James Price Point

Science Assessment

Report

Updated Supplementary submission on the WA government’s Browse LNG Strategic Assessment for a

proposed gas processing hub at James Price Point, Kimberley WA

The Wilderness Society & Environs Kimberley & Conservation Council of WA May 2012

Submission to the WA EPA and Commonwealth Department of Environment (SEWPaC)

Printed on Evolve 100% post-consumer recycled paper

Supplementary submission – Browse LNG Strategic Assessment

Introduction This supplementary submission, presented almost one year after our original joint-ENGO submission on the Browse LNG (BLNG) gas hub ‘strategic assessment report’, highlights significant new and ongoing concerns over the adequacy and reliability of the process.

The proponent, the WA Department of State Development (DSD), has manifestly failed to provide the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the Department of Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPaC), and respective State and Commonwealth Ministers, with a sound basis for decisions on development options for the Browse gas field.

What started out as a strategic assessment process intended to optimise environmental, social and economic outcomes from development of the Browse gas field has turned into a process to defend a political decision to locate a massive, but inadequately defined, LNG hub at James Price Point (JPP) on the pristine Kimberley coast.

The Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) produced by the proponent is incomplete, inaccurate and fails to adequately address key environmental, social and economic issues, including cumulative impacts. Instead, it presents grossly inadequate studies and unsubstantiated conclusions as the basis for project approval.

Having pre-empted the assessment of other options – options preferred by several of the Browse LNG joint venture partners (JVPs), the proponent does not adequately describe the proposal at James Price Point. Despite the requirements of the SAR Agreement and Terms of Reference 1, DSD’s documentation fails to set out in sufficient detail its plans in relation to, amongst other things, groundwater use and desalination; breakwater design and construction; dredging (incl. cumulative impacts), and greenhouse gas mitigation.

Studies and information relied on by the proponent but clearly inadequate (lack of time and data, poor design, etc) include those relating to cetaceans (whales and dolphins), sawfish, turtles, dugongs, birds, monsoon vine thickets, bilbies, dredging, coastal processes modelling, marine wastewater discharge, hydrogeology and hydrology, and social and economic impacts. The dinosaur trackways work done by DSD was shown to be grossly inadequate, requiring the EPA to demand a further assessment, which has not yet been released.

Community science initiatives have exposed major flaws in the multi-million dollar consultants studies relied on by DSD, including in the areas of dinosaur trackways, turtles, monsoon vine thickets, cetaceans and bilbies.

Fundamentally, DSD and the SAR have failed to adequately acknowledge or factor in the global significance of the Kimberley marine and coastal environment as one of the most pristine (least impacted) left on Earth outside the polar regions (see Fig. 1).

Several of the Browse JVPs have made it clear that they do not want to be constrained to the costly and risky ‘greenfields’ Kimberley option. Industry analysts state that it would be $10 billion cheaper to pipe the gas south ( Appendix 5 ).

Narrow and misplaced motivations must not be allowed to prioritise James Price Point over other less environmentally destructive, less socially divisive and less economically risky options.

Fig 1: Global map of cumulative human impact across 20 ocean ecosystem types showing northern Australia as ‘Very low impact’. 2

1 Australian and Western Australian Governments (2008). Strategic Assessment Agreement - Relating to the assessment of the impacts of actions under the Plan for the Browse Basin Common User Liquefied Natural Gas Hub Precinct. Canberra. 2 Halpern, BS, et al (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems . Science 319:948. DOI: 0.1126/science.1149345. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-1 1. Failure to implement agreed scientific peer review process

A number of leading scientists have commented (in their submission or in personal communications) on the poor science and lack of peer review in the SAR. Despite the proponent, the WA Department of State Development, agreeing that a comprehensive scientific peer review process was required, it has failed to create such a review body or process.

The Strategic Assessment Peer Review Process was recommended in the Browse LNG Precinct Scope of the Strategic Assessment:

“Given the significant environment and the scale and complexity of the proposal, there is required a high level of confidence of the technical work underpinning the Strategic Assessment. As such there is an intention to undertake ongoing reviews of the strategic assessment process and of all deliverables and outputs. Arrangements for Peer review, including the establishment of a Peer Review Panel consisting of members from government and non-government sectors are to be advised.” 3

Regardless of the timing, a credible peer review process must now be established to review all the studies and information provided by DSD and Woodside. Recent independent reports on dinosaur trackways, dredging, bilbies, dolphins, turtles and social impacts have thrown serious doubt on the adequacy of the studies provided by DSD and Woodside. Unless and until the agreed peer review panel is established, Ministers and the public can have no confidence in the accuracy or adequacy of the material presented by the proponent.

2. Legal doubt over project location & description

The recent WA Supreme Court decision to declare null and void the government’s compulsory land acquisition notices has served to further highlight the legally questionable nature of this industrial precinct and its impact assessment. 4 Given that the proponent has not clearly and lawfully defined the project area, it is doubtful how the EPA can carry out an assessment. Even small changes in the location of any of the dozens of components that make up this precinct could result in serious, material changes to the project’s impacts, e.g. in relation to dinosaur trackways, Aboriginal sites or threatened monsoon vine thicket communities.

The compulsory land acquisition process has now recommenced with revised BLNG project boundaries. The SAR will need to reassess the likely impacts in view of these revised boundaries.

3. Conflicts of interest: Environmental consultants

One of the key environmental consultants for the SAR and the proposed access highway to James Price Point (JPP), AECOM Pty Ltd, has been identified by Main Roads WA as ‘preferred project partner’ for the construction of the $100m highway to JPP. 5

The EPA and Commonwealth relied on environmental studies by AECOM, such as AECOM’s ‘targeted survey’ for bilbies, 6 for their respective decisions not to formally assess the road proposal. As a result, AECOM now stands to earn millions of dollars of public money from building a road that studies it authored helped ensure would not be subject to rigorous environmental impact assessment.

AECOM also provided one of the two reports on the significance of dinosaur trackways at James Price Point that DSD has used to try to discredit the importance of the trackways. 7

Several of the other industry-preferred consultants used by DSD and Woodside give rise to similar concerns as to rigour and impartiality. Without an independent scientific peer review process the public can have no confidence in the reliability of consultant’s studies relied on by DSD in the SAR documentation.

4. Failure to properly consider regional and international marine migratory route and habitat

The Dampier Peninsula coast is a key migratory pathway and habitat for whales 8, dolphins 9, turtles 10 , dugongs 11 and sawfish 12 . The importance of this coast as a migratory habitat for multiple and diverse marine species, and the

3 Department of State Development (DSD) (2010) Browse Liquefied Natural Gas Precinct – Strategic Assessment Report (Draft for Public Comment) – Appendix A-2 Scope of the Strategic Assessment . Government of Western Australia, Perth. 4 http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2011WASC0335/$FILE/2011WASC0335.pdf 5 http://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/RuralProjects/Pages/browse_LNG.aspx#environmental 6 AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (2011) Browse LNG precinct access road – targeted fauna survey: Greater Bilby . Main Roads WA 7 AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (2010) Preliminary report on the Palaeontology including dinosaur footprints of the Broome sandstone in the James Price Point area, WA. Department of State Development. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-2 cumulative threats posed by industrialisation, are not adequately addressed by the proponent in the SAR or subsequently.

4.1 Dolphins disregarded by SAR The presence of dolphins has been almost completely overlooked in the SAR. The SAR has incorrectly dismissed all of the Kimberley coast’s species of dolphin as one species and has failed to conduct targeted studies to determine the presence of, and likely impact to, each of the various dolphin species. Independent scientists have been highly critical of the SAR in its failure to recognise different species of dolphins.

Recent peer reviewed studies 13 indicate that Australian Snubfin Orcaella heinsohni , Indo-Pacific Humpback Sousa chinensis and Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Tursiops aduncus are all present along the inshore waters of the Kimberley coast. These studies strongly criticise the existing SAR processes in Western Australia which have failed to have regard to these dolphin species.

In an exciting development, recent peer reviewed studies indicate that the Dwarf Spinner Dolphin, Stenella longirostris roseiventris may be present in the Cable Beach region. The Dwarf Spinner Dolphin is known only from the Gulf of Thailand and the Arafura and Timor Seas 14 .

Independent scientists have been highly critical of the current state and federal listings of Australia’s dolphin species and consider that dolphins warrant higher conservation listing 15 . These scientists consider that Australia’s various coastal dolphin species are at risk of being lost to development and boat strike due to their reliance on in-shore waters and their small home ranges.

1. Humpback dolphins, Cable Beach; 2. Bottlenose dolphin, Willie Creek; 3. Snubfin dolphin, Kimberley coast. Photos: Simon Allen

*Note the physical differences in the various species and how these would not be readily noticed by untrained dolphin observers. Independent scientists have noted that lack of observer expertise is one reason why the different dolphin species are overlooked in the SAR16 .

4.2 Turtles The turtle work carried out for the SAR has been strongly criticised by marine scientists. Surveys were conducted at the wrong time 17 or in the wrong area 18 and were not peer reviewed. The SAR included misleading claims as to the significance of the JPP/Dampier Peninsula area relative to other turtle habitats, and important information on turtle tracking and turtle foraging (see below) was omitted.

A peer reviewed community-led survey at the right time of year and in the highest impact zone of the proposed development found: - the work carried out for the SAR surveyed only 12 per cent of the coastline most threatened by the precinct, and mostly overlooked the 6km strip which will be the most impacted area;

8 Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts (DEWHA) (2008) The Northwest Marine Bioregional Plan. Canberra. Incl : Hedley, S.L., Bannister, J.L. and Dunlop, R.A. (2009) Group IV humpback whales: abundance estimates from aerial and land-based surveys off Shark Bay, Western Australia , 2008 Paper submitted for consideration by the IWC Scientific Committee. SC/61/SH23; Jenner, K.C.S., Jenner, M.N.M & McCabe.K.A (2001) Geographical and temporal movements of Humpback Whales in Western Australian waters. APPEA Journal 749-761. 9 Mustoe, S. & Edmunds, M. (2008). Coastal and Marine Natural Values of the Kimberley . WWF Australia, Sydney, NSW. 10 Ibid. 11 Marsh, H., Penrose H., Eros, C. & Hughes, J. (2002) Dugong: Status Reports and Action Plans for Countries and Territories . UNEP, United Nations Environment Program. Nairobi, Kenya. 12 Mustoe, S. & Edmunds, M. (2008). 13 Tropical inshore dolphins of north-western Australia: Unknown populations in a rapidly changing region (2012) Simon J. Allen, Daniele D. Cagnazzi, Amanda J. Hodgson, Neil R. Loneragan and Lars Bejder; in press 14 Allen S. (2012) 15 Coastal dolphins in north-western Australia: The need for re-evaluation of species listings and short-comings in the Environmental Impact Assessment process ; (2012) Lars Bejder, Amanda Hodgson, Neil Loneragan and Simon Allen 16 Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment Report: Part 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (Marine) Public Submission; A Hodgson, L Bejder, S Allen, J Smith.Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, Murdoch University, 2011. 17 E.g. Biota Environmental Services undertook surveys in 2009 at the wrong time of year for flatback and green turtles – i.e. outside the nesting season, at a time when no turtles would have been expected to visit the coast. RPS only surveyed for 1 week per month, rather than continuously, so their results would likely have been affected by the effect of the moon on turtle nesting. 18 Evidence of Marine Turtle nesting near the proposed James Price Point Gas Hub Lindsay, M., Goddard, M. Rau, J., Mossop, T., Smith, K. March 2012 Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-3 - a nest of a critically endangered hawksbill turtle (ICUN listing) was present within the proposed development area: - evidence of Western Australia’s first possible hawksbill hybrid was present; and - many more turtle nesting sites (14) than were reported in the SAR (1).

