Has AGL Gained Government Support for Their Crib Point Proposal By

Has AGL gained Government support for their Crib Point proposal by exaggerating the threat of imminent gas shortages, and the capacity for gas imports to reduce the price of the commodity? In media reports and public consultations, AGL consistently overstated their commitment to providing ‘energy security’ to Victorian families.

In 2019 AGL wrote to Westernport’s residents “The EES is Victoria’s most rigorous and transparent planning process and we are willing to be held accountable to this process. Once we have completed the full environment assessment required by the government, we will have a better understanding of these impacts. The EES will investigate a variety of matters, including the impact the proposed project may have on the marine environment, local businesses and greenhouse gas emissions.

We will follow all assessment requirements that are asked of us by the Victorian Government and all regulatory bodies. We are willing to be held to these standards.”

But rather than being accountable, we have seen AGL attempt to avoid addressing these issues In addition AGL had applied for EPA SEPP waste water standards to be dropped to enable their project .

AGL’s submission to the EPA on SEPP https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/394971/AGL.pdf

In May 2020 AGL CEO Brett Redman claimed the Victorian Government should fast track their gas import proposal. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/victoria-urged-to-halt-agl-s-floating-gas-te rminal-approval-bid-20200506-p54qdf.html

In addition AGL has not been transparent about the need for gas, overstating the gas shortage in a public fear campaign, and leaving it to the public to make the connection between their effort to import gas and new gas fired power stations.

AGL stated “In July 2017, we announced a $295 million investment to develop a 210 MW reciprocating engine power station, the Barkers Inlet Power Station” (in South Australia) The Crib Point Gas Import Jetty Project was launched just weeks later in August 2017 A few months later, in 2018 a further gas Fired Power Station was announced by AGL in NSW. https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-releases/2018/april/n ew-gas-fired-power-station-in-nsw

In May 2019 members of Save Westernport met with members of the AGL Board. During this meeting the AGL representatives stated categorically that NONE of the gas imported through their proposed AGL gas import facility would be used in gas fired power generation.

However in late 2019 YET ANOTHER gas fired power station was announced by Pipeline company APA https://www.apa.com.au/news/media-statements/2019/apa-project-selected-for-gove rnment-power-scheme/

No Information has been provided about WHERE AGL PROPOSES SOURCING THE GAS to fuel these enormous projects for the next several decades.

When questioned about this in mid 2018, AGL representatives Jay Gleeson did not detail AGL's recently announced Newcastle plans, but stated

“AGL has been able to achieve the necessary confidence to progress this investment in part due to the anticipated capacity of the Crib Point Project (or other import jetties) to ensure secure supply.” https://docs.google.com/file/d/1HGOBt8onWzrHfkNSGGkPe2NPtVit6Enn/edit?usp=d ocslist_api&filetype=msword

It should be noted that this significant commitment by AGL to fossil fuel derived energy is at complete odds with that corporation’s “GREEN” and sustainable goals that are widely publicised and promoted in their 2017 Sustainability Policy and in their extensive public advertising. The point is HOW CAN A CORPORATION be trusted that so blatantly misleads the public and shareholders with promises of transparency and accountability while and completely misrepresenting their operations and future direction?

AGL has been CONVICTED FOR DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING CONDUCT https://www.smh.com.au/business/agl-fined-1-5m-for-door-knocking-lies-20130521-2 jy30.html

Previous AGL executive Phaedra Deckart said :

The other key challenge area is getting the local community to accept the LNG import facility in their backyard. It is a challenge we haven’t underestimated. Nobody wants new infrastructure in their neighbourhood, no matter how badly its needed. We have learnt from our experience in coal seam gas development, that simply getting your supporters on side and trying to convince an apathetic general public of the benefits of a project isn’t enough. Working with those most concerned -- and therefore strongly opposed to the project -- has been our key focus. To date we have held around 30 open public meetings with local community groups --sometimes as large as 200 people -- to acknowledge and respond to their concerns. We have tried to move beyond simple transparency, to a more straightforward honesty and frankness, in which all our draft environmental and technical assessments -- even when we don’t yet have all the answers and when we don’t like the findings -- have been provided to the community and environment groups. They have had access to our draft reports well before they have been provided to regulators and the government.

The aim of our engagement is not to try and change the community’s minds with the facts, but to build trust by showing we are willing to be accountable for the inherent risks a FRSU and pipeline will bring to a community. Ultimately, by working with them to solve the problems together, we want them to win under conditions the project can live with. https://www.gti.energy/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/46-LNG19-04April2019-Deckart- Phaedra-paper.pdf

This 2018 AGL ASX stock exchange media release announced Port of Hastings plans to begin construction on Crib Point Jetty—EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED.

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-releases/2018/june/a gl-reaches-key-milestones-for-proposed-lng-import-jetty

AGL’s Online Community Engagement Forum https://community.agl.com.au/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/22347

AGL’s approach to stakeholder engagement is outlined in the AGL 2019 Sustainability report https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/sustainability/sustainability-performance

“It can be summarised in terms of leaving a positive legacy; AGL will strive to make a net positive social, economic and environmental contribution to the communities in which we operate. AGL’s community engagement commitments that operate under this framework are that AGL will: ● Be proactive: we will engage with communities early and often, so that we understand and respond to their interests and concerns. ● Be "exible and inclusive: we will o#er a range of engagement opportunities that are tailored to the variety of needs and preferences of the communities in which we operate. ● Be transparent: we will act honestly and ethically in all our dealings with the communities in which we operate. ● Support our employees and contractors to engage well: we will provide tools, peer support and training to enable our staff to deliver on our commitment. ● Continuously improve our engagement: we will evaluate the e#ectiveness of our engagement and modify it as needed to ensure that our activities address community needs and expectations.”

AGL ‘Community fund’

JS: AGL has offered “bribes” and gifts of cash to select Community groups in and around Crib Point, an area their Social Impact Assessment called “financially disadvantaged” It would be good to find out whether the “sponsorships” with an option to extend have been extended?

AGL rep Kelly Parkinson confirmed that these amounts have already been paid in this email to a member of Save Westernport on the 7th Nov 2018: He wrote

Sorry it’s taken me a while to get answers on the sponsorships because I haven’t had any real involvement in them (I’m not a supporter of them in general).

At this stage the two agreed sponsorships are for one year with the option to extend to another two years.

The current sponsorships agreed and/or requested amounts are:

• Peninsula Arts Festival $50,000 (agreed - a new event for Hastings as previously advised) • Hastings Gift $16,000 (agreed - a new event for Hastings as previously advised) • Crib Point Sports Club (Football, Netball, Cricket) $50,000 (requested ) • Western Port Seagrass Partnership $5,000 (requested) • Environment Week (local support requested but it’s not clear what the amount is yet)

AGL’s Community engagement policy is particularly hollow in light of what the Westernport community has been put through..

“AGL is committed to developing and maintaining good relationships with the local communities in which we operate.

We believe in more listening, less talking. AGL’s approach to stakeholder engagement is outlined in the Sustainability Report, AGL 2019 Sustainability report https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/sustainability/sustainability-performance

It can be summarised in terms of leaving a positive legacy; AGL will strive to make a net positive social, economic and environmental contribution to the communities in which we operate. AGL’s community engagement commitments that operate under this framework are that AGL will: ● Be proactive: we will engage with communities early and often, so that we understand and respond to their interests and concerns. ● Be "flexible and inclusive: we will o#er a range of engagement opportunities that are tailored to the variety of needs and preferences of the communities in which we operate. ● Be transparent: we will act honestly and ethically in all our dealings with the communities in which we operate. ● Support our employees and contractors to engage well: we will provide tools, peer support and training to enable our sta# to deliver on our commitment. ● Continuously improve our engagement: we will evaluate the e#ectiveness of our engagement and modify it as needed to ensure that our activities address community needs and expectations.

