update, Onshore Fault Seal Analysis, and Preliminary Numerical Simulation of Coastal Subsidence Risk. 14 Sinclair Knight Merz (2008), Groundwater Resource Assessment of Deeper Aquifers in the Lindenow region, East Gippsland. Final 4, August 2008. SKM unpubl report to SRQ, Rep No. VW04107; RO1_KMB_LINDENOW_FINAL4.doc.

6

OFFICIAL

amount of gas jobs can replace. The quality and quantity of town water supplies will inevitably become a political issue as have reductions in irrigation allocations in the past.

Coastal acid sulphate soils GBE determines that “a maximum width of 30 metres” is an appropriate contamination study area…given the rural context and large landholdings typical of the locality,…” [anticipating that the effect of acid sulphate soils’ contamination beyond the study area] would be negligible” (Ch 10, p4). This assessment is contrary to the Victorian Best Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils (Australian and Victorian Governments 2010), p4, advice, which states:

“The impacts of disturbing CASS will vary between sites and can affect the environment beyond the title boundaries of a disturbed site. It is the responsibility of the owner of the site to initiate investigations to determine whether CASS is present, and whether it will not be disturbed at the site and/or in areas beyond the boundaries of the site. This may require detailed site investigations offsite as well as onsite.”

The Victorian Best Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils (Australian and Victorian Governments 2010) “recommends that the following principles guide decision making in relation to management of CASS in Victoria.

1. Avoid disturbing CASS. 2. Ensure that any use and/or development proposed near or on potential CASS can demonstrate that it will avoid any disturbance. 3. Take a precautionary (risk management) approach) when planning and managing high risk activities in areas with the potential to contain CASS. 4. Discourage the intensification of use and/or development in areas with the potential to contain CASS. 5. Assess impacts and risks of CASS on any land, waterway and water body with a connection to a CASS risk area and consider the cumulative effect of any use and/or development proposal in areas with the potential to contain CASS. 6. Assess risks and impacts on the basis of the CASS Strategy and the BPMG. 7. Consider the potential risks and impacts to the environment, humans, and infrastructure from disturbing CASS. 8. Remediate detrimental effects arising from past and current disturbances of CASS.

GBE works will disturb CASS and other acid sulphate soils and admits that “disturbance, oxidation of CASS and water leaching through stockpiles have the potential to mobilise sulphuric acid into nearby waterways” (Ch10, p8). The only way to remediate disturbed soils is to apply large quantities of lime which would increase project costs. GBE states that impacts on human health and the environment “would not have a measurable effect, predominantly due to the limited extent of contamination” (Ch10, p11), presumably due to the plan to undertake the open-trenching of the pipeline through Lake Reeve when it is dry. However, the project crosses seven waterways, “most are undefined shallow valleys which would only have shallow, slow flowing water after a significant rain event” (Ch 17, p3/14). GBE does not explain how it will protect waterways from acidity impacts which have the real potential to kill native fish and other aquatic species. It would not be practicable to pour lime into these waterways. Therefore, exactly how “potential impacts to surface water quality and flow during construction, operation and decommissioning would be managed using standard [APGA] surface water management techniques and design requirements” (Ch 17, p3/14) is unclear.

Climate change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The energy sector is by far the largest generator of GGEs: carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Methane is about 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth, on a 100-year timescale, and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years....[Its] chemical shape is remarkably effective at trapping heat, which means that adding just a little more methane to the atmosphere can have big impacts on how much, and how quickly, the planet warms.15 Methane levels in 2019 were “260% of pre-industrial at 1877 parts per billion.16 It is well-documented that fossil fuel extraction and use are among the largest anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions. Recent research proves that “far from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the world's increasing enthusiasm for natural gas could prove to be as toxic for climate change as the use of coal”.17 One

15 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/ 16 World Meterological Organisation, Geneva, 23 November 2020, Greenhouse Gas Bulletin (GHG Bulletin) - No. 16: The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2019. 17 Nick O’Malley, ‘Sydney awash with leaks as research shows the climate cost of gas’, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept 13, 2020.

7

OFFICIAL

reason, I suspect, why former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said on ABC’s Insiders, November 8, 2020, that “a carbon-led recovery…is…political piffle”. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change during the Paris Agreement negotiations went further, declaring Australia’s climate wars as “suicidal… because Australia - of all countries in the world - holds such promise with renewable energies. This was widely reported in news outlets across Australia.18

In addition to methane, carbon dioxide will be generated from operational activities (Ch14, p7) and land clearing. CH14, p7, Table 14-2: Summary of construction GGEs for the project records that the reduction in carbon sequestration from biomass removal (land clearing) will be 17,620 t CO2-e; with total emissions from the project being 95,720 CO2-e, approx. This figure could be much higher because Chapter 14’s presentation of the exact figures in different tables is quite unclear. These sums do not include emissions from burning the gas, leakage from gas pipes throughput the distribution system,19 for which GBE dissolves responsibility because it is “unable to influence gas demand and the end use consumption of the gas” (Ch14, p5). GBE’s claim that the project is acceptable because its emissions represent “a very small proportion of Victoria’s total emissions” (Ch14, p13) fails to account for the amount it adds to cumulative emissions. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) reports that in 2019 the “annual global average breached the significant threshold of 410 parts per million…The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3°C warmer and sea level was 10-20 meters higher than now.20 Given this knowledge it is insane to think that gas is a viable transition to renewable energy generation (Ch2, p8).

