Environmental Assessment Report
Summary Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number: 39584 May 2006
Papua New Guinea: PNG Gas Project
Prepared by [Author(s)] [Firm] [City, Country] Prepared by Esso Highlands Limited on behalf of the Government of PNG for the Asian Development Bank Prepared for [Executing Agency] [Implementing Agency]
The summary environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may The views expressed herein are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s be preliminary in nature. members, Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 5 May 2006)
Currency Unit – kina (K) K1.00 = $0.33 $1.00 = K3.08
ABBREVIATIONS AusAID Australian Agency for International Development ADB – Asian Development Bank APC – AGL Petronas Corporation ASL – above sea level BTEX – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene CGCP – central gas conditioning plant CNG – compressed natural gas CO – carbon monoxide CO2 – carbon dioxide DEC – Department of Environment and Conservation DOW – Department of Works DPE – Department of Petroleum and Energy EIA – environmental impact assessment EIS – environmental impact statement EMP – environmental management plan EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FMA – forest management area GHG – greenhouse gas GPCSA – Gas Project Co-operative and Sharing Agreement H2S – Hydrogen Sulfide HIV/AIDS – Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome IAC – Independent advisory committee IAS – impact assessment study IUCN – World Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) KICDP – Kikori Integrated Conservation and Development Program LLG – local-level government LNG – liquefied natural gas LPG – liquefied petroleum gas NECL – National Energy Company Limited NFA – National Forest Authority NGO – nongovernment organization NOx – nitrogen oxides NO2 – nitrogen dioxide NTU – Nephelometric Turbidity Unit PM10 – Particulate that are less than 10 micron in diameter PNG – Papua New Guinea ROW – right-of-way SEIA – Summary environmental impact assessment SHES – Safety, Health, Environment, and Security SIMMP – Social impact management and monitoring plan SO2 – sulfur dioxide SPPL – South Pacific Pipeline Company Pty Ltd TCEQ – Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TSPZ – Torres Strait Protected Zone
TSS – total suspended sediments UNDP United Nations Development Programme VOC – volatile organic compound WHO – World Health Organization WMA – wildlife management area WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES dB(A) – A-weighted decibel (commonly used measurement for environmental and industrial noise) dbh – diameter at breast height g/m3 – grams per cubic meter kg – kilogram km2 – square kilometer kph – kilometer per hour µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter m3 – cubic meter m3/s – cubic meter per second mg/l – milligrams per liter mg/Nm3 – milligram per Normal cubic meter mg/Sm3 – milligram per Standard cubic meter (Sm3 - Volume of gas which occupies a volume of one (1) m³ under standard conditions (pressure = 1,01325 bar, temperature = 288.15 K (15°C)) Mscfd – thousand standard cubic feet per day Mt/year – megaton per year
NOTE In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 1 A. Objectives and Scope of the Project 1 B. Field Production and Processing Facilities 2 C. Onshore Pipelines and Construction Access Ways 3 D. Offshore Pipeline 9 E. Construction Support Bases and Ancillaries 9 F. Schedule 9 G. Implementation 9 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 11 A. Onshore Setting 11 B. Offshore Setting 22 C. Main Social, Economic, and Cultural Issues (Onshore and Offshore) 25 IV. ALTERNATIVES 26 A. Alternative Without Project 26 B. Alternative Products 27 C. Alternative Sales Gas Pipeline Route 27 D. Alternative Facilities Locations and Greenfield Pipeline Route 27 E. Alternative Project-Only and Public Access Roads 28 F. Spoil Management 28 V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 28 A. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Onshore) 29 B. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Offshore) 37 C. Waste Management 38 D. Social Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Onshore and Offshore) 39 E. Cumulative Impacts 41 F. Associated Impacts 44 VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 47 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 48 A. Environmental Management Framework 49 B. Environmental Monitoring Framework 49 C. Institutional Capacity and Arrangements 50 VIII. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE 55 IX. CONCLUSIONS 56
APPENDIXES 1. Environmental Standards and Guidelines 57 2. Definitions of Spatial, Temporal, and Biodiversity Impact Terminology 65 3. Environmental Management Framework 67 4. Environmental Monitoring Framework 73 5. Consultation Summary 82