Their Community fund has been particularly divisive and inappropriate

“At AGL, taking care of the environment is something we consider in everything we do. We are committed to achieving excellence in environmental management and performance.

We are working hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise our environmental footprint.

AGL understands that we don’t always get it right, and we want to be informed when we don’t. If you would like to provide any feedback, good or bad, or simply ask some questions, please feel free to get in touch via the following channels:

Torrens Island is located in the Port River estuary and surrounded by the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary. This unique estuarine habitat is an important breeding ground to many native fish and bird species. We partner with the Australian Marine Wildlife Research and Rescue Organisation and Conservation Volunteers Australia to protect this important ecosystem. Community complaints and enquiries

Responding to questions on AGL’s gas usage AGL rep Jay Gleeson’s said:

(July 2018)

“AGL is relying on the potential for the (Crib Point) project to secure long-term economic supplies of gas to new gas power station projects in South Australia and NSW. In South Australia, AGL currently uses approximately 30PJ of gas at the now 50 year old Torrens Island Power Station. As the first stage of delivering replacement capacity, AGL is currently constructing the Barker Inlet Power Station which is 18% more efficient.

AGL has been able to achieve the necessary confidence to progress this investment in part due to the anticipated capacity of the Crib Point Project (or other import jetties) to ensure secure supply.

In NSW, AGL has outlined its generation plan to replace the Liddell coal-fired power station. This plan requires the construction of 750MW of fast-start gas plant to firm approximately 1,600 MW of new renewable generation. These projects are estimated to require an additional 5-8PJ of gas per annum. All of these projects are made viable through a secure gas supply and contracting option.

The remainder of gas imported at Crib Point will be sold to other users, including residential, commercial and industrial customers, and other power generators. AGL’s total gas sales in FY2018 were 180PJ.

AGL believes the extra source of the gas will put downward pressure on prices but has not committed to guaranteeing lower prices. We are currently in a confidential tender process for gas so cannot advise the source destination of the gas at present.

The gas AGL sold to Santos was in reserves in Northern Queensland

Gas can be purchased on the international spot market via a trading desk or can be purchased via longer term supply contracts. AGL is currently in negotiation for longer term supply contracts to provide the gas for the Crib Point facility.

Jay Gleeson Community Relations Manager, Strategic Projects AGL LNG Import Jetty Project t: e:

https://savewesternport.org/

24 February 2020

I am writing to you on behalf of Save Westernport to report that on Feb 17 and 18 2020 Several ha. of native bushland was destroyed to clear land at the proposed site of the AGL FSRU at Crib Point jetty.

Save Westernport, our members and supporters are extremely concerned that this valuable, and increasingly rare coastal vegetation appears to have been cleared without notice and without necessary permits. Such clearing on the border of the internationally significant Ramsar wetlands is appalling, particularly after a fire season when as much as one third of Victoria’s irreplaceable native habitat was lost to poor land management practices and the resulting bushfire

The size and scope of the clearing is substantial, as the photos below reveal. Save Westernport makes the following observation:

The extensive area of vegetation cleared appears to align precisely with the area marked out in AGL’s plans for their proposed LNG receiving station Mercaptan injection plant (see picture)

During initial phone calls to the Port Authority, the body responsible for the site, we were told this was carried out to protect the area from bushfire, however February is an extremely uncommon and unusual time of year for bushfire prevention.

In addition, all clearing was limited to an area on the northern side of the jetty, within the area furtherest away from the current UNITED pipeline and accompanying infrastructure.

If, as the Port Authority claims, the vegetation was cleared to protect the area around the Crib Point jetty from fire, it seems unusual that other areas of vegetation adjoining the jetty were left intact. This makes no sense for fire prevention.

In response to our inquiries, the Port has notified the POH Community Consultation Committee that the clearing was for fire protection, but also stated the following:

‘The extent of the clearing has exceeded our expectations and we are investigating the matter further. If we had known the extent of clearing beforehand we would have informed the community consultation committee in advance.’ It has been noted that it would have been far more appropriate if PoHDA had acknowledged that had they known they would’ve attempted to prevent it?

Any clearing of land around the site is subject to strict environmental requirements. We note, in particular the requirements as outlined in the initial AGL Flora and Fauna report by the Jacobs Group (2018) on the proposal , which specified that any vegetation clearing by PoH would need to meet the requirements of the Shire under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and DWELP ( Guidelines for removal of native vegetation) .It is unclear whether there was any application to the Shire or approvals for these works.

As you are well aware, the AGL proposal has been widely rejected by Peninsula and Westernport residents due to the many potential impacts of both the proposed facility at Crib Point, and the connecting pipeline to Pakenham. We have had many concerned members of our community contact us about this huge land clearing at the proposed site.

In response, Save Westernport has written to the Mayor, CEO and relevant Councillors of the Shire , as well as Neil Burgess, MP for Hastings and we are seeing Chris Brayne, MP for Nepean tomorrow . We will be further communicating with the CEO of PoH.

The questions we have asked of the Shire, the PoH and DWELP are:

• Who was responsible for the land clearing? • Under what authorities was this job was approved? • Where can the approvals be viewed? • Was an EPA Works permit issued for the clearing? • Did MPSC and DWELP know the clearing was planned, and if so were any approvals sought or given? • Was a notice informing the public about the planned clearing posted by the proponent or the Shire? • Is any further clearing or works planned at the jetty site before the EES is concluded and decisions made by the government?

We request a formal response in writing.

Yours sincerely Julia Stockigt Secretary Save Westernport Inc.

Mornington Peninsula News March 10 2020 WP news http://www.mpnews.com.au/2020/03/10/outrage-over-clearing-for-fire-at- crib-point/

Was it a coincidence that after hearing nothing from the proponent AGL for several months, the same day as the clearing, Feb 17 2020, AGL also applied for a variation to their EPBC application, for the exact area of the clearing ? https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hJbxI1zBTXExCrGIY- 3LXiLRpLKCeBN/view?usp=drivesdk Compare this Photo taken after the clearing at the jetty with the AGL mock-ups of their proposed plant at the site. The jetty can be seen in the background at top right in each of the photos below.

The area of land cleared coincides with the proposed site of the AGL “onshore metering facility” pictured below, with the jetty in the upper right.

Taken before clearing, this pic from the Environment Risk Assessment for the

proposed jetty upgrade 2018 shows that the vegetation destroyed had a similar density of coverage to the adjacent foreshore reserve which forms the boundary of the Westernport Ramsar site. The ERA appears on the PoHDA website. The area now cleared is circled in red. The Environment Risk Assessment from the PoHDA website for the jetty site states: “A desktop terrestrial flora and fauna assessment by Jacobs determined the study area appears to support areas of native vegetation (approximately 2 ha of Heathy Dry Woodland and scattered native trees) and an area cleared of native vegetation (approximately 1 ha)…Whilst the layout of the landside area is not yet known, it is assumed that the construction laydown area and staff facilities/amenities required for the Jetty Upgrade project would be easily accommodated within the existing cleared area (void of native vegetation).” Section 2.3 Page 3 -Environment Risk Assessment for Jetty Upgrade, PoHDA website. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/592f5720f5e2317ce97cec2c/t/5bb5a1 47e79c7022474d5252/1538629990542/ERA.pdf

The site as it was left after clearing in Feb 2020. No assessment of native wildlife was carried out before the unauthorised work commenced although echidnas, pardelopes and other fauna, and species of endangered native orchids were known to exist at the site before clearing.