Biomethane to replace methane gas Jemena, which owns and operates over $11 billion worth of electricity and gas assets across eastern and northern Australia, signed an agreement (November 2020) with Sydney Water to generate biomethane at the Malabar Wastewater Treatment Plant in southern Sydney. “Biomethane is a type of biogas which is renewable and non-emitting source of gas. [It] is extractable from several sources including plant and animal by-products, farming, forestry and human waste…Jemena will inject biomethane into its New South Wales gas network, which has 1.4 million customers. ARENA (The Australian Renewable Energy Agency) will jointly fund the $14 million project with Jemena… Jemena predicts the project, which will begin production in 2022, will cut NSW’s carbon emissions by 5,000 tonnes with a further 30,000 terajoules of biomethane that can potentially be unlocked around its NSW gas infrastructure. Jemena confirms that its customers ‘want to purchase verified and accredited zero emission green gas as is currently the case for renewable electricity’”.21

The Inquiry into Tackling Climate change in Victorian Communities, tabled in Parliament on 25 November 2020, confirms the nexus between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and climate change. Victoria has already “experienced an increase in average annual temperature of just over 1 degree Celsius, along with a decrease in autumn and winter rainfall and a significant increase in the risk of bushfires. However, these changes pale beside the predicted impacts if we allow average annual temperatures to increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius.”22 The report warns, if emissions continue to grow at recent rates, we are on track for a global temperature rise of 3.2 to 5.4 degrees Celsius23, with obvious catastrophic outcomes. In any event, we are irreversibly committed to a minimum rise of 2 degrees—the Paris Agreement target. The report states that this knowledge “establishes the clear challenge for Victorian communities to continue to play their part in tackling climate change”.24 The State Government must also share in this task by refusing to approve more fossil-fuel projects.

Victoria Gas Program It is hard to reconcile the Victorian government’s stated commitment to climate action when this Program allocates $42.5 million to assist oil and gas companies to find more fossil fuels. At a community consultation held in Drumborg (October 2019), a representative of the Victorian Gas Program stated that one reason for more gas exploration in Victoria was “the need to find more gas so we’ll have feedstock for Victorian plastics

18 Reported on December 3, 2020 by SBS, Sydney Morning Herald, 7news, Canberra Times, Newcastle Herald and elsewhere. 19 Ibid. 20 World Meterological Organisation, Geneva, 23 November 2020, Greenhouse Gas Bulletin (GHG Bulletin) - No. 16: The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2019. 21 https://stockhead.com.au/energy/jemena-launches-australias-first-biomethane-to-gas-project, Tuesday 24 November 2020). 22 Parliament of Victoria Legislative Assembly Environment and Planning Committee, November 2020, Chair’s Foreword, pxi. 23 Ibid., p8 (46/352). 24 Ibid., p9 (49/352).

8

OFFICIAL

manufacturers or words to that effect. (The discussion was not video recorded).”25 Yet, recently reported is new technology to revert plastic waste to oil from which new plastic can be made.26 GBE plans to use the wells as a gas reservoir or storage facility with a 40-year design life. But from where would the storage gas derive and how useful would it be, given the world will have by necessity moved to zero emissions by 40 years or there will be no liveable planet?

The Environment The precautionary principle has been firmly established in Australian environmental and natural resource management legislation and policies. “Even when there is no explicit or implicit reference to the principle in legislation, it may still be legally relevant ‘because its widespread acceptance in the environmental policy context has imbued it with general relevance for environmental decision making’” (Gullett 2006, pp. 4–5). Therefore, when dealing with environmental impacts, the Precautionary Principle must be applied.