The survey authors state, “The SAR study (RPS 2010; 2011) only surveyed areas assessed by the scientists as ‘potential nesting beaches’, thus restricting their spatial sampling greatly and overlooking the 6 km stretch where all nesting activity was found in this study . In comparison, this study surveyed all non-rocky coastline, letting the turtles define what was appropriate nesting habitat.”

The SAR has failed to take into account the cumulative impacts of development on turtles from the impact of nesting sites at Barrow Island, plus the possible impacts which could occur at Quondong Point and the Lacepede Islands.

The SAR acknowledges the importance of the Lacepede Islands for green and flatback turtle nesting. In addition, satellite tracking work undertaken by Chevron indicates that most frequented flatback turtle foraging ground revealed by the satellite tracking is Quondong Point 19 , immediately near James Price Point.

However, as the dredging work undertaken in support of the SAR has been criticised by independent work commissioned by SEWPaC, there is no basis on which to draw conclusions on the effect of dredging or spills on turtles at the Lacepede Islands and on Quondong Point.

James Price Point JPP

JPP

JPP

Figure 2: Satellite tracking of turtles not included in SAR 20 showing high turtle use immediately near James Price Point area; photo: Green turtle at James Price Point (Rod Hartvigsen)

4.3 Insufficient data on Sawfish Leading sawfish experts are strongly critical of the work done by DSD for the SAR, highlighting the lack of adequate studies and the downplaying of significance of this coast to three endangered sawfish species:

“The Dampier Peninsula coast is likely to be a key migratory route and habitat for sawfish species…Nobody knows what the impact on sawfish migration will be if a gas hub and port and breakwater are built because there have been no studies…one major threat will be increased mortality due to increased fishing pressure.” 21

Morgan et al. (2010) state that, “ With regard to James Price Point, there is a lack of data available ...”. 22 Without any meaningful studies and data a decision on whether this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on sawfish and the northern river shark cannot be made. Independent sawfish experts state that to understand the

19 Pendoley, K. 2005a. Sea Turtles and Industrial Activity on the North West Shelf, Western Australia . PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. 20 http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=689 21 D.L. Morgan, personal communication, 2011. 22 DL Morgan, JM Whitty& NM Phillips (2010) Endangered Sawfishes and River Sharks in Western Australia .Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Western Australia March 2010 Appendix C-7. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-4 importance of this habitat for these threatened species a targeted survey should be undertaken prior to any decision on whether this proposal is environmentally acceptable or not 23 .

For more Sawfish discussion, see Appendix 1 below .

4.4 Cetaceans Independent experts have strongly criticised the work presented by DSD and the SAR on whales and dolphins, stating:

“In general, we find the report lacks the referencing of peer-reviewed, readily available scientific papers that deal with impacts of human activity on cetaceans and dugongs. This shortcoming means we have very little confidence in the scientific integrity of the report and this is evidenced by the unfounded conclusions reached within.” 24

Other independent scientists have strongly criticised the total lack of work on Snubfin dolphins in particular:

“The assumption by Woodside that the only marine megafauna species likely to be impacted by the proposed Browse development would be humpback whales and dugong has meant that no appropriate surveys for small marine megafauna such as the [Australian endemic] Snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (known to occur on this coast) have been conducted for this Strategic Assessment Report.” 25

It is important to note that not one peer reviewed study has been completed on Kimberley populations of this endemic Australian dolphin species, and no new work on this species has been done by DSD for the SAR. The little- known and rare Snubfin and Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins are known to inhabit the marine environment off James Price Point, yet were not surveyed for in the SAR .

As such, statements in the SAR that, “ It is considered that activities associated with the development and operation of the precinct are not likely to impact these [marine mammal] species ”… are without scientific credibility.

Snubfin dolphin, Kimberley – WWF; Humpback calf at James Price Point (TWS)

A recent community survey conducted near to James Price Point 26 over the course of the 2011 humpback whale migration recorded high levels of use of the area by humpbacks with calves. Crucially, the survey found a strong negative correlation between the presence of humpbacks and the presence of Woodside’s jack-up barges or seismic vessels.

4.5 Dugongs Independent scientists 27 have strongly criticised DSD’s cetacean and Dugong studies and conclusions in the SAR, highlighting incorrect and misleading statements in relation to dugong behaviour and the impacts of seagrass loss, dredging, oil spills and increased boat activity. In relation to the Dugong work in the SAR they state, “The background information provided in this report is poorly reviewed and refers mostly to reports and websites rather than peer reviewed articles that are widely accessible. There are some statements within the background information that are not supported by the existing literature, and as such, some of the information provided is misleading. The review does highlight the paucity in data about the seagrass in the region, and little has been done to address this issue.”

Dugongs occur throughout this area and, like the above species, migrate up and down the Dampier Peninsula coast for feeding and/or breeding. 28

23 D.L. Morgan, pers comm, 2011 24 Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment Report: Part 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (Marine) Public Submission; A Hodgson, L Bejder, S Allen, J Smith.Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, Murdoch University, 2011. 25 Dr D. Thiele, personal communication, 2011. 26 Wilderness Society (2012) In press 27 Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment Report: Part 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (Marine) Public Submission; A Hodgson, L Bejder, S Allen, J Smith.Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, Murdoch University, 2011. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-5

For more information, see Appendix 2 below.

Dugong migration along northern Dampier Peninsula coast – Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU and the Bardi Jawi Rangers; Link: http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Seminars/presentations/BardiJawi_NRM.pdf

5. Failure to properly consider high pelagic productivity and fish aggregation habitats

Scientists have confirmed the significance of the high marine productivity location off the James Price Point coast which gives rise to an exceptional abundance of fish which in turn supports an abundance of seabirds and other predators. 29

SAR Figure 1-12 [Vol 3, p. 1-25] clearly shows the presence of an upwelling off the shelf edge adjacent to James Price Point with cooler water filaments straddling the shelf edge. In the Cappo et al scientific study, the fish communities at James Price Point were described as “remarkable” because of their high density of bait fish and large pelagic predators such as trevally and mackerel. 30 There were more baitfish off James Price Point than on the Great Barrier Reef. 31 The area is a hotspot for gamefish, e.g. sailfish, associated with elevated productivity.

Satellite image of marine productivity 32 ; Seabirds feeding off Dampier Peninsula (Kimberley Whale Watching 2011)

The James Price Point site was no doubt attractive because of the bathymetry allowing deep water access relatively close to shore. The narrow continental shelf at James Price Point has underwater thermocline waves formed by tidal surges up to 60m high. 33 These thermoclines stimulate productivity through upwellings. The shape of the shelf may be interacting with tidal and offshore currents to create a productivity hotspot off James Price Point. 34

The regional significance of this key ecological attribute has been largely ignored or downplayed in the SAR. There is a serious failure in addressing potential impacts to this high productivity habitat caused cumulatively by dredging and dredge spoil dumping; ‘routine marine discharge’ (30 billion litres per annum of polluted water, brine, etc); shipping ballast water dumping, and possible oil spills.

The broader regional ecological, social and economic implications of a significant decline in this high productivity marine system as a result of cumulative industrialisation impacts have not been considered.

28 Marsh, H., Penrose H., Eros, C. & Hughes, J. (2002) Dugong: Status Reports and Action Plans for Countries and Territories . UNEP, United Nations Environment Program. Nairobi, Kenya. 29 Cappo M., Syms C., Stowar M., Johansson C., and Cooper T. (2010) Survey of fish habitat associations in the region offshore from James Price Point using Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS). Australian Institute of Marine Science. 30 Ibid. 31 M. Cappo, personal communication, 2010. 32 Ibid. 33 L. Smith, personal communication, 2010. 34 Ibid. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-6 6. Failure of proponent to conduct reliable studies: Bilbies; rainforests & dinosaurs

6.1 Greater Bilby : The EPA and Ministers must require further work on fauna surveys for the gas hub area, following receipt of the community science report on the Greater Bilby 35 which shows an established population of this threatened species despite surveys by DSD consultants failing to find Bilbies.

NOTE: It is understood that since the release of the community science report referred to above, the proponent has undertaken a further study of Bilbies in the vicinity of James Price Point and that this study may be subject to peer review. It is not known whether this second attempt at a survey has located the resident Bilbies.

Notwithstanding the welcome but belated peer review, before this subsequent study is accepted by the EPA or SEWPaC it ought to be released for public comment, given the repeated errors and flaws in DSD’s previous studies.

Mother and young bilbies at James Price Point 2011 36 ; Community science report - Bilbies (Lindsay, M., 2011)

6.2 Monsoon vine thicket : The SAR seriously misrepresents and downplays the importance and vulnerability of the Monsoon vine thickets in the vicinity of the proposed gas hub. Independent research has shown that the vine thickets in this area are unique and highly ecologically and culturally significant.37,38

The proposed clearing of over 130 hectares of this recognised Threatened Ecological Community 39 and the possible degradation or destruction of much more (for example, via groundwater extraction) is unacceptable and contravenes both previous EPA decisions (see section 11 below) and their status as a threatened ecological community.

The assumption that the James Price Point vine thicket assemblage is floristically similar to those occurring elsewhere on the Peninsula - SAR P4 (1-47) - is seriously challenged by the work conducted by the Broome Botanical Society. 40 This report describes the James Price Point complex as being the most species rich and well- structured patch from those categorised as Dampier Peninsula ‘Group B’. It is the largest and most significant of the sixteen Group B patches and likely to be extremely important as a source of genetic and species diversity ensuring adequate flow to the smaller, more isolated patches within the system.

At the time of publication of the SAR, the layout and boundaries of the BLNG had not been disclosed. Now that the boundaries have been revised through a new compulsory acquisition process, the SAR must address the impact on monsoon vine thickets under the revised boundaries.

The precise layout and boundaries of the BLNG are particularly relevant to the impact on monsoon vine thickets. This is because this threatened ecological community is scattered, interconnected and dependent on complex groundwater interactions.

35 Lindsay, M (2011). Evidence of the Greater Bilby, Macrotislagotis , at the site of the proposed James Price Point Browse LNG Precinct. Report prepared for the Goolarabooloo and Broome No Gas Community. Melbourne University, Melbourne. 36 Ibid 37 http://www.environskimberley.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Vine-thicket-Fact-Sheet-2011.pdf 38 Black, S.J., Willing, T. and Dureau, D.M. (2010). A comprehensive survey of the flora, extent and condition of vine thickets on coastal sand dunes of Dampier Peninsula, West Kimberley 2000-2002. Broome Botanical Society (Inc.). Broome, Western Australia 39 List of Threatened Ecological Communities on the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) Database endorsed by the Minister for the Environment - Species & Communities Branch (Correct to August 2010) Monsoon (vine) thickets on coastal sand dunes of Dampier Peninsula. http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/849/2017/ 40 See ref 33 above. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-7

James Price P oint monsoon vine thicket communities

Dampier Peninsula vine thickets marked in pink 41 ; Fruit of vine thicket species (P. Docherty); Gouldian finches (A. Watson)

Latest update - January 2012 : Indigenous Rangers and conservationists have found a breeding population of the increasingly rare Gouldian finch on the Dampier Peninsula north of Broome 42 . It is believed the population is utilising Monsoon vine thickets as a key part of its habitat. Another unconfirmed sighting is being investigated a few kilometres to the south of the James Price Point area.

The Gouldian Finch is a global icon of nature. It is also one Australia’s most threatened bird species. Given that this proposed development is situated within prime Gouldian finch habitat, a proper systematic survey needs to be undertaken. This requires using experts with the relevant expertise to systematically survey the area during both the breeding and non-breeding season in order to: • assess the numbers of Gouldian finches in the area; • quantify their reliance on dry and wet season grasses; and • identify the densities of nesting sites (and nest cavities) for breeding birds. Only once these baseline surveys have been conducted, can the level of impact on the Gouldian finch be determined.