It should be noted that by the time work had been completed to this stage, above, the Port still had not notified the public on the PoHDA website or their community consultation meetings that are generally used for this purpose. On Feb19, after members of the public contacted Save Westernport the incident was raised with the Port Authority. Members of the public were concerned that work to prepare for the AGL proposal appeared to be commencing, though the proposal was still subject to EES assessment under the Act. This incident occurred within weeks of Victoria losing up to one third of its native habitat that was destroyed in the disastrous fires in early 2020. Representatives of the Port Authority responded to enquiries from the public about the vegetation clearing and welfare of native wildlife known to inhabit the site, with emphatic assurances that ALL necessary permits HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY PoHDA prior to work commencing.

In response to these concerns the following notice was finally posted on the PoHDA website 2 days AFTER the incident, on 19/02/20 under NEWS :

Vegetation Management The Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) has completed fire management works as part of our fire preparedness. PoHDA undertook clearing of vegetation at Crib Point Jetty and Long Island Point Jetty to reduce the fire risk associated with high fuel loads. The management of vegetation is an ongoing task and PoHDA will continue to undertake works including mowing of these areas and clearing of debris as required.

The Environment Risk Assessment abon the PoHDA website states that vegetation offsets would be required to compensate for any loss at the site. Whether or not this clearing was done to prepare for the AGL project, it seems that the Port Authority was required to consider vegetation offsets as well as the relocation of protected wildlife displaced by their operations.

As far as we can determine, the Port Authority managed neither of these important measures before ordering the clearing, even though they are detailed in the Environment Risk Assessment and Environment Management Plan for the jetty site that have both been posted on the PoHDA website since early 2018. Similarly, whether the job was ordered for the purpose of fire management as claimed, or to prepare the site for the AGL project that is still the subject of an EES, members of Save Westernport, and of the local community think that the Port of Hastings Development Authority, in accordance with the Env Management Plan that has been posted on their website since early 2018 was aware that they were required to secure vegetation offsets and to arrange the relocation of wildlife species displaced by their operations. As far as we know, PoHDA managed neither of these important responsibilities. There are additional concerns that the extensive clearing at this foreshore site will continue to negatively impact local marine life. Clearing the site will allow contaminated sediment from previous industry that was previously stable at the site to run-off into the Bay. PoHDA would be aware that sediment from around the jetty containing heavy metals and other contaminants is now being released into the marine environment each time it rains. The 2018 Jacobs Environmental Risk Assessment that details the contaminants, including highly toxic PFAS chemicals found at the jetty site is posted on the PoHDA website.

Contaminated Land

Previous investigations of the Port Land adjacent to the jetty have identified contamination of soil, sediment and groundwater beneath the Project Site. This is predominantly related to metals, with some hydrocarbons and perfluoralkyl substances (in the presence of perfluoroctanesulfonic acid) identified in isolated areas. Fill soil is present across the site up to depths of approximately 1 metre, with soil contamination predominantly identified within this unit.

A contributor to Save Westernport recently stated: “Sediment run-off and the resulting water turbidity are among the leading causes of die back and loss of seagrass coverage. The progressive desertification of marine habitats is the inevitable result.” The seagrass meadow at Woolleys Beach is a noted example in Westernport . It’s an important source of seagrass seed for projects that re-establish seagrasses in other areas of Westernport. This means the area is of great interest to researchers, including the Westernport Seagrass Partnership and Deakin University’s renowned Blue Carbon Lab. Any degradation or loss would not only impact seagrass in the immediate area, it would potentially set back the regeneration of marine habitats and seagrass replanting across Westernport, and further afield.” On Thursday Feb 20 when members of Save Westernport contacted Port of Hastings for information about the incident, we were told the extensive clearing that was carried out was routine fire prevention maintenance, and all necessary permits and approvals had been obtained. The PoHDA rep agreed to forward copies of these permits to Save Westernport by Monday Feb 24. We have never received any approvals for the work. The Notice below was sent to members of the Port Authority’s Community Consultation Committee, which meets twice yearly. I represent Save Westernport on the CCC.

Further Correspondence is included, with PoHDA, DELWP, MornPen Mayor and Shire Planning Officers, and local Members Neil Burgess and Chris Brayne. Chris raised the matter with the Vic Minister for Ports, Melissa Horne. Both she and DELWP rep Bruce Abernathy stated that the local Shire Council is responsible for enforcement. Mr Abernathy corfirmed that the clearing carried out by the Port Authority was unauthorised.

Correspondence and reporting the Incident

To the Mayor Sam Hearn, Dep Mayor Roper and Cr Gill, Feb 18 2020

Earlier this week several ha. of native bushland was destroyed in an unnecessary and unselective act of clearing that took place at the proposed land side site of the AGL FSRU at Crib Point jetty, at 2040 the Esplanade Crib Point.

It is deeply concerning that this valuable and potentially protected vegetation appears to have been cleared without notice, particularly as this bushland bordering the internationally significant Ramsar wetlands in Westernport is the known habitat of endangered animal species. The Crib Point jetty itself lies within the boundary of the Ramsar wetlands site, with the the high water mark adjacent to the jetty, and the jetty itself forming the boundary.

During initial phone calls to the Port Authority, believed to be responsible for the site, we were told that the clearing was to protect the area from bushfire. However it appears that all clearing was limited to an area on the northern side of the jetty, on land where AGL is currently applying to construct a gas injecting facility as part of their controversial plans to import gas from around the world into Westernport using a permanent facility at Crib Point.

If as they claim, the Port Authority arranged the land clearing to protect the Crib Point jetty from fire, it needs to be asked why clearing was limited only to the north of the jetty, while the area of vegetation adjoining the jetty in other areas to the south were not similarly cleared. It should be noted that the extensive area of vegetation that has been cleared seems to align precisely with the area marked out in AGL’s plans for their proposed Mercaptan plant. However the gas import project for which this clearing appears to have been done HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. The land in question is the known habitat of endangered species including the Grey-faced flying fox and Southern brown bandicoot.

Habitat loss from Climate Change is one of the most significant and urgent problems facing our generation, and pressures from industry and urbanisation are fast destroying our remnant areas of critical woodland habitat. Foreshore vegetation is our number one defense against coastal inundation from Sealevel rise, yet the destruction of this habitat is accepted and permitted in this country with unacceptable regularity.

I cannot express in strong enough terms how mortified and ashamed I am by what has occurred at Crib Point jetty this week. It should be noted that the land cleared in this recent incident is adjacent to Coastal Saltmarsh, which is classified as A CRITICALLY ENDANGERED COMMUNITY. The Shire’s recent announcement of a Climate Emergency should mean that the prevention of habitat loss must be urgently prioritised.

We sincerely hope that this act was not endorsed by the Shire, and upon speaking briefly with Hastings Ward Member Cr Roper yesterday I was reassured that this is probably not the case, though I understand the deputy Mayor was still trying to find out exactly what happened at the jetty site and why. Due to recent investigations into various Councils and their development procedures, it seems particularly important to look into this incident and the potential involvement of this powerful and affluent project proponent, particularly concerning their apparent connection with the Port of Hastings Authority (PoHDA).

We hope you’ll be able to get back to us with more information about this incident, and any other proposed changes in the area like this one.

Sincerely Julia Stockigt Secretary Save Westernport Inc.

Response From Shire From Mayor Hi Julia, Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and like Cr Roper I also had no awareness that this was going to happen. Your email makes some very good points and I’ll follow this up with our officers to gain more information and confirm what actions we can take from here.

Kind Regards

Sam Hearn | Mayor | MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE E: [email protected]

Feb 25 Dear Julia, Thank you for your email dated 21 February 2020 regarding Vegetation removal in the area of the Crib Point Jetty. I advise we have commenced an investigation into this matter and have made contact with the Port of Hastings Development Authority who have taken responsibility for arranging the works, and they have indicated AGL were not involved.