Matters of National Environmental Significance GBE acknowledges that the West Gippsland catchment region supports biodiversity values of state, national and international importance including marine, coastal, estuarine, freshwater wetlands and waterways, including RAMSAR sites. Chapter 22 acknowledges Australia’s international obligations to protect the ecological assets of the RAMSAR wetlands, specifically Lake Reeve and Corner Inlet, already “experiencing pressure from various activities” (Ch22, p36). This chapter makes clear that this project could result in significant and irreversible damage to habitat which supports a very long list of vulnerable, rare and critically endangered species. Consequently, although GBE believes the risks are low or can be mitigated, the potential for the health of species or ecosystems to decline or be lost (die) is real. Climate change is increasing the risks of mass extinctions. Even a small loss can jeopardise the viability of species and ecosystems and every loss, however small, adds to the cumulative losses, which are now at a catastrophic scale.27 The project area will also be vulnerable to contamination from chemical spills, and other hazardous materials, contaminated water and soils, altered flow regimes, increased salinity, pollutants, sedimentation, nutrients, seabed disturbance and turbidity. There is absolutely no guarantee that mitigation measures can overcome these risks. Also not disclosed is who will regulate, fund and be responsible for monitoring impacts over the 40-year project life.

Native vegetation and habitat The APGA code states: “Vegetation clearance should be minimised as far as practical, particularly at watercourses. Retention of vegetation, avoidance of native grasses and trees and selective trimming are preferable to clearing [and] Retention of tree canopy connectivity where practicable, particularly at watercourses and where there are roadside ecosystem remnants to minimise fragmentation”.28

Chapter 7, p33, estimates that the direct loss of native vegetation (and habitat) to facilitate “a nominal 15-metre buffer around the proposed construction footprint” to include:

• 40.217 hectares of native vegetation patches (59 habitat zones, nine EVCs); 0.952 hectares Endangered; 20.576 hectares Vulnerable, 16.974 hectares Least Concern, 1.715 hectares Depleted • loss of 167 canopy trees • loss of 10 large scattered trees and four small scattered trees (0.771 hectares) • removal of individuals of, and habitat for, significant flora species • Offsets GBE states that the loss of native vegetation and habitat will be compensated by offsets. The ability of offsets to replace the ecological values of the destroyed vegetation is well-known to be problematic.29 For example, in situ vegetation provides critical habitat for species that do not easily, or will not, relocate. Possums will not relocate because they are tied to their own territory and are not welcome elsewhere. It was found that after the

25 Forcey, Tim, ‘Does Victoria really need to find more fossil gas to use as plastics feedstock?’ 23 October 2019, https://www.reneweconomy.com.au. 26 For example: Luciano, Michael, ‘The machine that turns plastic into oil’, www.designworldonline.com, February 21, 2017 and: https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/4827716-global-recycled-plastic-and-plastic-waste-to-oil-market- research-report-2020. 27 See, for example, www.abc.net.au/afterthefires. 2020 Northern Pictures. 28 Australian Pipelines and Gas Association Ltd (APGA) Code of Environmental Practice, Onshore Pipelines Revision 4, September 2017, p78/130. 29 For example, Susan Walker, Ann Brower, Theo Stephens and William Lee ‘Why bartering biodiversity fails’ (2009) 2 Conservation Letters 149.

9

OFFICIAL

2006 wildfires, the Powerful Owl refused to move from its burned-out habitat to unburnt habitat across a firebreak. Likewise, rare and endangered plant species often do not re-establish in exotic habitat, are difficult or impossible to germinate from seed, and can only be conserved in situ. Climate change will increase the probability of failure because flora and fauna are often particularly sensitive to climatic conditions. For offsets to be successful, offsets need to be well-established prior to clearing; therefore, re-establishment must precede clearing not vice versa.30

Responsibility and funding must be set prior to clearing to ensure the management and monitoring of offset works is conducted in a timely manner. It is important for offset projects to succeed because the “environment and the public own all the risk of failure”.31 However, as we know from history, clearing alters the landscape, which generally cannot be restored. Clearing also creates habitat islands which can isolate fauna and prevent them from traversing the land so inhibiting their ability to forage and breed. Extinction rates in Australia are the highest in the world and our unique flora and fauna are particularly vulnerable to the cumulative effects of progressive clearing. Vegetation clearing is the main source of land sector GGEs.32 Apart from the ecological impacts, GBE’s contribution to emissions from vegetation clearing is 17620 (t CO2-e) (Ch14, p7/13).

The loss of three billion animals and countless plants in the 2019 fires should have convinced our governments at all levels that Australia faces a terrifying environmental crisis. In his submission to the Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change, Dr Mark Norman, Chief Conservation Scientist, Parks Victoria, described some devastating ecological changes: the extinction of Bogong moths, the disappearance of legless lizards and thinning tree canopies.33 The State Government recently conducted an Inquiry into Ecosystems decline, so it is bitterly ironic that, if approved, this project will result in more ecological degradation, which, apparently, the Government wants to prevent. It is a grave indictment on our governments that despite all the policies, strategies and plans, they consistently fail to protect our biodiversity which not only has intrinsic value but sustains our own health and wellbeing. The land [Country] also holds spiritual, cultural and economic importance for Traditional Owners34 and this should be honoured. Protecting our flora and fauna must be the highest priority if there is not to be a total collapse of biodiversity and ecosystems. If our governments genuinely care about the future of life on our planet, the destruction must stop!