More information on the significance of the JPP monsoon vine thickets is in Appendix 3 below.

6.3 Dinosaur trackways : It is a matter of record that the proponent clumsily attempted to downplay the significance of the Dinosaur trackways along the James Price Point coast.

“The dinosaur ichnofossils (trackways and isolated underprints) found during the 2009 and 2010 surveys of the BLNG Precinct area are of low scientific/conservation importance…” 43

However, independent scientists engaged by the local community have found that the trackways are likely to be of global significance and stated that the integrity of the trackways must be maintained across their full extent. 44,45 In response the WA EPA required DSD to undertake further, peer reviewed, work on the trackways. At the time of this submission, those findings have not been publicly released. Even more so now that the trackways have been included on the Australian National Heritage list 46 , it is essential that the entire trackway site is protected from direct and indirect damage.

NOTE : It is anticipated that new research by independent scientists, due to be published shortly, will further highlight the global scientific and cultural significance of the dinosaur trackways at James Price Point - in the ‘impact zone’ of the gas hub and port.

41 Harding, C (2009). Monitoring of the extent of Dampier Peninsula Vine Thickets Threatened Ecological Community. Version 1.0. Prepared for Significant Native Species and Ecological Communities – Resource Condition Monitoring Project 42 http://wwf.org.au/?3580/Rare-Gouldian-finch-found-on-Dampier-Peninsula 43 Department of State Development (2010) Strategic Assessment Report Part 5 – Social Assessment, p4-16 44 Salisbury, S (2011) Media release: “ Western Australia’s ‘dinosaur coast’ needs to be conserved intact ”, 9 August 2011. 45 Thulborn, T. (2009). Dinosaur Tracks of the Broome Sandstone, Dampier Peninsula, Western Australia - interim review . A report prepared for the Kimberley National Heritage Assessment, Natural & Indigenous Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts. 46 Burke, T. (2011) West Kimberley added to national heritage list . Media Release http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2011/mr20110831.html Accessed 12 January 2012. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-8

Dinosaur footprint, James Price Point - Pic: TWS; Map of National Heritage boundary – West Kimberley 47

7. Failure to adequately identify water source/s and impacts of water use

The Terms of Reference for the SAR clearly state that the proponent is to provide a “ comprehensive description of each type of development or facility comprising the Precinct and its associated infrastructure .” 48

Despite this requirement and the fundamental significance of the issue, both to the environment (e.g. Monsoon vine thickets and other groundwater dependent values) and to local human communities, the proponent has provided minimal and inadequate information in the SAR in relation to water use, water sources and the impacts of groundwater extraction and/or desalination. The SAR, (Appendix C-22: ‘Assessment of hydrogeology for LNG Precinct at James Price Point’),

“draws no conclusions about the viability of utilising the groundwater.”

Elsewhere,

• The project will require “between 7 and 24 Gigalitres/yr” from local groundwater aquifers . [NB: 1 Gigalitre = 1 Billion litres] (SAR Part 2, p5-16 table 5-5) ; • “A number of options [for groundwater abstraction] are currently under investigation…further investigation is required to fully inform this process…groundwater abstraction for construction and operation of the LNG precinct may result in mid to long term groundwater drawdown.” (SAR Part 4, p2- 31) • “The potential impacts of groundwater abstraction will be investigated and assessed in future groundwater license applications…It is expected that the potential impacts to terrestrial flora and vegetation due to groundwater abstraction can be successfully mitigated …” (SAR Part 4, p2-62)

Given the huge water requirements of up to three LNG processing facilities, the issue of what water source will be used – desalination or groundwater or both – and how much will be used must be fully documented and subject to public comment before any decision on the approval or otherwise of this plan can be considered.

The comprehensive failure of the proponent to adequately address water use issues is so serious as to require that under no circumstances can this precinct plan be recommended for approval, conditional or otherwise. These issues include: • lack of knowledge of regional groundwater water systems, sensitivities and usage • water over-allocation • aquifer drawdown • loss of water quality • impacts on dependent species and ecosystems • impacts on surrounding human communities • impacts arising from use of desalination, including impacts on the marine environment.

8. Lack of assessment of feasible processing options outside Kimberley coastal environment

“The Report [SAR] must include…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.” Strategic Assessment Agreement (2008)

47 http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/publicdocuments/pubs/106063_06.pdf 48 Commonwealth and WA Governments (2008).Terms of Reference for Strategic Assessment of Common-user LNG Precinct - Browse Basin. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-9 Despite repeated Ministerial reminders of the need for alternative sites to be assessed, as set out in the Strategic Assessment Agreement, the proponent has failed to adequately examine or assess Browse gas processing options outside the Kimberley coastal environment, including piping to existing ‘brownfields’ industrial sites in the Pilbara and floating LNG plants.

Several of the Joint Venture Partners have made clear their dissatisfaction over the retention lease conditions imposed by Ministers Martin Ferguson and Norman Moore in 2009 which aim to force the project to the Kimberley coast despite the environmental, social and economic risks and costs associated with this remote ‘greenfields’ option 49 .

Shell’s planned floating LNG platform (Prelude field, Browse Basin); Woodside’s established Pilbara LNG project

Industry analysts have highlighted the superior economic benefits of the piping and floating LNG options 50 . Shell is proposing to use floating LNG technology for its Browse Prelude gas field 51 . Even Woodside is proposing to use floating LNG technology for its Sunrise gas field in the Timor Sea. 52

As JP Morgan states in its latest global LNG analysis:

“Aside from traditional owner opposition, we believe the Browse project is suffering from a lack of joint venture party alignment. We believe the Browse JV partners (excluding Woodside) would prefer to delay the commercialization of a Browse green field project and instead pipe the gas back to the NWSV in 2022+ to

fill capacity on the five trains in place. The Browse project is technically complex, high cost and high in CO 2 all of which combine to produce a very challenging project.” 53

In order to restore integrity to the Browse LNG strategic assessment process, a thorough, open and transparent assessment of Browse gas processing options outside the Kimberley coast, including those preferred by several of the Joint Venture Partners , must be undertaken and made available for public comment and peer review.

Failure to do so will mean that agencies and Ministers do not have the required information upon which to make an informed decision.

The Joint Authority (the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy and the WA Minister for Mines and Petroleum) changed the enforcement of the policy on retention leases in late 2009 54 . Until that time it was extremely uncommon for the Joint Authority to cancel retention leases if the holders did not meet their minimum conditions. Since late 2009, the Joint Authority has implemented a strict ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ approach. One of the very first retention leases to be subjected to the stricter enforcement policy was the Browse retention leases in December 2009 55 . Furthermore, the Joint Authority renewed the Browse retention leases with unusually strict conditions and a requirement that they prioritise development at James Price Point . Market analysts were quick to point out that this smacked of government interference to push the James Price Point option and ‘pick a winner’.

See extract from JP Morgan research below:

49 Documents released to The Wilderness Society under FOI by the Federal Department of Resources and Tourism, 2011 50 For example, see report in The Australian , Dec 5, 2011: ‘Credit Suisse analyst says piping to existing brownfields LNG sites in the Pilbara would be $10BILLION cheaper than building new LNG infrastructure at James Price Point’. 51 http://www.shell.com.au/home/content/aus/aboutshell/who_we_are/shell_au/operations/upstream/prelude/ 52 http://www.woodside.com.au/Our-Business/Sunrise/Pages/default.aspx 53 JP Morgan (13 January 2012). “Global equity research - Global LNG”, p147 54 http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/Grant_and_%20renewal_of_retention_leases-optionspaper.pdf 55 http://minister.ret.gov.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/JointAuthorityAnnouncesDecisionsonDixonandBrowseRetentionLeases.aspx Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-10

FOI documents obtained by The Wilderness Society: The lease retention conditions imposed by Ministers Ferguson and Moore; Letter to Joint Venture Partners from Ferguson attempting to allay concerns over imposition of retention lease conditions

As Woodside and the other Browse retention lease holders were unable to comply with the strict conditions, the Joint Authority appears to have again changed the rules to continue to force development at James Price Point. The Joint Authority has been strictly enforcing the ‘use-it-or-lose it’ policy and cancelled retention leases from numerous leaseholders since late 2009 56 . However, on 10 April 2012 the Joint Authority broke its own policy and allowed the Browse leaseholders further time to progress development at James Price Point 57

9. Failure to properly consider social and economic impacts

Despite the requirements set out in the SAR Terms of Reference, the proponent has barely made a token effort to assess the social and economic impacts and costs of the proposed gas hub. Rather than carry out a proper assessment, the proponent has instead sought to counter widespread concerns by making unsubstantiated claims as to the ‘possible benefits’ or ‘minimal impacts’ of the project. For example, in relation to cost of living pressures caused by industrialisation,

56 http://afr.com/p/business/resources/explorers_told_use_it_or_lose_it_eqA8qMaTreZd6nvY0LGwIM 57 http://www.woodside.com.au/Investors-Media/Announcements/Pages/Variation-to-Browse-Basin-Retention-Leases-Approved.aspx Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-11 “…the Precinct may possibly generate a benefit by creating a larger market and bringing about a deflation of certain costs such as food.”( SAR Part 5, p2-24)

As is the case throughout this section of the SAR, no attempt is made to provide any substantive evidence for such claims.

A University study prepared for The Wilderness Society has highlighted the potentially serious detrimental impact of the LNG precinct on tourism in Broome and the Dampier Peninsula and broader Kimberley region 58 . The proponent of the SAR has chosen to ignore this study and the issues raised by it, claiming instead (without substantiation), as usual, that the gas hub will be of benefit. A leading tourism academic, Dr Michael Hughes of the Tourism Studies School at Curtin University, has written a critique of the SAR’s failed attempt to address tourism values and impacts. (See Appendix 6 below)

Similarly the proponent dismisses social impact concerns in relation to atmospheric pollution affecting Dampier Peninsula and Broome communities. The section of the SAR that purports to address the impacts of air emissions from proposed LNG industrialisation, SAR Part 5, p4-166, is totally devoid of scientific or public health credibility. This section mentions dust and then claims that bushfire smoke “ would be the dominant existing source of air-borne pollutant even with the inclusion of predicted BLNG emissions ”.

Despite the Browse LNG Precinct potentially becoming the largest single source of toxic air emissions in Australia for Benzene and Volatile Organic Compounds 59 , no attempt is made in the SAR to discuss or assess this chemical cocktail and its public health impacts, including the cumulative health impact of these chemicals when combined with dust and smoke .

The proponent goes to great lengths to play down the fact that the precinct will exceed national and international air pollution guidelines and standards (e.g. known carcinogen: benzene) and suggests that the absence of ‘sensitive receptors’ in the vicinity of the hub ‘was one of the reasons this location was chosen’. In actual fact many people live in, visit, utilise and depend on the land and waters surrounding the gas hub and to downplay the impacts of high levels of toxic pollution is unacceptable.

The Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) has also raised major concerns about the accuracy and relevance of the modelling done for the SAR in relation to air pollution. 60

Elsewhere, the proponent shows no regard for existing social, economic and cultural uses of the flora and fauna in and around James Price Point. For example, a socially, culturally and economically important ‘bush tucker’ resource (‘gubinge’) exists in close proximity to the proposed gas hub. Despite this, the proponent dismisses concerns around the loss of existing economic resource use and instead, as occurs throughout the SAR, claims without any evidence that a gas hub will be beneficial.

Gas hub threatens gubinge: Traditional Owner 61 ABC – Friday, 24/12/2010

The future for one of Western Australia’s niche bush tucker industries is under threat, according to one of the traditional owners north of Broome.