Our investigation is continuing and we will advise you the outcome when completed. Regards SEAN DILLON | MPS Planning Compliance Officer Email:

In Feb 2020 members of Save WP met with local Member for Nepean Chris Brayne to report the incident and ask him to raise it with the Ports Minister Melissa Horne. Minister Horne responded that MPSC were responsible for investigating the matter, and asked us to keep her informed.

From MLA for Nepean Chris Brayne Hi Julia, The initial advice from the Minister for Ports office is that the clearing was undertaken with an arborist who was on site and approved, however as you rightly point out the Port is conducting an investigation as to why so much vegetation was removed. We have written to the Minister on your behalf who has offered to provide a formal response to us which we will provide to you as soon as we receive it.

Thank you Joshua Sinclair for Chris Brayne

To MLA for Hastings Neale Burgess Hello Neale

Yesterday an email was sent on behalf of Save Westernport to MP Mayor Sam Hearn and local MPS Councillors to report the extensive vegetation clearing that occurred at Crib Point jetty this week. I wish to apologise for mistakenly copying you into that email along with our Save Westernport Committee Members.

It was my intention to email you personally on behalf of Save Westernport to inform you about that and ask whether you’ve been able to find out any information about the incident.

After I sent that email on Friday, I received a notice to members of the Port of Hastings Community Consultation Committee from Michael Dillon at the Port Authority, or PoHDA.

The notice claims that vegetation removal was carried out to protect the area from fire, and was not related to the AGL proposal in any way. I have attached that notice below for your information.

We question that explanation because clearing was only carried out on one side of the jetty, in an area coinciding with the proposed site of the AGL gas odorisation facility adjacent to the jetty. See photos.

We have arranged to meet with local Member for Nepean Mr Chris Brayne next week. Following that we hope to also meet with you to discuss our continuing efforts to ensure that AGL’s plans to import gas are withdrawn, or do not gain approval.

Save Westernport recently made a submission to the State Parliamentary Committee on the management of Victoria’s Ramsar sites, and last week we received an update about the projected timeline for the current EES.

We look forward to discussing these matters with you soon.

Julia Stockigt Secretary Save Westernport Inc

Feb 22 from [email protected]

Hi Julia

I'm always happy to meet and discuss the attempt by the state government, to reindustrialise Crib Point.

I'm happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that Chris Brayne told members of the community, prior to the state election, that he was totally opposed to the proposal and would stop it if elected. Josh Sinclair made the same promises during the federal election campaign. While Josh wasn't successful, Chris of course was and is a part of the government that is driving it.

It's now time for Chris to keep his promise, in the same way I did, when we won in 2010. I called Boral as soon as we were certain we were government and told them they were no longer welcome at Crib Point.

On the "fuel reduction" story, I believe your intuition is on the money. I have lots of places where I can't get the government to reduce fuel, so to suggest they have done that off their own bat, even through the POH, in just that one area, is a very big stretch.

Best regards - Neale

Neale Burgess MP Member for Hastings

6 Eramosa Road East SOMERVILLE VIC 3912

03 5977 5600

Feb 21 Begin forwarded message from [email protected]

Subject: POH Community Consultation Committee Notice Dear all,

I’ve been informed that the recent vegetation removal at Crib Point Jetty has caused a great deal of concern for some of our community committee members. I thought it would be good to touch base with you all and provide some background information.

The Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) has completed the fire management works as part of our fire preparedness. PoHDA undertook clearing of vegetation at Crib Point Jetty to reduce the fire risk associated with high fuel loads adjacent to a facility that imports petroleum.

PoHDA engaged a qualified arborist to undertake these works in accordance with the relevant standards just as we have done in the past.

The extent of the clearing has exceeded our expectations and we are investigating the matter further. If we had known the extent of clearing beforehand we would have informed the community consultation committee in advance.

We reluctantly have to remove vegetation on our site from time to time to manage bushfire risks, but we always ensure this is done with the advice of professional arborists who advise us on what is required to both balance our safety requirements, protect the local environment and to ensure the works are compliant.

Please feel free to share this information with your respective organisations. I am happy to discuss this matter further or I welcome the opportunity to discuss at our next committee meeting.

Kind Regards,

Michael Dillon Business Development & Strategy Manager

PoHDA_RGB_LARGE.gif Part of Transport for Victoria

1d Stony Point Road, Crib Point Victoria 3919 (PO Box 249 Crib Point Victoria 3919) P + 61 3 5979 5522 | F +61 3 5979 5555 | M + E | W www.portofhastings.com

Additional Information: The Environment Risk Assessment for the jetty site states: “A desktop terrestrial flora and fauna assessment by Jacobs determined the study area appears to support areas of native vegetation (approximately 2 ha of Heathy Dry Woodland and scattered native trees) and an area cleared of native vegetation (approximately 1 ha)…Whilst the layout of the landside area is not yet known, it is assumed that the construction laydown area and staff facilities/amenities required for the Jetty Upgrade project would be easily accommodated within the existing cleared area already void of native vegetation.” -Environment Risk Assessment https://static1.squarespace.com/static/592f5720f5e2317ce97cec2c/t/5bb5a147e79c7 022474d5252/1538629990542/ERA.pdf

The recent corruption that has come to light in neighboring shire’s makes it all the more vital that the Port behave in a up-front and transparent manner regarding this incident and concerning the Port Authory’s dealings with AGL. Sincerely Julia Stockigt Secretary Save Westernport Inc

Feb 22 From Woolleys Beach Foreshore Committee Hullo Julia

The work of vegetation removal has been undertaken on terminal land, the land on the southern side of the jetty and to the north of the cleared area is Crib Point Foreshore Reserve land. Vegetation removal along the fence line on the southern side was undertaken prior to Christmas .

regards, xxx, Woolleys Beach Foreshore Committee

March 5 From PoHDA CEO Malcolm Geier

Dear Julia,

Thank you for your email to Michael Dillon regarding clearing that was undertaken by the Port’s contractors for fire prevention purposes adjacent to at the Crib Point Jetty on Tuesday 18th February 2020 (Bushfire Prevention Works).

As you note there has been a great deal of concern expressed about these Bushfire Prevention Works, in particular among those opposed to the AGL project, and some misunderstanding about the reason they were conducted. I hope the below information provides some clarity.

The Port of Hastings Development Authority (the Port) has an obligation to protect our property, our assets and our local community from the risks that bushfire can pose, particularly given the petroleum products that come across the Crib Point Jetty. Not only have the recent bushfires in Victoria and NSW heightened our awareness of the threat that bushfires can pose to our communities but I am reminded that it was only some 4 years ago that fire came from the north adjacent to our property and too close for comfort to the Jetty.

These bushfire prevention works were approved on 10 January 2020, you may recall this was at the height of Victoria’s unprecedented bushfires. Less than a week earlier our team was on BlueScope’s wharf putting in place infrastructure to allow a ship carrying the Mallacoota bushfire refugees to come into Western Port, Gippsland was still ablaze and in the following days bushfires swept across French Island. With that fire risk in mind, the work was undertaken as soon as we were able to secure the contractor as there was a need to reduce the high fuel loads that were adjacent to a facility that imports petroleum products. We believe these works were in the best interests and safety of the nearby community and port users.

The Port had liaised with the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in relation to vegetation clearing at Crib Point and the Senior Vegetation Management Officer at the Council advised that vegetation works should be done in consultation with a professional arborist who can advise on what works are permitted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme and the relevant Australian Standards. The Port followed this advice and engaged a contractor whose work was overseen by a qualified arborist.