Conclusion There are four key risks: climate change; ecological damage; water security and community wellbeing. Throughout the EES documentation, risks are dismissed as low, limited, insignificant or manageable. As the Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities points out, the Climate Change Act 2017 requires certain decisions and actions to have regard for the potential impacts of climate change and their contribution to Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions.35 The Inquiry “revealed a vast breadth of activity and deep commitment to community action on climate change. [However,…] there are many barriers to further action by communities.36. A significant and demoralising barrier is the failure of our State Government to reject new fossil fuels’ projects which cancel the efforts of those very communities they claim to support. If our government is genuinely committed to reversing climate change, it must know that reducing emissions in one area only to add them in another is counterproductive. Clearly, there is no logical option but to apply the precautionary principle which means halting support for anymore fossil fuels’ projects.

By GB Energy’s own admission, the size of the Golden Beach reservoir and scale of net gas extraction is small—68.5 billion cubic feet or one percent of the remaining 6,000 billion cubic feet (Groundwater Impact Assessment Technical Report, p51). Not published is a business case for the project. There are no budget or project cost estimates in the EES documentation, although references are made in the project description (Ch3) to cost-effectiveness and cost minimisation, inferring that finances may be constrained. Of particular concern is the cost of decommission in 2060 when it is quite probable that GB Energy will have long gone leaving the hapless taxpayer to pick up the tab. The gas field has never been developed in 51 years. Initially discovered by Burmah Oil in 1967, the gas field was acquired by Santos 34 years later, then bought by Cape Energy in 2003 who passed it on to GB Energy in May 2018. Exxon Mobil cannot find a buyer for its Bass Strait oil and gas

30 Bekessy, et al ‘The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank’ 31 Ibid. 32 For example. https://www.stateoftheenvironment.des.qld.gov.au/ pollution/greenhouse-gas-emissions. 33 Parliament of Victoria, op. cit., p3 (43/352): Dr Mark Norman, Chief Conservation Scientist, Executive Director of Environment and Science, Parks Victoria, public hearing, Melbourne, 28 October 2019, Transcript of evidence, p30. 34 The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017, Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037. 35 Parliament of Victoria, op. cit., p11(51/352). 36 Parliament of Victoria, op. cit., pxv (15/352).

10

OFFICIAL

assets. Prospective buyers quickly lost interest, possibly deterred by the looming liabilities for decommissioning the ageing assets and heightened regulatory scrutiny from the federal government; and chastened by the experience of North Oil & Gas which went into voluntary administration in 2019 after buying a field in the Timor Sea with $156 million in abandonment liabilities.37

It is patently obvious that in the context of exponential climate change, gas usage cannot be a viable transition fuel. Although the greenhouse emissions may seem small, they nevertheless add to the cumulative totals of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. Due to decreasing costs and improved technologies, renewables are out-competing gas on price. The idea that the gas field would be used as a gas storage for 40 years is risible. GBE has not accounted for the financial and environmental costs of importing storage gas; nor has it examined how useful gas storage would be, given the world will have by necessity moved to zero emissions by 2060. AEMO estimates that by 2035 renewables will provide nearly 90% of electricity with gas replaced by pumped hydro and batteries with an average $11bn in net market benefits. GBE “anticipates [the project will] … assist in [gas] price suppression” (Ch2, p8).38 AEMO agrees that gas prices will need to stay low to compete with renewables.39 However, gas extraction companies need prices to rise to ensure their costs of production remain viable, let alone profitable.40 Prices will also increase should an expected carbon price on fossil fuels be imposed as part of global net zero carbon policies.41 In that situation, there is a very real risk of bankruptcy as with North Oil & Gas, leaving governments and local communities with decaying infrastructure and a denuded environment.

All things considered, the case for this small project when balanced against the huge environmental and social deficit lacks logic and moral foundation.

37 Toscano, Nick, ‘ExxonMobil calls off sale talks for Bass Strait oil and gas fields’. Sydney Morning Herald, November 27, 2020. 38 Core Energy Resources Group, December 2019, Delivered Wholesale Gas Price Outlook 2020-2050 Residential & Commercial and Gas Generation Segments Eastern Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory, www.aemo.com.au. 39 Morton, Adam, ‘New gas-fired power not needed as renewable energy expands, grid operator says’, The Guardian Australian edition, July 30, 2020. 40 Ibid.: “The government’s push for gas escalated as the price plunged from about $12 a gigajoule to about $4. Analysts have said future investment will depend on it settling at about $6 – and they have raised doubt over whether that was likely.’ 41 Australian Financial Review, 7-8 November, p21, ‘Batteries steal market from gas’.

11

OFFICIAL