Nyul Nyul elder Bruno Dann, says the proposed site for a gas precinct on James Price Point, is on one of the State’s most productive areas for gubinge. Otherwise known as Kakadu Plum, gubinge is regarded as one of the richest sources of vitamin C in the world.

In recent years, Indigenous communities have been making good money by harvesting the fruit, which is being used by companies to make things such as anti-oxidant tablets, jams, chutneys, and cordials.

Mr Dann says if gubinge trees at James Price Point are cleared to make way for a gas hub, it will put a big dint in the region’s overall production.

“There’s fruit growing all over that area,” he says. “My area where I pick is a bit further up the peninsula, but there’s a lot of people that pick from around James Price Point and this could be the last year for them if they

58 Hughes, M. et al ; Curtin University Sustainable Tourism Centre, Aug 2010. “ Kimberley Whale Coast tourism: A review of opportunities and threats ”; view here: http://www.wilderness.org.au/pdf/Kimberley_WhaleCoast_Report.pdf/view 59 Comparison of published figures in SAR with emissions reported in the National Pollution Inventory: http://www.npi.gov.au/data/search.html 60 http://ace-wa.org/presentations/DM%20JPP%20LNG%20110316.pdf 61 http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nt/content/201012/s3101215.htm

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-12 start building it (gas precinct) next year.”

“It’s a shame because communities up here are just starting this industry up, we’re just starting to get big, but then along comes the gas and they’re going to damage the land, clear the land and the Government and the mining companies don’t seem to care. They want the gas, but we want the fruit.”

This year’s wild harvest of gubinge is about to begin for communities right along the Kimberley coast. Mr Dann supplies all of his gubinge to a Melbourne-based organic foods company, and earns between $25 - $30 per kilo. He says this year is shaping up to be a good one and he’s hoping to supply up to five tonnes.

“It’s looking really good this year and we should get a lot of good fruit.”

The Department of State Development’s Gail McGowan says the development at James Price Point would not pose a threat to the industry.

“We’re talking about a small area for the precinct relative to the whole of the area,” she says. “We are aware of gubinge being there and certainly we’d be keen to work with traditional owners to ensure that we can actually improve the economic opportunities rather than impact negatively on them.”

Ms McGowan says the government’s strategic assessment of the region has indicated that funding from the proposed $1.5billion compensation package to the region’s indigenous people, could be used to build a stronger gubinge industry.

“The studies we have done have actually highlighted the potential for the gubinge industry and that there is an opportunity to actually strengthen what is a fairly embryonic business into a potentially larger industry.”

Failure of the SAR to properly identify social and cultural sites to be affected

At the time of publication of the SAR, the layout and boundaries of the BLNG precinct had not been properly delineated 62 . This meant that the references in the SAR to the cultural sites likely to be effected, and to the aspects of the famous Lurujarri trail to be effected, could only be referred to in the vaguest way 63 .

Plainly, different configurations of the size and layout of the proposed BLNG precinct will have different impacts on the social and cultural sites and traditional industries (such as from bush tucker) . The EPA is not able to properly assess the social impact of the SAR until the layout and boundaries of the BLNG precinct have been elucidated.

The Compulsory Acquisition process for the BLNG site has recently recommenced with revised boundaries. The SAR will need to re-examine these new boundaries with reference to the specific social aspects and cultural sites which fall within them.

The importance of assessment of cultural and social surroundings by the EPA

A recent report commissioned by SEWPaC was highly critical of the social impact assessment work undertaken for the SAR 64 . Many of the issues addressed in this report are relevant to the EPA’s assessment of the SAR.

The report found that large male construction forces "fuelled by alcohol, long working hours and the heat" could be antisocial as they looked to "party". The report warns that rises in prostitution, sexual infections, sex assaults, relationship issues, drug trafficking and alcohol problems were possible.

The EPA’s usual role in reporting on cultural and social impacts is generally limited to the extent that those impacts directly affect, or are affected by, physical and biological surroundings. However, pursuant to the requirements set out in the Scoping Document for this proposal, the EPA has further obligations than is usual to report on social impacts. In particular, the SAR does not provide the EPA with sufficient information so that the EPA can make any assessment of the likely impact of a large, transient male construction force.

The criticisms raised in the report commissioned by SEWPaC are serious. A large, transient male construction force will undoubtedly have an impact on factors such as: • Increased recreational fishing pressure;

62 McKENZIE -v- MINISTER FOR LANDS [2011] WASC 335 63 Browse Liquefied Natural Gas Precinct – Strategic Assessment Report Part 5; Social Assessment 3.5 64 Dr Annie Holden, ImpaxSIA (2011). Independent expert peer review of the Social Impact Assessment component of the Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment . Undertaken for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-13 • Disruption to cultural sites, resources and values; • Introduction of invasive species; • Vandalism of dinosaur sites;

The SAR must properly address the social impacts as they relate to matters which are detailed in the EPA’s usual jurisdiction as well as the Scoping Document.

A further example of the proponent’s failure to address the direct social impacts of the gas hub, in relation to traditional hunting of dugong, is discussed in Appendix 4.

In light of the comprehensive failings of the proponent and the SAR to address the many social and economic impacts of the proposed precinct, the EPA and Commonwealth should require further work to address the flaws identified in this and other submissions.

10. Other key gaps and flaws in the proponent’s documentation

Other studies and information clearly inadequate thus far include dredging, breakwater design and construction, coastal processes modelling, marine wastewater discharge, hydrogeology and hydrology.

10.1: Dredging The proponent has failed to adequately describe the full scale and impacts of the dredging program, including cumulative impacts, for the lifetime of the proposed LNG precinct, as required under the Terms of Reference for the SAR. For example,

• “Modelling of a cumulative dredging scenario such that the cumulative impact from pipeline laying and the capital [port] dredging activities are incorporated, will be untaken during the derived proposal stage ” [i.e. after the public assessment of SAR has been completed]. (SAR Part 3, p 2-54); • “The proposed spoil disposal ground, likely to be approximately 7km west of the BLNG Precinct, provides the most suitable area for the disposal of dredged material.” [Vol 3, p2-21]; “ The ultimate location of the spoil ground will be assessed in detail under the Commonwealth Sea Dumping Permit process, including mapping to confirm habitat composition .” [i.e. after the public assessment of SAR has been completed]. [Vol3, p2-65]; • “A conceptual port design has not been developed, [hence] hydrodynamic and sediment transport 14odelling has not been undertaken associated with specific port designs…Details of the dredging campaign are yet to be finalised.” [Vol 3, p2-5; p2-19]; • “Maintenance dredging was not incorporated into the modelling approach as the frequency and extent of such activities are as yet unknown” [Vol 3, p2-37]; • “Preliminary estimates of the total dredged volume for the nearshore [i.e. excluding shipping channel and breakwater?] infrastructure based on conceptual site layout options…are of the order of 21 million cubic metres .” (SAR Part 3, p2-33).

Not only has the proponent failed to provide sufficient detail of the proposed lifetime dredging program and its impacts, it has gone to great lengths to try to conceal dredging impacts. For example, it is only by calculations based on a low resolution figure provided in the SAR that the public can ascertain that the LNG precinct would create a 52 square kilometre marine ‘dead zone’ off James Price Point.(SAR Part 3, Figure 2.4-1). The significance of this is not addressed in the SAR.

A report commissioned by SEWPaC to review the dredging work of the SAR concluded that the proponent relied on too little data for full model calibration, and the calibration carried out was based on the results from only one Acoustic Wave and Current Meter (AWAC) recording station giving wave and current information immediately offshore from the site in 18m water depth. 65

The proponent’s modelling is largely uncalibrated because it has relied on data from deep water site only. This means that the proponent’s modelling may bare very little resemblance to what would actually happen. The ever changing tides of James Price Point mean that the currents are much more chaotic (therefore more difficult to predict without data) and influenced more by small changes in bathymetry and grain size. The SAR does not have the fine scale data sets required to reasonably model the effect of dredging.

65 Browse LNG Strategic Assessment Review (Dredging and Spoil Disposal) A part of BMT in Energy and Environment May 2011 BMT WBM Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-14 It is not possible to quantify the likely impacts which dredging and the creation of a deep water port will have until there is far more study, better data and further peer review of this crucial issue.

10.2: Marine and coastal modelling An independent consultants’ report prepared for The Wilderness Society and Environs Kimberley 66 has identified major concerns and flaws in relation to the proponent’s studies and claims regarding crucial marine and coastal processes. Some of the flaws and concerns highlighted in the report include:

SAR Appendix G-1: Marine water discharge modeling study. • Surveys undertaken at wrong time of year • Surveys do not appear to be calibrated for sediment turbidity • No real data for calibration of model • Report and modeling do not address freshwater discharge already occurring in the shoreline and nearshore marine environment

SAR Appendix G-4: Coastal processes modeling study. • Geology and stratigraphy of the report factually in error in places • Missing two major published references on coastal dynamics in region • Deeper water sediment dynamics not addressed • A lack of understanding of currents and the effects of wave action will result in mismanagement and poor design of ports, sedimentation management, and design and management of shipping channels.

10.3: Breakwater design and construction The proponent has been very evasive on issue of the length, location and design of the massive breakwater and associated shipping channel dredging: • “the construction of the breakwater would most likely involve dredging works… If required , the length and orientation would be governed by the site location and port facility layout…A range of options would be considered for establishment of the breakwater.” (SAR Part 2, p5-24); • “Conceptually” the proponent appears to favour the “caisson” design, which involves massive concrete structures towed in and sunk to the sea floor; • “The conceptual port design has not been developed yet…[Therefore] hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling has not been undertaken associated with specific port designs.” (SAR Part 3, p2.6)

The breakwater, possibly extending for up to 7 kilometres out to sea from James Price Point, will potentially have serious impacts both in its construction and as a block to many marine species migrating up and down the Dampier Peninsula coast including endangered turtles and sawfish, and dugong. It is unacceptable that the proponent fails to spell out in detail what is planned and its impacts.

Proponent’s typical baseless assurance: “It is expected that potential impacts to coastal processes from physical presence of infrastructure can be successfully mitigated by the application of best practice management and mitigation measures such as the requirement for derived proponents to demonstrate the minimization of impacts on coastal processes from onshore and near shore marine infrastructure.” Marine Site Disturbance and Excavation (SAR Part 2.1.3.1.)

Contrary to such meaningless claims, the concerns outlined above must be addressed through thorough independent peer review and the requirement for new studies where failures and flaws are identified.

11. EPA precedents – Dampier Peninsula coast, Margaret River coal and Barrow Island LNG

The EPA has several precedents as well as clear grounds for recommending against the Browse LNG precinct at James Price Point. Recent precedents include the proposed Margaret River coal mine 67 and the decision on the original Gorgon/Barrow Island LNG proposal 68 .

On two occasions in the past the WA EPA has correctly ruled against proposed destructive resource projects in the same location as would be impacted by the proposed James Price Point gas precinct: EPA Bulletins 434 (1990) 69 and 519 (1991) 70 – Applications for mineral exploration licenses on Dampier Peninsula coast.

66 Wetlands Research Association (2011). Critique of Selected Environmental Studies Undertaken for the LNG Precinct, James Price Point, NW Australia . 67 EPA (2011) Vasse Coal Project: Report and Recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Report 1395. EPA, Perth. 68 EPA (2009) Gorgon Gas Development Barrow Island Nature Reserve. Bulletin 1221. EPA, Perth. 69 http://epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/397_B434.pdf 70 http://epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/482_B519.pdf Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-15 EPA Recommendation, Bulletin 434:

“…no exploration or mining activities should occur within the vine thickets and coastal dune systems within the license area.”