Following the completion of the Bushfire Prevention Works there has been some concern expressed that the vegetation clearance was not completed in accordance with the Planning Scheme and that too much native vegetation has been removed. We are taking these concerns seriously and are making appropriate enquiries with the contractor and arborist involved with the works. The initial response from the arborist is that he was onsite for the duration of the works and that he believes the works were undertaken in accordance with the relevant planning scheme requirements and associated Australian Standards.

We are presently liaising with the Council and the Department regarding the Bushfire Prevention Works and the compliance with the Planning Scheme.

In the meantime, the Port wishes to emphasise that the Bushfire Prevention Works were not associated in any way with the proposed AGL Gas Import Facility.

The land subject to the Bushfire Prevention Works is part of the land proposed for use by the proposed AGL Gas Import Facility but there was no link between the two. The AGL Gas Import Facility is still subject to an ongoing Environmental Effects Statement and no decision has been made on that project. As such, no works are being performed or can be performed until a decision is made on that project. Furthermore, AGL did not request, nor was it aware of the Bushfire Prevention Works prior to them being undertaken. These works were entirely related only to bushfire prevention. The Port is taking the community’s concerns seriously and is investigating with our team and external experts whether the Bushfire Prevention Works were undertaken in accordance with the Planning Scheme. The Port is always seeking to be a good corporate citizen and takes is regulatory responsibilities seriously and there was no intention to do otherwise in relation to these works.

If you have any further questions please direct them to myself. My email address is [email protected].

Kind regards,

Malcolm Geier Chief Executive Officer PoHDA_RGB_LARGE.gif 1d Stony Point Road, Crib Point Victoria 3919 (PO Box 249 Crib Point Victoria 3919) E | W www.portofhastings.com

JS: It should be noted that as residents of the local area, members of Save Westernport acknowledge the need for bushfire awareness and fuel reduction maintenance. However we submit that the clearfelling and mulching of remnant native vegetation that was carried out by the Port without consultation or native fauna assessment does not comply with recognised practices for either wildlife management or bushfire preparedness.

A Copy of this letter of April 1 from DELWP is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kQF-N4ZX-ao9sQzT5yRcjwscfJo- Bycm/view?usp=drivesdk On Feb 25 members of Save Westernport were approached at Crib Point by a resident who lives near the jetty. After being alerted to the work by the noise of large earth moving equipment used by the Port’s Arborist, the resident actually witnessed the clearing as it was being carried out last week.

He noted that the work was carried out in what he described as a rushed and unselective manner. In addition, the work continued throughout the day although heavy rain was falling constantly while the work was carried out. It was as if the tree cutting, bush clearing and machine mulching had to be completed before an unknown deadline.

Normally, OH&S standards require that all outdoor site work must be suspended during rainfall.

This resident was extremely concerned to witness the loss of that habitat, knowing the area to be the home of Echidnas and numerous bird species that he named, some of which are threatened. While birds can save themselves by flying away, it does not guarantee their survival. Birds are territorial creatures and suitable habitat in which they can re-establish themselves is becoming increasingly scarce.

But Echidnas are not capable of escaping by fleeing. They are known to dig themselves into the ground to escape danger. Sadly it’s extremely unlikely that these long time residents of the foreshore habitat would’ve survived the activity and weight of the equipment that was used, without sustaining life- threatening injuries.

The Jacobs flora and fauna report 2018 for the AGL proposal at the site states that species identification and relocation work would be required before any clearing or work could commence at the site. This would apply whether the work last week was carried out to manage fire risk, as claimed by PoHDA, or to prepare for the AGL metering site, as we suspect.

We are deeply concerned that this work to protect local fauna was not carried out in preparation for the clearing of the jetty site, and that the clearing was to prepare the AGL proposal, which is still unde assessment with the EES now underway.

Shortly after the EES was announced in Oct 2018, The Hon Daniel Andrews MP Premier Responded to a question from local Member for Hastings Neale Burgess’ in Parliament about community concerns about works at the jetty to prepare for the AGL proposal, saying: “The Victorian Government has not provided any authorisation for AGL to commence any works in the area.”

Hear Premier Andrews questioned by a caller on Port collusion in May 2018 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MkMbZgj3LOuV- vtqviPpNN8cuXMzBNKH/view?usp=drivesdk Work starting at Jetty site before Project Approval https://docs.google.com/file/d/11Y5NGBZ5upYxNJaVknZGPIUhNiKce7nP/edit ?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword

Possible Collusion between AGL and Port of Hastings Development Authority https://docs.google.com/file/d/1i9XUQZIFMrLW5zNcBuoXmhHuF9Nkb2Z8/edit ?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword Details of AGL’s Feb 17 2020 application for a variation to their EPBC application for the exact site that was cleared https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hJbxI1zBTXExCrGIY- 3LXiLRpLKCeBN/view?usp=drivesdk > FIN < Project fast tracking/ appearance of collusion between AGL & State government Further information and reports are available in the LINKS

Background Aug 2017 Premier Daniel Andrews and Lily D’Ambrosio issued a media release from the Victorian Government announcing AGL’s proposal for a floating gas terminal at Crib Point “to help secure the reliability of our gas supply, drive down prices and create local jobs.” “The Labor Government is working closely with AGL to ensure approvals processes are streamlined to avoid unnecessary delays and to bring relief to all Victorian gas consumers as quickly as possible.”

How can a government Minister support a project before its details have been released?

AGL seems to have gained Government support by exaggerating the threat of imminent gas shortages, and the capacity for gas imports to reduce the price of the commodity. In media reports and public consultations, AGL consistently overstated their commitment to providing ‘energy security’ to Victorian families, leaving it to the public to make the connection between gas imports and news of their new Barkers Inlet gas fired power station, announced in July 2017 just weeks before the Crib Point proposal (in August 2017). AGL stated “In July 2017, we announced a $295 million investment to develop a 210 MW reciprocating engine power station, the Barkers Inlet Power Station” (in South Australia) The Crib Point Gas Import Jetty Project was launched just weeks later in August 2017 A few months later, in 2018 a further gas Fired Power Station was announced by AGL in NSW. Information for Neither project details WHERE AGL PROPOSED SOURCING THE GAS to fuel these enormous projects for the next several decades.

It should be noted that this significant commitment by AGL to fossil fuel derived energy is at complete odds with that corporation’s “GREEN” and sustainable goals that are widely publicised and promoted in their 2017 Sustainability Policy and in their extensive public advertising. The point is HOW CAN WE TRUST A CORPORATION that is so blatantly misleading in their promise of transparency and accountability and that so completely misrepresents its operations and manipulates it’s public image ? AGL has been CONVICTED FOR DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING CONDUCT https://www.smh.com.au/business/agl-fined-1-5m-for-door-knocking-lies- 20130521-2jy30.html

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MCad2o81iz2n5N4TWZURyYecFuxMfOED/edit?us p=docslist_api&filetype=msword

Victorians are not facing a gas shortage...AGL is. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbmvuuVonfx5aVXs4JWVH7ZgnUh6t_73l- cAfQNgRMA/edit

“This is not the first time consumers have been threatened with shortages,” said Bruce Robertson, gas analyst with IEEFA “The gas industry has consistently argued there will be gas shortages as a tactic to gain approval for unpopular projects,” says Robertson. “In 2014 AGL claimed NSW consumers would face gas shortages by 2016 if their Gloucester Gas Project was not quickly approved. “The Gloucester Gas Project did not proceed, and no gas shortages ensued,” says Robertson. “Australia has abundant gas for everyone, and yet the gas companies would have us believe we are running out. “The gas companies latest ruse is to coerce the NSW Business Chamber into supporting its failing industry. “It’s purely a tactic to get unnecessary, costly, high emitting LNG import terminals approved to further line the pockets of gas companies at the expense of Australian consumers’ energy bills.” https://ieefa.org/ieefa-australia-gas-industry-cries-wolf-one-too-many-times-on-gas- shortage s/

Predictably, in her industry Blog ‘The Hub’ AGL General Manager of Energy Supply and Origination, Phaedra Deckart announced Unfortunately...gas shortfalls are predicted in eastern Australia as early as 2021...importing gas is the only way to bring increased gas supply to the Southern markets... Today AGL is committing to $37M in capital expenditure and has signed two agreements, which bring the project a step closer. The agreements are with: ....the Port of Hastings Development Authority to begin jetty remediation works to prepare for AGL’s use of Crib Point Jetty Berth 2 for the continuous mooring of a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU).”

She claimed Crib Point was chosen as the result of “an extensive scoping study in 2016-17 and evaluation of alternative sites in New South Wales and South Australia.” AGL has never adequately explained the reasons for their decision to plan a gas import facility at Crib Point, nor have they identified the criteria used to evaluate the suitability of alternative sites. AGL’s ASX 2017 announcement of the project to the Australian Stock Exchange contained statements that were blatantly misleading. “Crib Point is best placed to serve Victoria, Australia’s largest gas market, as well as take advantage of the existing pipeline network, industrial port facility and associated infrastructure.” AGL knew that there is NO “existing pipeline network”, and that Crib Point has NO industrial port facility, and NO associated infrastructure that could be utilised by the project.

29 May 2018 on ABC radio with Jon Faine Premier Dan Andrews said:

“…it is not a gas shortage, we produce in Victoria double the amount of gas that we use each year …. it is a very, very broken system and they (AGL) think there is an opportunity, not because of a shortage but because of market failure if you like to be very, very profitable” He stated: “…there’s no tax payers’ money in this, but you are right, the government does have a role to play in this, through its agencies, to approve or not this particular proposal, or anyone like it. But what I would say Louise, you can be confident that we will thoroughly rigorously assess the merits of this with all the relevant considerations, the environmental impact and so on, all of that will be done fairly.” Listen to the interview

In the same talkback segment, Premier Andrews also gave an undertaking that he would get back in contact with the caller, Save Westernport member LP, with information “…on exactly what approvals have been given and what remain outstanding, what may or may not have been given”. The Premier also stated he would ensure that someone from the Port of Hastings would contact the caller. Save Westernport members followed up twice with Jon Faine on air in the subsequent weeks, but neither the Premier’s office nor the Port of Hastings responded further comment.

The Port of Hastings Development Authority or PoHDA

The Port of Hastings Development Authority, or PoHDA claims on its website to value transparency, and states “The Port has underutilised assets and a long history in the successful handling of hazardous cargoes in a port area with high environmental values, operating harmoniously with the local community.”

Work commencing prior to government approval of AGL project AGL’s consultation sessions and information on their website (2017 to 2019) advised the public that the Port of Hastings would be “remediating” Berth 2 at Crib Point jetty (disused since 1980s) in preparation for AGL’s floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) – a 300m permanently moored ship. AGL representatives informed the community that if AGL’s proposal did not go ahead, the remediated jetty would then be ‘available for other projects.’ 26 Apr 2018Residents in Crib Point and surrounding areas were hand delivered the following letter by the Port of Hastings. It was placed into the letterboxes of an unknown number of residences: “Residents and users of Western Port can expect to see remediation activity on the jetty site commencing May 2018. Works at the site will include: ● Establishment of a site compound; ● Securing the site with new fencing; ● Some vegetation clearing; ● Repairs to concrete on the jetty, pylons, mooring dolphins and pipe racks; and ● Replacement of the Pier head.”

In early 2018 the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) posted details of these works on their website in a section titled “Planning and Development”

Crib Point Jetty Upgrade Project

“The Port of Hastings Development Authority is currently undertaking remediation works at Crib Point Jetty. All updates on this project can be found below.” (July 2018, the New Coastal Management Act came into effect and the previous Consents issued under Section 38(1) Coastal Management Act, 1995) were reissued to refer to the new Act)

04/10/2018 - Coastal Management Act Consent

“The Port of Hastings Development Authority has received consent for use and development of coastal Crown land from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to commence work remediating Crib Point Berth No.2.”

The DELWP Coastal Management Act Consents were very vague as to the purpose of the works, and do not mention AGL, referring only to a “Crib Point Jetty Upgrade Project”

However, in reference to the Jetty work, an online Newsletter from the Port of Hastings stated:

The work is being undertaken now to ensure Berth 2 is ready in time for the AGL Gas Import Jetty project, should the project proceed. If AGL does not proceed with the project, Berth 2 will be available for use by other port users.

This announcement in mid 2018 was made BEFORE THE AGL PROJECT HAD EVEN BEEN REFERRED TO THE VICTORIAN GOVT FOR CONSIDERATION. After Save Westernport repeated concerns that had been repeatedly expressed by the community Save Westernport made contact with PoHDA and wrote an website article

To state that until these applications were made, no assessment can be made of the gas processing plant or connecting pipeline. To say that the berth will be available for other port users is really laughable. Who, excepting AGL, needs these modifications? the following Jacobs reports posted on the Port of Hastings website list the SAME detailed works attributed to activities to prepare the jetty at Berth 2 for AGL’s FSRU. Though these PoHDA Jacobs reports appear careful not to refer to the AGL corporation or the proposed FSRU, it should be noted that Jacobs is the company used by to produce ALL AGL’s 2018 draft and final reports prepared for the proponent’s EES and EPBC referrals.

Crib Point Jetty Upgrade Project - Coastal Management Act Consent

Crib Point Jetty Upgrade Project - Condition 2 Consent

Environmental Management Plan (Jacobs 2018)

Environmental Risk Assessment (Jacobs 2018)

Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Jacobs 2018) Appointment of Auditor of Environmental Performance

The Environment Management Plan states

2.2 Project Description PoHDA is proposing to undertake upgrade works to the Crib Point Jetty located within Western Port and on the adjacent land managed by PoHDA on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula. The jetty is controlled and managed by PoHDA and accordingly, the works to the jetty (Jetty Upgrade) will be managed by PoHDA and undertaken under the Coastal Management Act approval dates.

Though it lists several threatened and endangered species in the affected area, the Environment Management Plan states: “initial risk ratings were either Medium, Low or Very Low and all residual risk ratings (once mitigation and management measures are applied) were assessed to have Low or Very Low risk ratings. It is therefore determined that a referral under the EPBC Act is not required for this project” (In Oct 2018 the Crib Point Project was ruled a Controlled Action under the Federal EPBC Act)

Finally, in the Jacobs reports for the jetty upgrade posted on the Port of Hastings (PoHDA) website in early 2018, the following single reference to AGL is made , and then only to say that the jetty upgrade will be assessed and approved separately.

The Environment Risk Assessment states (1.1) “the works to the jetty (Jetty Upgrade) will be assessed and approved as a separate project to the AGL Gas Import Jetty Project.”

On 12/06/18 the Port of Hastings Development Authority CEO Malcolm Geier released a statement announcing “Today AGL and the Port of Hastings Development Authority (the Port) entered into an agreement that will soon see the Port commence work remediating Crib Point Berth No.2”

On 24/06/18 signs of 'remediation works' were noticed at the foreshore and the high water mark adjacent to the Crib Point jetty in Westernport Victoria.

This was a source of major concern, causing confusion in the community. It seemed that these significant works at the Crib Point jetty site were only beginning because the Port of Hastings was preparing the disused jetty to accommodate the FSRU proposed by the AGL corporation.