EPA Recommendation, Bulletin 519:

“that no mining, which includes all ground-disturbing activity, occur on the western side of the Broome-Minari Road.”

EPA Bulletin 519, excerpt

EPA maps of areas to be excluded from development (EPA Bulletin 434)

In relation to the proposed Margaret River coal mine (EPA Report 1395, May 2011), the EPA recently recommended against this project on the basis of:

3. Key environmental factors: It is the EPA’s opinion that the key environmental factor relevant to the proposal that requires evaluation is the surface and ground water and the environmental and social values that these water resources support…[this is] the factor that the EPA has identified at the referral stage as being central to its judgement that the proposal is environmentally unacceptable.

The fact that in the case of the Browse LNG precinct proposal, a project which would potentially have major water and related social and environmental impacts, the proponent hasn’t even bothered to address this issue means that the EPA cannot recommend approval.

12. Greenhouse gas emissions

Emissions intensity table prepared by The West Australian (2010)

As the above table demonstrates, Browse-sourced gas is the most emissions-intensive of all WA’s offshore gas sources at over 6 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per tonne of LNG.

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-16 Annual Browse LNG precinct (JPP) greenhouse gas emissions: • 12,000,000 t.p.a. for smallest initial development option ( = 16% increase in WA’s current annual emissions ); • 39,000,000 t.p.a. for full project ( = 52% increase in WA’s annual emissions )71 .

Fully operation, the precinct would become the single largest point-source of carbon pollution in Western Australia , and increase Australia’s national GHG emissions by up to 6.5% 72 . By way of comparison, this precinct at full operation would produce just under 4 times the emissions from the recently approved Chevron Wheatstone LNG project in the Pilbara 73 .

Such emission levels would also destroy State and Commonwealth commitments and programs to decrease Australia’s GHG emissions. The Commonwealth for example has committed to a 5% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2020.

In spite of this potentially devastating GHG impact, the SAR simply states that greenhouse gas abatement and mitigation, “will be addressed as part of a [future] Greenhouse Gas Abatement Plan”.

If the EPA’s GHG intensity target of 0.26 tonnes CO2/tonne of LNG is applied to the Browse LNG precinct that would be a very significant abatement task for Browse to achieve:

The EPA considers that best practice design and operation should be implemented to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and considers that the current best practice for an equivalent location is represented by the emission intensity from the Pluto project which is expected to be 0.26 tonne CO2 e/tonne LNG . The EPA recommends an initial target of 0.26 tonne CO2 e/tonne LNG with further improvements to be made over time.74

13. Further delays to project approval: Woodside’s 12-month FID postponement

In April 2012 the WA and Commonwealth Resources Ministers breached their usual ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ and gave Woodside special consideration to vary its retention lease conditions and delay a final investment decision until mid- 2013.

This delay means that there is no reason for the EPA, DSEWPaC or respective Ministers to make recommendations or decisions at this time or for the foreseeable future, especially given the flawed and incomplete documentation provided by the proponent. Rather, it provides time to ensure that the proponent carries out the work it was required to undertake in compliance with the Strategic Assessment Agreement and Scoping Report.

14. Inability of environmental regulatory regime to cope with ‘boom’ and disasters

PTTEP’s notorious Montara/West Atlas oil rig disaster just to the north of the Browse Basin demonstrates how risky the oil and gas industry is, and how inadequate Australia’s environmental protection and safety regime is to deal with the scale, risk and remoteness of the industry.

Recent independent reports [Hunter, T. (Bond University) for DMP 75 ; WA Auditor General report 76 ] have confirmed that the environmental and industry regulatory system in WA is outdated, unenforced or unenforceable and failing the public interest.

The above reports indicate that the environmental management plans (EMPs) and other compliance tools proposed for the James Price Point development would be poorly developed, receive little or no meaningful monitoring or compliance enforcement, and are unlikely to address the serious environmental, social and economic impacts of the project.

71 SAR Part 4 (2010), p2-197 72 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/state-territory-inventory-2009.pdf 73 http://edit.epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/Rep%201401%20wheat%20ERMP%2015611.pdf 74 Ibid. 75 http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/000041.jason.medd%281%29.pdf 76 http://www.audit.wa.gov.au/reports/pdfreports/report2011_08.pdf

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-17

The cumulative fossil fuel footprint in north west WA and its risks; top left - PTTEP’s Timor Sea ‘Montara’ disaster

14.1 Unmanageable number of proposed management plans In light of this, the notion that the Browse LNG precinct proponent proposes at least 56 EMPs as part of the approval of this project is alarming. The below list was compiled by ENGOs from the SAR, given that the proponent failed to present a consolidated list of all the EMPs and related management plans it is proposing to commit to:

1. BLNG precinct port environmental management plan 2. Invasive marine species management plan 3. Port facilities construction environmental management plan 4. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal management plan 5. Hydrocarbon and chemical spill contingency plan 6. Marine wastewater discharge management plan 7. Marine fauna and vessel interaction management strategy 8. Vessel management plan 9. Ecological surface water requirements management plan 10. Construction workforce management plan 11. Groundwater abstraction management plan 12. Fire management strategy for Dampier Peninsula 13. BLNG precinct fire management plan 14. Dampier Peninsula land use and infrastructure plan 15. Community engagement plan 16. Management and monitoring strategy for vegetation of medium to high conservation significance 17. Rehabilitation plan 18. Quarantine management plan 19. Terrestrial weed management plan 20. Terrestrial fauna management plan 21. Air Quality and Noise quality Management Plan 22. Greenhouse gas abatement plan(s) – 1 for each LNG proponent 23. Strategic Social Impact Management Plan (SSIMP)

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-18 24. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Tidal Regimes, Wave Climate, Currents and Hydrodynamics 25. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Sediment Quality 26. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Water Quality 27. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Benthos 28. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Fish 29. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Marine mammals 30. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Marine reptiles 31. Management Plan to Support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Marine Ecosystem Integrity 32. Cultural heritage management plan 33. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) 34. Greater Bilby Management Plan (Dampier peninsular) 35. Migratory Bird species (Shoreline waders) Rehabilitation Plan 36. Marine Conservation Area Management Plan (Additional marine conservation areas to be established that do include Dugong aggregation and calving areas) 37. Management Plan to support a Derived Proposal in regards to Visual Amenity, Landscape Character and Light 38. Management Plan to support a Derived Proposal Potentially Affecting Aquaculture and Pearling 39. Construction Environment Management Plan 40. Hydrocarbon and Chemical Spill Contingency Plan 41. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan 42. Dampier Peninsula Land Use & Infrastructure Plan 43. Bilateral Implementation Plan (for $$) 44. Recreation Management Strategy; Management of Impacts of Recreational Use. 45. An Education, Training and Employment Strategy 46. An Indigenous Workforce Development Strategy 47. The Transport Management Strategy 48. Transport Management Plan 49. The land and housing management plan 50. Waste management plan 51. Relevant management of the hydrology (both surface and ground water) 52. Management of Marine Resource Use Impacts 53. Management of Impacts of Recreational Use 54. Traffic management plan 55. A management plan to ensure the appropriate management of the construction workforce 56. Tourism Impacts management plan.

The public can have no confidence whatsoever that the political will or agency capacity exist to properly prepare, monitor and ensure compliance with such a long list of management plans. On the other hand, the proponent’s documentation makes it clear that it is relying on the promise of this vast, yet-to-be-created, regulatory framework to address the innumerable, serious, but poorly defined risks and impacts of this project.

Furthermore, the fact that the proponent for the James Price Point gas hub precinct has failed to comply with the Terms of Reference for the SAR raises strong concerns as to its ability or willingness to generate and enforce 56 credible EMPs.

Finally, the mere fact that so many ‘management plans’ would be considered necessary is further evidence that this is the wrong project in the wrong place.

14.2 Oil spill emergency management planning inadequate The proponent first downplays the risk of a major oil spill and then says that any such emergency will be managed by the distant Broome Port Authority:

Oil spill emergency response plan Whilst the likelihood of a major hydrocarbon spill (e.g. vessel collision or pipeline rupture) is considered extremely unlikely, the consequence may be severe if appropriate response measures are not effectively implemented. The establishment of the Broome Port Authority as the statutory port authority for the BLNG Precinct will ensure supplies of oil spill response equipment are as required under the State Emergency Management Plan for Marine Oil Pollution (West Plan) to undertake an immediate oil spill response. Major hydrocarbon spills may also require deployment of additional equipment stockpiled in the Fremantle and Dampier ports, or other stockpiles under the National Plan, to minimise the extent of hydrocarbons and reduce potential impacts to sensitive environmental receptors. The oil spill modelling required by future proponents during the derived proposal process will be used to inform a Hydrocarbon and Chemical Spill

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-19 Contingency Plan, which will be implemented in the event of a large hydrocarbon or chemical spill. An Emergency Response Plan will also be develop outlining emergency response procedures to be implemented by the port authority in the event of an oil spill emergency. 77

There are several grounds for concern in relation to this proposed plan. First, the Broome Port Authority has little if any of the resources, expertise or experience required to deal with a significant oil spill or related emergency occurring fifty kilometres up the Dampier Peninsula coast. And if the emergency occurs outside the boundaries of the Precinct, what happens then? It also appears that the LNG operator, e.g. Woodside, is not to be required to have their own high level emergency response capability for the precinct/port environment. This is unacceptable.

The risk of a major spill is a tangible risk – even with the best operator. However, Woodside has recently agreed to work with the notorious PTTEP, the company responsible for Australia’s worst oil spill 78 . In addition, Woodside recently avoided having to replug its wells to the higher West Australian standard and instead relied on the lower safety standards set by NOPSEMA 79 .

CONCLUSION Woodside has been permitted until mid-2013, to make its final investment decision. It is increasingly likely Woodside and its joint venture partners will decide against the JPP option in favour of piping to brownfields sites in the Pilbara or floating LNG, or a combination of the two.

In December 2011 the WA Supreme Court found that WA government attempts to compulsorily acquire land at James Price Point for the gas hub were unlawful. This has led to further delays and a recommencement of the compulsory acquisition process.

In February 2012, Goolarabooloo Traditional Owners split from the Jabirr Jabirr to lodge their own native title claim and deal separately with the state government in negotiations over land access at James Price Point. As the Goolarabooloo have been steadfast opponents of industrialisation of James Price Point, it is highly likely that the compulsory acquisition process will be extremely lengthy and vigorously opposed. 80

These delays means that there is no reason for the EPA, DSEWPaC or respective Ministers to make recommendations or decisions at this time or for the foreseeable future, especially given the flawed and incomplete documentation provided by the proponent. Rather, it provides time to ensure that the proponent carries out the work it was required to undertake in compliance with the SAR Terms of Reference, including assessment of processing options outside the Kimberley.

Accordingly, the current ‘strategic assessment’ should be suspended and reviewed, with the proponent’s non- compliance with the Strategic Assessment Agreement and failure to undertake peer review addressed.

Under the EPBC Act and the ‘Endorsement Criteria’ for the Browse LNG strategic assessment (2008), the Commonwealth Environment Minister, “ must be satisfied that the assessment report adequately addresses the impacts to which the agreement relates …In determining whether or not to endorse the Plan the Minister will have regard to the extent to which the Plan meets the Objects of the EPBC Act. In particular, that it: • protects the environment, especially matters of National Environmental Significance; • promotes ecologically sustainable development; • promotes the conservation of biodiversity; and • provides for the protection and conservation of heritage.”

Given the pristine nature of the Kimberley marine and coastal environment and its lack of scientific knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on development, the SAR environmental studies do not provide the regional perspective and scientific rigour to make informed decisions. Too many studies lack fieldwork and time to provide rigorous scientific information that considers even the basic ecological processes such as spatial and temporal variability.