The Consents issued on the Port of Hastings website seem like the sort of thing a corporation like AGL would normally be expected to apply for in their own right.

AGL advised the public that they would refer their proposal to the government for approval at the end of August 2018. If the project was not approved and did not eventuate, in contrast to Premier Andrew’s statement on ABC radio in May 2018, they claimed that AGL would be reimbursed, presumably at taxpayers expense.

AGL held regular ‘community consultation sessions’ throughout this period, but at no time was there any further public consultation or input sought or offered about this aspect of the project.

Members of public questioned the Port’s role in the AGL project. Save Westernport sought further information requesting access to the relevent tenders at the Port Authority and Council offices. Attempts to view these documents were unsuccessful. Various workers on duty seemed uncertain why the documents could not be accessed as details of other projects were routinely available to the public for viewing.

The discovery of the DELWP approvals on the Port of Hastings website raised further questions and uncertainty about the project. Regular comments that appeared on our Save Westernport social media sites reflected the growing uncertainty about signs the project. For example, people asked: “Why is the Port of Hastings carrying out these works on behalf of, and for AGL and APA?”

Information about the work on the Port of Hastings website stated “The southern berth (Berth 2) ceased operation in the 1980s and is currently decommissioned. The purpose of the Project is to remediate an upgrade Berth 2 to a state to allow it to return to service.”

However the works referred to as “Remediation Works” appeared to be for the singular purpose of preparing the Crib Point jetty to the very detailed specifications needed to operate an FSRU (floating storage and gasification unit), the gas processing ship that AGL proposed permanently mooring at the Crib Point jetty.

Certain modifications, such as the “two pressurized gas loading arms”, which AGL’s plans on the Port of Hastings’ website indicated would be fitted to the jetty head, seemed as though they would render the jetty unsuitable and unusable for any purpose other than the one proposed by AGL.

Because AGL& APA had not yet referred this proposal to the Andrews government, there had been NO consideration of the potential damage the jetty works might cause to the surrounding area within a sensitive extensive wetlands ecosystem.

The area’s protected Ramsar listing meant that assessment would be required under the federal Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The State could also require an EES, an Environmental Effects Statement.

There was also concern that once these “remediation works” we’d been told to expect were under way, the proposal might then proceed as an inevitability, WITHOUT the proper environmental assessments required under State (EES) and Federal (EPBC) legislation. At the community meeting at Balnarring Hall on Friday 28 July 2018, AGL/APA community engagement consultant James Beckett stated that neither AGL or APA expected they would be required to undergo any kind of approval process (such as a State based EES or EPBC).

The environmental assessment carried out by Jacob’s Group for the work listed on the Port of Hastings website also claimed that an EPBC would not be required. Jacobs, the company engaged by AGL, carried out the Environment, Noise, Marine, Social and other impact Assessments of the AGL proposal for the EES and EPBC referrals. It was difficult to imagine how such extensive works could be carried out on the jetty without significant disruption, including the dispersal of potential acid sulfite sediments (PASS) now stable in the surrounding soil and seabed. Any toxins and environmental pollutants from previous industry would likewise be released into the water column around the jetty by the unavoidable disturbance resulting from the extensive works listed in the Jacobs Environment Management Plan. The Environment Risk Assessment on the PoHDA website stated

2.3 Contaminated Land Previous investigations of the Port Land adjacent to the jetty10 11 have identified contamination of soil, sediment and groundwater beneath the Project Site. This is predominantly related to metals, with some hydrocarbons and perfluoralkyl substances (in the presence of perfluoroctanesulfonic acid) (PFAS) identified in isolated areas. Fill soil is present across the site up to depths of approximately 1 metre, with soil contamination predominantly identified within this unit. Groundwater is present at depths around 6.8 to 7.5 metres and is unlikely to be encountered as part of the proposed Project.

At the time Save Westernport stated publicly that unless urgent action immediately stopped any further work, the affected areas that ought rightfully be protected by their Ramsar listing risked being degraded and disrupted to prepare for a project that may not even eventuate.

According to AGL, changes in energy markets could prevent the project from proceding, making the jetty works redundant. The project could fail to gain approval once the FSRU and connecting pipeline underwent the required application and approvals processes. In this case, it was stated in the media that taxpayers would be required to repay AGL for the $17 million dollars to be spent on the ‘remediation works’ to make the jetty suitable for the AGL’s FSRU.

Members of the public contacted the Port Authority for more information to find out whether work at the jetty would be commencing before details of the Crib Point project were referred by AGL or APA to State government for Assessment or approval.

PoHDA representatives then stated that the works currently underway at the jetty were in no way related to the AGL gas importation facility and connecting APA pipeline to Pakenham, claiming that they were for a pipe spooling operation for the company Sub Sea 7.

This was a marked contradiction to the information in earlier statements made by Port CEO, Malcom Geier, in the letter delivered to residents and on the PoHDA website.

Another source of concern for the community was the confusion between these works that could now be seen commencing prior to government approval to prepare the area, and the construction of the plant to service the proposed AGL ship and APA pipeline, (the LNG “receiving facility odourisation plant” and other buildings). If as the Port now claimed, the works people were seeing were NOT related to the AGL proposal, when could construction of these plant buildings be expected to commence?

In June of 2018, when the full scope of the jetty was uncovered, it was clear this was no “remediation” but a complete purpose-built upgrade specifically for an FSRU. Not just for any ship but for an FSRU. In mid 2018 Save Westernport wrote this article was written for the Save Westernport website. Port of Hastings denied any involvement in the work . The following month AGL made this statement : Current works at Crib Point Jetty “The Port of Hastings Development Authority has commenced the jetty remediation works at the Crib Point site which currently consists of inspection and testing works on the jetty. These works are being undertaken to prepare the site for AGL’s gas import project should the project receive approvals to proceed. These works are being underwritten by AGL. The construction component of remediation work won’t commence until next year.” Approvals for these early works have been sought and received under the Coastal Management Act.

The Cooper Sole pipe spooling project has also received its approval and will commence in the next few months. The site is currently being set up with site sheds and survey markers to accommodate the pipe spooling project. APA is continuing with their survey activities along the entire pipeline route, including at the Crib Point end of line facility in preparation for making their application for a licence to construct the pipeline.” Save Westernport published this statement in a Sept 2018 article on our website about community concerns about work beginning prior to project assessment or approval.

As stated, the DELWP permits (or Consents) for work we had been told to expect at the jetty could be viewed with other relevant documents under the heading “News” on the Port of Hastings website.

The list of works in the Jacobs reports enormous and stated it would include the removal of vegetation in a protected Ramsar listed wetland that is home to numerous examples of threatened and critically endangered wildlife.

The works include-

• Strengthening / modifications to the existing berthing and mooring dolphins including installation of new piles. • Strengthening / modifications to the existing pipe neck structure including installation of new piles. • Strengthening / modifications to the Replacement of existing pier head 2, including installation on new piles. • Construction of two new mooring dolphins including installation of new piles. • Construction of up to four new berthing dolphins including installation of new piles. • Possible replacement of an existing berthing dolphin. • Possible removal of existing redundant dolphins. • New dolphin access catwalks including installation of mid span piles. • New Navigational Aid / Security Pile markers. • Geotechnical investigations including 3 borehole samples and any other required investigation works. • Construction equipment includes utilisation of either Jack-Up Barge or Anchor Floating Barge or a combination of both.

Further detail on the scope of works is provided in Section 2.3. The Project design is subject to change whilst detailed design is being undertaken.