Several of the JVPs have made it clear that they do not want to be constrained to the costly, contentious and risky JPP/Kimberley option. Industry analysts state that it would be $10 billion cheaper to pipe the gas south, while the floating LNG option is being pursued by both Shell and Woodside in close proximity to the Browse gas fields covered by this proposal.

77 http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/Browse_SAR_Part3_Environmental_Assessment_Marine.pdf ; p2-23 78 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167472.htm?site=kimberley 79 Regulator dismisses WA concerns of Oil Leak , Australian Financial Review, Jonathan Barrett, 13 March 2012 80 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-23/second-native-title-claim-on-gas-hub-site/3847780?section=wa

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-20

Community and regional benefits In relation to Indigenous and regional benefits, there is nothing to prevent the Commonwealth and State governments and Woodside Ltd from agreeing to set aside a percentage of the income each will derive from Browse gas for Indigenous and other regional community development programs in the Kimberley , regardless of where the gas itself is processed .

Models for this policy include the WA government’s Royalties for Regions program; the Commonwealth government’s establishment of the Natural Heritage Trust from the proceeds of the sale of Telstra; and the Commonwealth’s allocation of funds to the ‘Building Australia Fund’ and related funding ‘buckets’. 81

Given that Woodside has stated in public briefings 82 on its Browse Upstream assessment that the Commonwealth will earn $9 BILLION in royalties from this particular Browse LNG project (and more again from Prelude, Ichthys, etc) – wherever the gas is processed – there is no obstacle to the government allocating a significant proportion of that income to sustainable community development programs in the Kimberley.

Obviously, funding for essential health and education services to Kimberley communities should not be dependent upon or tied to income from resource mega-projects as this would be inequitable and arguably racist.

______

Appendices 1-8 follow 1 Sawfish 2 Cetaceans and dugong 3 Monsoon vine thickets 4 Social impacts 5 Project viability 6 Tourism impacts 7 Indigenous heritage values 8 Fracking and JPP

APPENDIX 1: Sawfish

What the experts 83 on Sawfish say: • Fitzroy River is a major freshwater sawfish ( P. microdon ) breeding habitat; • All migrate south down Dampier Peninsula coast, past James Price Point, to 80 Mile Beach and beyond. Some might travel north when they get to the coast, but most of the data says they are going south; • All females then migrate back along same route to Fitzroy River to have pups; • Green sawfish: Appears to be present all along same coast; • Dwarf sawfish: little data; • Depth of water preference (migration etc): Appears ‘age class’ specific; juveniles – ½ meter; older ones anywhere from 1 to 50m; almost no work done on depth preferences; • Nobody knows what impact on migration will be if gas hub and port and breakwater built: “no studies”; • Woodside hard to work with; always pressuring scientists for “another version” of findings; • Sedimentation/dredging etc may impact sawfish via decreased food sources; • Green sawfish (P. zijsron) may be most affected by sedimentation as seem to prefer clearer waters?; • Green Sawfish appear to be pupping at Willie Creek, just south of JPP; • Nothing known about Green Sf behaviour, migration etc; • Big problem if increased rec fishing in area as will catch many sawfish; • Many Freshwater Sf at Point Torment, with pups; • Scientists told Woodside that they need to do an acoustic array to look at the depth utilisation of sawfish. Woodside said there was no funding to do this. So there is no way of knowing whether sawfish can simply migrate around a gas hub and a breakwater; • Immature freshwater sawfish have been found in only two places outside the Fitzroy River and the other major tributaries of King Sound. One of these places is Willie Creek which is only 30km from James Price Point;

81 http://www.finance.gov.au/investment-funds/nbf/index.html 82 Woodside briefing to The Wilderness Society, Lotteries House, West Perth, Dec 2012. 83 D. L. Morgan, pers comm., 2011 Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-21 • Northern Australia is probably the last bastion of the green sawfish (Morgan et al 2010); Virtually extinct throughout South East Asia, northern Australia is likely the last place to host significant populations of P. zijsron; • Despite being host to the last viable populations there has been a significant decline in green sawfish in recent years...collected evidence demonstrates a large decline in Pristis spp. in Australian waters within the last 15-20 years. • Overall: Too little studies; too little data…could end up being a problem for gas hub project.

“The increase in development of the Kimberley and subsequent human population growth will inevitably lead to a decline in the viability of these [sawfish] species, particularly if migration paths are reduced (e.g. by river barriers) or by an increase in interactions with recreational and commercial fishers.” 84

It is instructive to compare what the sawfish experts wrote for the SAR (Morgan et al Appendix C-7 to SAR) and how their input was reinterpreted by the proponent in the main body of the report.

Morgan et al: Summary and interactions with the James Price Point/Dampier Peninsula region

“The marine, estuarine and freshwaters of the west Kimberley and the marine and nearshore environs of the northern Pilbara collectively host 50% of all of Australia’s elasmobranchs that are listed as Vulnerable or higher under the EPBC Act, including the three sawfish species, P. microdon, P.zijsron and P.clavata, and the river shark G.garricki. Current information suggests that the Dampier Peninsula hosts three of the species (the exception being the Northern River Shark (G.garricki)), but there is limited survey work from the region and much of this data is drawn from rostra in private collections…With regard to James Price Point, there is a lack of data available , but it is likely that the three Pristis spp. utilise the area . In the case of P.microdon, which pup in the tributaries of King Sound, with the juveniles spending a number of years in the freshwaters of the larger river (although possibly not obligate in their freshwater stage), [James Price Point] is very likely to be in the migratory path to (as juveniles migrating south) and from (as pregnant females migrating north to pup) 80 Mile Beach and Roebuck Bay … For P. zijsron [Green sawfish], both mature and immature individuals have been recorded from the Dampier Peninsula and it is thus likely to act as a nursery, feeding and breeding ground . Pristis clavata have not been recorded on the Dampier Peninsula but they have been recorded in coastal habitats at each extreme end of the peninsula, i.e. Roebuck Bay and throughout King Sound. King Sound appears to be an important nursery for the species.”

[DL Morgan, JM Whitty & NM Phillips – Appendix C-7 to the SAR; Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, South St, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150; March 2010]

What the SAR says on Sawfish ( emphasis added )

2.4.2.4. Sawfish “There was no evidence of sawfish species (Pristismicrodon, P. zijsron and P. clavata) in the BLNG Precinct area ; however, they may still occur as all species are known to utilise inshore coastal waters.

“Occurrences of these species in the area are most likely to be transient , as they migrate through James Price Point coastal area to more suitable habitats such as estuaries.

...The impacts to sawfish from habitat loss are not likely to be significant , given that habitats within the James Price Point coastal area are unlikely to represent unique or critical sawfish habitat.

“Sawfish species may come into contact with areas of increased turbidity during construction. These species inhabit estuarine and near coastal waters, which are typically naturally turbid, and are thus adapted to finding prey in these muddy waters and not expected to suffer any adverse affects from high turbidity.”

It should be noted that the SAR sawfish report (Morgan et al ) was a desktop study to provide an overview of the current knowledge of the three EPBC Listed sawfish and the Northern River Shark. There was no targeted survey to understand the importance of James Price Point for these listed species and if a new port would have a significant impact on the sawfish and Northern River Shark.

Morgan et al (2010) state that, “With regard to James Price Point, there is a lack of data available...”. Without any meaningful data a decision on whether this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on sawfish and the northern

84 Morgan D, Whitty J, Phillips N, Thorburn D, Chaplin J, McAuley R, (2011) North western Australia as a hotspot for endangered elasmobranchs with particular reference to sawfishes and the northern river shark ” Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-22 river shark cannot be made. To understand the importance of habitat for these threatened species a targeted survey should be undertaken prior to any decision on whether this proposal is environmentally acceptable or not.

APPENDIX 2: The SAR’s f lawed whale, dolphin and dugong ‘science’

An analysis by independent scientists 85 reveals serious flaws in the Department of State Development’s Marine Mammals Impact Report - prepared by DSD for its James Price Point gas hub project.

“In general, we find the [marine mammals] report lacks the referencing of peer-reviewed, readily available scientific papers that deal with impacts of human activity on cetaceans and dugongs. This shortcoming means we have very little confidence in the scientific integrity of the report and this is evidenced by the unfounded conclusions reached within .”

Dolphins “The current lack of data on dolphin population sizes or trends precludes impact assessments of developments on these protected species. Furthermore, the Western Australian and Commonwealth Government conservation listings of tropical inshore dolphins do not reflect their international listings 86 .

“Thus, no peer-reviewed publications on the distribution, abundance or conservation status of north-western Australia’s inshore delphinids are currently available in the literature

“There are no supporting data for the above assessments [i.e. claimed lack of impacts of gas hub on whales, dolphins and dugong] and we find it unacceptable that the smaller cetaceans (delphinids) have not been considered within the SAR. These species have completely different habitat requirements to humpback whales and dugongs, and will likely be impacted in different ways by the Browse LNG (BLNG) development.”

“There has been no targeted effort to identify and to quantify the abundance of coastal delphinid [dolphin] species in the area, and no effort to use genetics to determine the degree of isolation amongst areas. These are a glaring omission in the EIA . Thus, the conclusion that, “It is considered that activities associated with the development and operation of the BLNG Precinct Port area, are not likely to impact these species [Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, snubfin dolphin]…..”, is unsubstantiated and based on field efforts that were aimed at quantifying humpback whale and dugong numbers only. ”

“Furthermore, there are no publications to our knowledge on the presence/absence, abundance or habitat use of dolphins across the entire Pilbara/western Kimberley that might provide the basis for assessing the potential impacts of such a development .”

“As noted in various peer-reviewed papers, studies evaluating effects of human activity on wildlife typically emphasize short-term behavioral responses from which it is difficult to infer biological significance or formulate plans to mitigate harmful impacts (Bejder et al. 2009). There is an exception to this: based on some 15 years of detailed behavioral records , Bejder et al. (2006) evaluated long-term impacts of vessel activity on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Australia. This study showed a significant decline in relative dolphin abundance within an area of low vessel activity, during a period of increased exposure to vessels. Thus, vessel activity certainly has the potential to cause long-term effects on the distribution of coastal dolphins (Australian snubfin, Indopacific humpback and Bottlenose dolphins) .”

“Research over a significant temporal scale would be needed to make any conclusion on possible effects on distribution and abundance of the coastal delphinid species in the proposed development area.”

Whales “At a bare minimum, we would have expected the supporting documents about the aerial and vessel-based surveys to provide data about incidental cetacean sightings other than humpback whales. Unfortunately, none of the supporting documents include any information about other cetaceans other than a single sentence: “only five individual whales (0.2% of all whales recorded) were thought to be other species of large cetacean, these being minke whale (Balaenopteraacutorostrata), killer whale (Orcinus orca) and three sightings of unidentified beaked whales” (Appendix

85 Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment Report: Part 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (Marine) Public Submission ; A Hodgson, L Bejder, S Allen, J Smith. Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit Centre for Fish, Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystem Research School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology Murdoch University, South St, Murdoch WA 6150 86 Tropical inshore dolphins of north-western Australia: Unknown populations in a rapidly changing region (2012) Simon J. Allen, Daniele D. Cagnazzi, Amanda J. Hodgson, Neil R. Loneragan and Lars Bejder; in press

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-23 C-8, Section 5.1.1). This is a misleading statement, however, because 14% of whale groups seen during the aerial surveys were unidentified (Appendix C-8, Section 5.1.1).”

“It is inappropriate to compare the historical movements of ships travelling to and from Port Hedland and/or Dampier Ports from 2007 and prior (which is not time-specific or remotely in accord with the period that the whales were tagged) with the movements of a maximum of three tagged whales traversing the Port Hedland and Dampier Port areas in late September 2010. The above statement suggests that because these three whales made their way south through shipping lanes without apparent interaction with ships, then vessel strikes are not a concern. This is not an appropriate assessment of the potential impacts of vessel strikes.”

“All comparisons between sites and between years presented in the report from all types of surveys (upon which the above statements are based) were conducted using raw sighting data only. There has been no attempt to correct these data for detection probability (i.e. the affects of different environmental conditions and observer biases). The sighting conditions could have been quite different between sites and between years (e.g. wind conditions ranged from sea state 0 to 6 throughout the surveys, and turbidity was probably different among the sites). Presenting raw sighting data comparisons without incorporating covariates is inappropriate and as a result the findings in this report are unreliable. ”

Dugongs “Dugongs are directly affected by dredging as it destroys seagrass in the dredged area and the resulting increase in sedimentation is known to cause long-term smothering and destruction of seagrass beds (Price et al. 1983). The physical scouring caused by dredging can make seagrass growth impossible for many years. The effect of habitat loss on dugongs was indeed exemplified in Hervey Bay as stated above. However the widespread loss of seagrass beds during the cyclone resulted in the death and emigration of many dugongs from this important habitat area (Preen and Marsh 1995). In addition, when their access to forage is limited, dugongs also respond by delaying breeding, which can significantly reduce population growth (Marsh and Kwan 2008).”

“There is no evidence to suggest that animals will simply ‘move away from an area’ when a spill takes place. In fact, recent information available from the US Government agency (NOAA) speaks directly against this. Specifically, following the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon/BP incident, the number of whale and dolphin carcasses recovered has increased significantly.”

“Boats can interrupt dugongs’ feeding when they pass by dugong herds (Hodgson and Marsh 2007). Although dugongs are more likely to respond to boats passing within 50m, they have been observed responding to boats over 500 m away (Hodgson and Marsh 2007). What determines dugongs’ detection distance and response to boats, and the effects of interrupting their feeding, have not been quantified (Hodgson and Marsh 2007). Potential costs of disturbance include reduced energy intake, increased energy expenditure while fleeing from boats, and exclusion from preferred seagrass patches (Hodgson and Marsh 2007). By effectively reducing dugong habitat quality, disturbance from boats could cause emigration, reduced fecundity or even starvation in dugongs .”

“Boat strikes are a significant cause of dugong mortality in Australia (Greenland and Limpus 2006), and can also cause serious injuries and mortalities to coastal dolphins (Wells and Scott 1997; Parsons and Jefferson 2000). The delayed response of dugongs to boats makes them particularly vulnerable to large and/or high speed vessels (Groom et al. 2004; Hodgson 2004). Shallow waters represent particularly high risk areas for dugongs as they cannot dive deep to avoid vessels (Hodgson 2004) and in Australia they have been crushed between boats and the seabed (Yeates and Limpus 2003).”

“The background information provided in this report is poorly reviewed and refers mostly to reports and websites rather than peer reviewed articles that are widely accessible. There are some statements within the background information that are not supported by the existing literature, and as such, some of the information provided is misleading . The review does highlight the paucity in data about the seagrass in the region, and little has been done to address this issue.

APPENDIX 3: The significance of the JPP Monsoon Vine Thickets

Monsoon vine thickets (MVTs) are highly fragmented and variable patches of rainforest-allied vegetation that occur as discrete, often linear patches along the coast the patches are inter-dependent, acting as an ecological network and biological refuge. Monsoon vine thicket plants depend on frugivorous (fruit-eating) birds and bats moving from one patch to the other to eat the fruits and spread the seeds. The birds and bats rely on the many vine thicket patches, spread over a large area, producing fruit at different times so there is always sustenance available.

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-24 New information about the Monsoon vine thickets on the Dampier Peninsula shows that a significant area of MVT is being burnt annually. Preliminary results suggest that it might have been in the order of 400ha in 2009 alone. Considering that MVTs span approximately 2700ha, this is of great concern. The levels of current threats are high, these include hot and frequent wildfires, weed invasion, feral animals, clearing, climate change and off-road driving.

As patches become degraded and further isolated from each other, the opportunity for birds, bats and other threatened fauna to follow the variable fruiting periods and move between patches is reduced. The loss or serious degradation of a single large or critical patch has the potential to compromise the entire network. This has serious implications particularly with the regards to the proposed destruction of the James Price Point patch. The JPP patch is the most species rich and well- structured patch from those categorised as Dampier Peninsula Group B. It is the largest and most significant of the sixteen Group B patches and likely to be extremely important as a source of genetic and species diversity ensuring adequate flow to the smaller, more isolated patches within the system. Any compromise of the JPP patch could have serious flow on impacts to the whole of the Monsoon vine thicket ecological network on the Dampier Peninsula.

If the JPP Monsoon vine thicket patch was significantly cleared it could have far reaching consequences for this Threatened Ecological Community. The effects could have negative ecological impacts on Monsoon vine thickets in other parts of the Dampier Peninsula.

MVT’s are important for Indigenous people and are reliable sources of bush tucker, medicine and materials for tools and other significant items. Many patches are important sites for water, camping, ceremonial areas and law grounds. The destruction of 130 hectares of the MVT patch at JPP could have a negative social impact on Indigenous people who continue to use them. Again this impact would not be limited to the MVT patch at JPP, it could have an impact on MVT patches along the Dampier Peninsula coast. No substantive work has been undertaken to address the issue of the effects of clearing of the largest patch at JPP on the rest of the ecological network of MVT’s along the Dampier Peninsula. The potential negative social impacts on Indigenous people through negative impacts to MVT’s has not been examined nor addressed.

The proposed clearing of over 130 hectares of this recognised Threatened Ecological Community and the possible degradation or destruction of much more (for example, via groundwater extraction) is unacceptable and contravenes both previous EPA decisions (see below) and their status as a ‘Threatened Ecological Community’.

The SAR seriously misrepresents and downplays the importance, uniqueness and vulnerability of the Monsoon vine thickets in the vicinity of the proposed gas hub. Independent research has shown that the vine thickets in this area are unique and highly ecologically and culturally significant.

The assumption that the James Price Point vine thicket assemblage is floristically similar to those occurring elsewhere on the Peninsula - SAR P4 (1-47) - is seriously challenged by work completed by the Broome Botanical Society. This report described the James Price Point patch as being the most species rich and well- structured patch from those categorised as Dampier Peninsula Group B. The DEC are developing an Interim Recovery Plan for the ecosystem.

This ecosystem has been nominated for listing as Endangered under the EPBC Act (1999) and has been incorporated into the Finalised Priority Assessment List (2010). The Federal Government is expected to make a decision on the listing in October 2012. In the meantime, our advice is that the MVT’s must be treated as a TEC under the EPBC Act when the Minister is making any assessment which may have a significant impact on them.

APPENDIX 4: Social impacts - dugong

As has been highlighted by the Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, Centre for Fish, Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystem Research submission, the survey work for the SAR on dugongs was completely inadequate and conclusions reached in the surveys untenable. We therefore do not know what impacts a port and associated boating traffic would have on the Dugong population which travels along the Kimberley coast.

Dugongs are known to be of significant cultural importance to Indigenous people. Dugongs also provide a significant food resource of which an economic evaluation could show to be very important for low income people. If the Dugong population on the Dampier Peninsula were to be impacted by the proposed development at James Price Point then this would have a direct social impact.

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-25 Significant work needs to be undertaken on the Dugong population to understand what impacts a port would have on the population. Work is also required to understand what the cultural and economic impacts of a lower Dugong population would mean for Indigenous people .

APPENDIX 5: Project viability - Excerpts from latest industry analysts

JP Morgan (January 2012) - Global Equity Research: “Global LNG”

Browse LNG “The Browse LNG project is a proposed green field project to commercialize large gas discoveries in the Browse Basin, situated north of the Greater Carnarvon basin in which NWSV gas resources are located. The project concept is for a 12 MT pa onshore processing facility located on the Kimberley Coast at James Price Point. The project equity ownership is as follows: Woodside (46%, operator), BP (17%), Chevron (17%), RD Shell (10%, BHP (17%).

“The Browse project faces a series of significant challenges. The proposed site location at James Price Point is an area of cultural and environmental significance. Woodside had reached an agreement with the traditional owners of James Price Point (as represented by the Kimberley Land Council) in May 2011. However, in December 2011 the Western Australia Supreme Court ruled that the State's move to compulsorily acquire land at James Price Point invalid. This is likely to result in further delays as Woodside seeks to clarify the “notices of intention to acquire”. In any case, Woodside announced in December 2011 that it is seeking an extension to the Browse retention licenses to allow an extension of the required FID date from mid CY 2012 into 1H CY 2013. This is a clear indication that Woodside is not ready to move forward with the Browse project.

“Aside from traditional owner opposition, we believe the Browse project is suffering from a lack of joint venture party alignment. We believe the Browse JV partners (excluding Woodside) would prefer to delay the commercialization of a Browse green field project and instead pipe the gas back to the NWSV in 2022+ to fill capacity on the five trains in place. The Browse project is technically complex, high cost and high in CO2 all of which combine to produce a very challenging project.”

Macquarie Securities (Australia) Limited – Woodside Petroleum 13 January 2012

“Closing window for Browse… “In its 2004 Annual Report, WPL was targeting a Browse start-up in 2011 – today however this looks unlikely before 2019 at the earliest meaning that this project is apparently no nearer first production today than it was 8 years ago. What’s more, coordinated community opposition to a James Price Point development, the State’s apparently unlawful acquisition of land here, the continued lack of JV unity and the huge development bottleneck ahead all mean Browse remains some way off yet (indeed it sometimes appears that the WA government wants to see this project succeed more than the JV). This ongoing slippage is proving costly for several reasons:

• First, with upstream cost inflation running at 10-15% in Australia, the stagnation at Browse is eroding the project’s already thin economics. While much of this cost inflation has so far been offset by the rising oil price, the longer this trend continues the more precarious the investment decision becomes. While we appreciate that different development options limit the direct read-through, we note that on a simple (but in this case flawed) $/t basis, Ichthy’s price tag implies a Browse capex bill of ~$50bn). • Second, the schedule slippage at Browse means the project will face greater competition with lower cost international projects (along with the first of the brownfield expansions within Australia) both of which will be able to offer lower and more flexible pricing structures. We note that globally only 21mtpa of proposed (but uncontracted capacity) appears able to hit the 2016 window, however by 2020 this has grown to over 250mtpa of proposed capacity making for a significantly more competitive environment with buyers increasingly spoilt for choice. • Finally, with PetroChina having already walked away from its Key Terms Agreement with Browse, it now appears CPC may also have lost patience with the lack of progress having recently signed up with Ichthys (this comes on top of CPC’s separate commitment to an additional 1.5mtpa with RasGas from Qatar recently).

“Despite Coleman’s assertions to the contrary, the rising cost base at Browse may yet tempt the JV to send the gas back to the North West Shelf. While not ideal with a later start up and with the implication of idle upstream capital

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-26 waiting for capacity at the North West Shelf, we note that the lost time and initially under-utilised facilities could be made up by the larger liquefaction capacity at Karratha processing the gas faster.”

Top News Australia's Woodside likely to face delays on Browse - analysts Mon, Dec 05 03:38 AM EST

* Analysts say Woodside unlikely to meet mid-2012 FID target * Say floating LNG may be an option for Browse gas * Woodside says has not changed plans for Browse

PERTH, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Australia's Woodside Energy is unlikely to meet its target for a final investment decision on its Browse liquefied natural gas project by mid-2012 and may be forced to consider relocating the project, according to industry analysts.