• Extra berthing dolphins that the FSRU will be moored against • Replacement of an existing northern berthing dolphin • Installation of Extra mooring dolphins which will be used to secure the FSRU and LNG carriers • Remediation of existing mooring and berthing dolphins • A series of load monitoring Quick Release Hooks (QRH) to replace existing decommissioned QRHs and new QRHs to accommodate the extra loads and mooring lines • A seawater firefighting system with suction pumps at the intersection of the trunkway and pipe neck, and fire towers with monitors on the pier head • A hydraulic gangway structure to grant access to the FSRU deck • A pipe manifold to allow the FSRU to discharge re-gasified LNG to the high pressure natural gas pipeline network • Two Marine Loading Arms (MLA) and associated supports with the provision for a third arm to be installed in the future • A high pressure 600 NB gas flowline running along the pipeway on the pipe neck, trunkway, and approach jetty where it will tie in at the battery limit with APA Group’s scope • Installation of an electrical and instrument equipment room to control the facility • Installation of an electrical facility to transfer produced power from the FSRU and tie into the existing power grid • Installation of a control room facility to transfer enable operation of the jetty infrastructure • Installation of Navigation Aids to enable safe berthing and mooring of the FSRU and LNGC vessels • Installation of a series of walkways to allow access to various dolphins and QRHs • Removal of existing and installation of new navigational aid/security markers to restrict access to 100 m from the jetty infrastructure for security purposes, and to provide vessel navigational assistance • Upgrade/strengthening of existing infrastructure to increase structural integrity to a required limit • Total replacement of Pier Head 2. • All other concrete elements will undergo in-situ concrete repair remediation, etc. – please see the above documents. • In addition, there is also a land based component of works immediately adjoining the jetty to its north side, consisting of vegetation clearing, fencing, car park construction, and construction of buildings.

It seemed that these significant works to be carried out by the Port of Hastings were only required by and for AGL. As stated signs of work commencing, and the discovery in 2018 of the DELWP approvals also created a lot of confusion in the community.

DELWP, the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, gave the approval for these works.

As both the landlord for this Crown land, and as the source of the Planning approvals for the proposed development, DELWP could be seen to have a dual and possibly conflicting role in relation to the Port Authority.

Is this why the Port Authority suddenly claimed no involvement with the jetty work once questions began to be asked?

The way that early information about the project was announced, and the exaggerated and at times conflicting and confused messaging about the proposal reveals that the Port Authority, the proponets AGL, and the State government themselves were clearly unprepared for the extent of interest in the gas import project, and did not anticipate the resistance and opposition expressed by the public.

Feb 2020 The Port Of Hastings ordered the removal of significant native vegetation at the jetty site. Members of Save Westernport were extemely concerned about the incident and reported it to the Shire, to our local Member Chris Brayne, and to Jack Krohn at DELWP. Although the Port Authority initially claimed to have obtained the permits for the vegetation clearing, and agreed to provide them, they have never been provided. DELWP has since reported that the work was unauthorised, and the Port Authority is still nder investigation by the Shire for the incident. Photos in the report made by Save Westernport show that the clearing aligns with the area of AGL’s proposed receiving facility. https://docs.google.com/file/d/1YWTCNjoE4bbYxlhodfPF1- Ho1dsDG3h6/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword Was it also a coincidence that after we’d heard nothing from AGL for several months, on Feb 17 2020 the Port Authority arranged the unauthorised removal of vegetation at the jetty site on the same day that AGL and APA applied for a variation to their EPBC application .

The variation request, which was immediately granted, applies only to the area at the Crib Point jetty, and gives AGL greater access and control over that site.

May 2020, members of Save Westernport wrote to the Minister for Planning Richard Wynne to advise him that AGL had contacted Save Westernport to advise us that they would be commencing groundworks at the jetty site, after the EES was submitted to the Minister, and prior to any assessment of the EES reports or final decision about the project.

In July 2020 it was revealed for the first time in the EES reports that AGL intends to apply for the area surrounding the Crib Point jetty TO BE REZONED FOR PORT RELATED USE, permanently restricting publc access and use of the popular local amenity at Woolleys Beach foreshore reserve.

Between 2017 and 2019, AGL held numerous public consultation sessions, but never informed the public about their plans to permanently close public access to Woolleys Beach Foreshore Reserve.

2020 With the proponents pressing ahead with the EES for the project, even as international gas prices tank, the question has been asked— how can the Crib Point project still be commercially viable for AGL? AGL claims to have looked at several other locations before settling on Westernport Bay, but no real details or information about alternatives has ever been given. The extent of early involvement by the Port of Hastings Development Authority, and the notable contrast of their subsequent silence seem unusual, and have been a point of interest. “The total cost of the Crib Point terminal is estimated at $250 million. The pipeline would cost up to $200 million.” — The AGE 26-07-2018 https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/call-to-put-agl-gas-plant-proposal-under- environmental-microscope-20180726-p4ztt8.html

The following diagram is from the Environment Management Plan for the AGL remediation works at the Crib Point. It is difficult to tell from the date in the margin, but it is possible that figure 2-4 from the for the Crib Point jetty upgrade (Jacobs 2018) could be dated 2014, three years before the project was first announced in 2017.

This August 2020 email from AGL rep Kelly Parkinson

It lists La Trobe Uni among local sporting clubs and events as beneficiaries of many hundreds of thousands of dollars of AGL funds. The Port of Hastings-La Trobe University Project received $125,550 to study the significant discovery of a Bryozoan ‘reef’ in Westernport Bay. The La Trobe study involves transplanting specimens from the rare colony in Westernport‘s eastern arm near Rhyll, to a site under the Port of Hastings’ Stony Point pier for monitoring. See below. It is being widely promoted by the Port on their PoHDA website.

“These biogenic reef structures are known to offer a range of benefits to associating fauna (largely invertebrates), providing protection from predators and currents, attachment points for larval stage species and feeding opportunities. This often results in the reefs supporting significantly higher species assemblages than their surrounding habitat (Wood et al. 2013). Of the 54 recognised sites only three are found in Australian waters.”

On the Type and Extent of the Westernport Reef https://static1.squarespace.com/static/592f5720f5e2317ce97cec2c/t/5f0e90d45cb5a267fb3d3a3 4/1594790227004/934_R2_Reef+Type+and+Extent_opt.pdf

This report and more information on the Bryozoan study is available on the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) website. See ‘News’ on 14-07-20 and 19-03-20 here https://www.portofhastings.com/news

PoHDA is not shy about promoting their own contribution to this project.

“This research has only been made possible because of the enthusiastic and generous support by the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA).”

The Port is far more coy on their website about admitting AGL’s involvement:

“We are grateful to our project partners and funding agencies and the collegiate spirit of our many collaborations.”

In early 2018,plans and consents for work to prepare the Crib Point jetty for an FSRU were posted on the PoHDA website, before the AGL proposal was referred to govt for assessment. https://www.portofhastings.com/new-page-1

That year Save Westernport publicly questioned the appropriateness and extent of PoHDA’s involvement in the AGL project

When those enquires began, the Port Authority began dramatically downplaying any association between the two Organisations: PoHDA and AGL. Anything that has resulted in public attention, from signs of work at the jetty, to the extensive and unauthorised removal of vegetation at the jetty site, PoHDA has emphatically denied any involvement or association with AGL or the GIJPP.

More on possible collusion betweenPoHDA and AGL https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Db0uwSrwJhXgssx3h0a5kL1kR7ItjhDW8KeeNok Qcf8/edit

Please read Brett Redman AGL CEO https://docs.google.com/file/d/1cUP9- JMFrYYH44mmqWWtYR3_3pTdoI1z/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword https://docs.google.com/document/d/14laUTPBUsFvZyvbsbIUhiI_uQkzK5gj8FhdP9L43SrA/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DBSuiSLodj1E_la9h_BTc64izlfKtnVR/edit?usp=docslist_api&filet ype=msword