Woodside has struggled to reach a consensus with its joint venture partners on its preferred site for Browse LNG project's processing plant at James Price Point in northwest Australia, while also facing local opposition.

"The end of next year would be the best case outcome (for final investment decision) in our opinion," Mark Greenwood, head of energy research at Citi in Sydney, said.

Industry analysts say Woodside's gas reserves from the Browse Basin are now more likely to be redirected to its existing North West Shelf LNG plant, also in northwest Australia, an option that may provide a better return on investment.

Redirecting the gas would mean that Woodside and its partners would have to wait for some years until the North West Shelf depletes its current gas reserves and can process the Browse gas reserves for export.

"From a return on capital perspective, our analysis suggests a higher return from the North West Shelf option, although the net present value could be lower than a timely James Price Point because of the delay in monetizing the assets," Greenwood said.

BUYER DOUBTS & RISING COSTS Meanwhile, the lack of agreement among the joint venture partners has likely eroded the confidence of potential customers for the Browse project's liquefied natural gas.

"It's clear that the joint venture partners are not that enthused about that [JPP] option and that means that the Asian buyers are not seeing it as a credible development," Adrian Wood, an analyst with Macquarie Equities Research in Sydney, said.

LNG developers typically try to sell around 85 percent of the total volume of LNG, along with some project equity, before making a final investment decision on a project to help underpin the high capital cost of LNG projects.

And as the decision-making process wears on, costs are increasing rapidly and delays could threaten the economic viability of the Browse project, analysts said.

"All this time stagnating is eroding the economics very quickly because we are seeing upstream cost inflation in Australia of anywhere between 10 and 15 percent per annum," Macquarie's Wood said.

"If in 12 months time, we're no further down the track, what looks like a marginal project today is probably uneconomical." Given the rising costs, some in the industry said a floating LNG might be a more likely option.

"Generally speaking, I think the floating option's cheaper than just about anything else," Di Brookman, an energy analyst with CLSA in Sydney, said, but added that the presence of an offshore reef may limit that possibility for environmental reasons.

Shell, one of the joint venture partners in the Browse project, is currently developing what it expects to be the world's first floating LNG project, Prelude, off the northwest coast of WA.

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-27 APPENDIX 6: Impacts on tourism downplayed in SAR

Critique Summary: Tourism Impact assessment – Kimberley LNG Precinct Report commissioned by DSD and TWA by Dr Michael Hughes, Curtin University

The main issues with this report are: 1. It has an extremely narrow scope – only considers the LNG plant in isolation and does not include the necessary associated industrial activity in the region to supply and support the LNG plant, the Browse Basin Rigs and export of LNG. 2. The examples used in the report of other regions where tourism and industry co-exist are misrepresented or add no insight: a. Two of the examples (Canada and Peru) are based on proposed LNG operations that are not built or operational so the impacts can’t be known b. The Alaskan example of the region around Valdez and Cordova is misrepresented – using a tourism marketing brochure as a reference source to prove wilderness values have been retained and tourism can co- exist with industry - rather than actual research evidence. This region is still suffering the impacts of the 18 year old Exxon Valdez disaster – a documentary on ABC last week highlighted the socially depressed and environmentally polluted state of the region. c. The Shetland Island example demonstrated that development of an Oil terminal and supply base destroyed the tourism appeal of the region– the large scale heavy industry activity and a major oil spill and other industrial accidents contributed to this. 3. The surveys on which the report is based use much speculation and assumptions 4. The report is based on “what if” scenarios that are heavily influenced by a. the narrow scope of the project b. limited and selective information provided as part of the survey c. what residents and tourists understand about what the construction and operation of an LNG plant involves in the regional context d. how the survey questions are worded and the insinuations they make e. how the respondents interpret these questions 5. The surveys have questions that are either purposefully or ignorantly designed to encourage a response that favours the LNG plant development 6. The resident and tourist survey have a very small sample size that is unlikely to validly represent the total population 7. The resident survey is not random – it is a small opportunistic sample of Broome residents with internet and email access who were on a previously constructed consumer confidence survey database for Broome.

Based on this flawed approach, the report provides the “evidence” to support the notion that the LNG hub will not impact on tourism.

Examples of flawed tourist survey questions: Appendix III p174 “Which of the following is most important to you? • Cheaper and more regular flights to Broome • No LNG development on the Kimberley coast” - This question assumes flights will be cheaper and more frequent than they currently are, with a gas hub development - The question requires surveyed tourists to choose between two options that are not necessarily related. - The question encourages tourist to select the first option by appealing to the assumed notion of a cheaper holiday combined with limited information about the regional implications of an LNG hub.

“Which of the following is most important to you? • More and better infrastructure in and around Broome • Development of an LNG precinct 60kms from Broome” - Similar issues to the question above except relating to infrastructure - Assumes an LNG plant will result in more and better infrastructure for tourists - Doesn’t specify what “infrastructure” - Emphasises the distance of the hub from Broome with no indication of associated industrial activity in Broome and the region

Examples of flawed resident survey questions: appendix II p170 “Rank the factors that will impact most negatively on the tourism market...”

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-28 • Global safety and health issues • Global economy • Threat of increased industrialisation of the Kimberley coast • Climate change • LNG precinct development competition from other destinations” - Ranking options against each other only indicates relative importance, does not provide any insight into what the respondents thinks about each item. Eg the respondent might think they are all highly negative but is forced to put them into an artificial hierarchy of importance - Results depend on what the other options are relative to the issue in question (LNG hub) and what the respondent understands about each of the items. - Results can be manipulated by including extreme items against which the main issue is to be ranked. p171 “Which of the following is most important to you 1. Cheaper and more flights to and from Broome 2. No LNG precinct development at Prices Point 3. Increased business and work opportunities in and around Broome” - Communicates assumed benefits deemed important within the limited context of the survey that discourage selection of option 2 - Does not include any options from the following question that may also be considered important

Which of the following is least important to you 1. Damage to the Kimberley coast environment 2. Damage to Broome’s tourism industry 3. Damage to Broome’s image as a tourism destination” - Forces respondents to indicate that either damage to tourism or the environment are not important - Does not include the “benefits” items from the previous question that may also be considered least important.

APPENDIX 7: Failure of DSD to take account of Indigenous Heritage values

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 2011/11 ANNUAL ESTIMATES HEARING: DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT HELD ON THURSDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2011 - SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HON ROBIN CHAPPLE MLC ASKS- “In relation to the Aboriginal song cycle at James Price Point at what point did the Department of State Development become aware of the WA Museum’s July 1991 report of the ethnographic survey of exploration applications EQ4/645 and EQ4/647, which determined the area was an Aboriginal protected area?”

Answer “The Department of State Development first became aware of the existence of the 1991 Department of Aboriginal Sites report in August 2010 . This was a result of a "passing" reference made to it in a Kimberley Land Council report to the Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment.”

APPENDIX 8: James Price Point and fracking for onshore gas

This appendix highlights the very real link between the proposed James Price Point (JPP) gas hub and the serious threat of fracking for onshore shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas in the Kimberley's Canning Basin. The Canning Basin is estimated to contain far more gas than the offshore Browse gas field.

These references are important as Premier Barnett has gone to great lengths to make the JPP gas hub a small target, denying that it is part of any 'thin edge of the wedge' for industrialising the Kimberley.

Although the Premier has said that JPP will ‘ only be a LNG gas hub – there will be no downstream processing of minerals, e.g. bauxite, at JPP’ , he has never denied that it will become a centre for processing onshore gas from the onshore Canning Basin for export as LNG.

What the references below illustrate is that, whatever Mr Barnett thinks, or wants the public to think, major industry players see the advent of a LNG hub at JPP as a great opportunity to allow the commercialisation of other gas deposits in the Kimberley which would be accessed using the highly controversial and dangerous 'fracking' process.

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-29 Some ‘exploratory’ fracking for shale gas and tight gas (by Buru Energy) has recently been carried out in the Kimberley (Canning Basin) and MUCH more is being planned.

Reference 1: WA Department of Mines and Petroleum:

“Overview of Shale Gas Resources in Western Australia The economic success of shale gas in the United States (US) and the high conventional gas prices in Australia have driven the interest in unconventional gas resources, particularly shale gas resources in Western Australia (WA). The Canning Basin has gathered a lot of interest in recent times and companies such as Buru Energy and New Standard Energy (NSE) are currently involved in an extensive exploration program focussed on this region’s unconventional gas resource. The basin is one of WA’s last frontier onshore provinces and it has the potential for major shale gas reserves that could be linked with the planned LNG hub at James Price Point north of Broome. Buru Energy has identified significant potential for unconventional resources in its Canning exploration permits and is currently undertaking a structured evaluation program of the area. In the wake of Buru Energy’s exploration in the Canning Basin, NSE secured exploration acreage in nearby permits in the basin. The existing granted permits within the NSE portfolio form an integral part of the Goldwyer shale exploration area (Buru Energy, 2010; NSE, 2010a; NSE, 2010b).”

Source: "PETROLEUM IN WA: WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S DIGEST OF PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION"; WA Department of Mines and Petroleum, April 2011

Reference 2: Oil Basins Limited http://oilbasins.com.au/OBL%20ASX%20Announcement%20- %20Appointment%20of%20OBL%20as%20USG%20Operator%20-%2021%20July%202011.pdf

“Exploration Permit 5/07-8 EP is a very large and hydrocarbon prospective address encompassing some 5,062 km2 (refer to Figures 1 and 2 attached) and is most favourably situated to both the future James Price Point LNG Terminal, the proposed Point Torment industrial area and the existing infrastructure (roads, airports and harbours) and community and light industry facilities associated with the vibrant Kimberley regional townships of Derby and Broome.”

http://oilbasins.com.au/OBL%20-%20March%202011%20Quarterly%20Activities%20Report.pdf “DISCLAIMER – CSG PROSPECTIVITY AND CSG RESOURCES POTENTIAL There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of prospective and economic coal seam gas (CSG) resources, including many factors beyond OBL ‟s control. Estimates of economically recoverable CSG natural gas reserves are based upon a number of factors and assumptions, such as geological and engineering estimates and judgments (which have inherent uncertainties and risks), the assumed effects of governmental regulation and access to the Browse LNG Hub and estimates of future domestic gas and export-LNG commodity prices and operating costs, all of which may vary considerably from actual results and/or future negotiations.”

Oil Basins Ltd map highlighting proximity of leases to JPP gas hub

Reference 3: Woodside

‘Shale gas “should be seen as an opportunity, but it shouldn’t be seen as a threat to conventional LNG” companies, said Coleman, who became Woodside CEO in May. “Is shale gas in the mix?” Coleman said. “It’s not on our radar screen today, but we’ll look at our capabilities and we’ll determine over time whether that mix needs to change.”’

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-30 By James Paton - Aug 18, 2011 11:44 AM GMT+0800 ; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08- 18/woodside-hopes-shell-to-remain-shareholder-amid-takeover-talk.html

Reference 4 : BURU Energy http://buruenergy.com.au/getfile/370.pdf

“Highlights • The four key unconventional plays identified have combined mid range unrisked gross in-place volumes of 362 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil (BBO).” (NOTE: the whole of the Browse offshore field is said to be ~35 TCF )

Map courtesy the Buru Energy website; This map was subsequently edited to remove reference to James Price Point

Reference 5: New Standard Energy http://www.newstandard.com.au/images/stories/Quarterly%20Activities%20Report%20April-June%202011.pdf NOTE: if this link doesn't work, cut and paste it into your browser.

New Standard has pretty vague reporting but James Price Point is referenced in all map images.

“AUSTRALIAN EXPLORATION PORTFOLIO & ACTIVITIES”

All C/- City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi St, West Perth 6005

Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-31