1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Papua New Guinea (PNG) Gas Project (the Project) will develop existing oil and gas production fields in the PNG Highlands to produce natural gas for export to Australia by pipeline (Figure 1). The Project is being developed through a joint venture between Esso Highlands Limited (as operator) and its affiliates, i.e. Oil Search Limited and its subsidiaries, Nippon Oil Exploration Limited (through its subsidiary Merlin Petroleum Company Limited), and subsidiaries of Mineral Resources Development Company Limited (the joint venture is referred to as the project proponent). The project gas fields are contained within existing petroleum development licenses or petroleum retention licenses. The participation of the Government of Papua New Guinea (the Government) in the Project is set out in the PNG Gas Agreement 1 ,executed in 2002. 2. The PNG Environment Act, 2000, requires that a project of this type and scale be approved by the minister for environment and conservation on the basis of an environmental impact statement (EIS) which is referred to in this report as the environmental impacts assessment (EIA) report. The Esso Highlands Limited submitted the EIA report and its supporting studies to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) in December 2005.2 Approval in principle of the EIA is expected in May, 2006. 3. This summary environmental impact assessment (SEIA) summarizes the major findings of the EIA report and incorporates new information collected by the Project, the Government, and Asian Development Bank (ADB) missions. The new information (collected to meet ADB environmental assessment requirements), includes an environmental management plan (EMP) framework that will be further developed during project implementation, associated impacts, and a review of the Project’s compliance with the World Bank’s Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (PPAH). In addition, a supplementary EIA on indirect impact assessment of roads will also be prepared (the study is scheduled from middle May to end of July, 2006). It will recommend environmental mitigation measures and a monitoring plan particularly for forests and the biodiversity in the Kikori river basin.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
A. Objectives and Scope of the Project 4. The Project has two interdependent objectives: (i) commercialize the natural gas reserves of the existing Kutubu, Gobe, Agogo, and Moran oil fields; and the Hides gas field; and, in so doing, (ii) maximize oil recovery from existing oil and gas fields. The Project will produce 225 petajoules of sales gas per year over about 30 years and potentially beyond, with the first gas scheduled to be available for delivery to customers in Australia in 2009. The main elements of the Project are as follows: (i) wells, gathering system, and gas processing facilities at Hides and pipelines to Kutubu; (ii) a new central gas conditioning plant (CGCP) to be located near the existing Kutubu Central Production Facility; and (iii) a sales gas pipeline running through Gulf Province across the Gulf of Papua to the international border with Australia near Pearce Cay in Torres Strait.3 Project activities involve the development of 11 wells on Hides Ridge, construction of three pipelines (118 kilometers [km]) from the Hides Production Facility to the new CGCP at Kutubu, and construction of the sales gas pipeline running 192 km onshore from Kutubu to landfall and 273 km offshore to the PNG–Australia border. Under the GPCSA4, the Government will build new sections of road to complete an
1 The Gas Agreement sets out the terms and conditions necessary for developing, producing and marketing of natural gas resources in the Southern Highlands of PNG. 2 The EIS report and studies are available for public review at Esso’s Port Moresby, DEC’s Waigani offices, and the offices of the Gulf and Southern Highlands Provincial Administrators at Kerema and Mendi. 3 At the international border, the sales gas pipeline owner becomes AGL Petronas Consortium (APC), which will build the continuation of the pipeline to markets in Australia. 4 The Gas Project Cooperation and Sharing Agreement (GPCSA) is the agreement which will coordinate the payment of royalty and equity benefits to Gas Project area landowners in accordance with the respective area licence interests.
2 eastern link from Mendi and Mount Hagen to Kikori. In line with the Gas Agreement, should the Government not complete the roads in time for Gas Project construction, the Project will complete the pipeline rights-of-way (ROWs) as a public road linking Tari to the Gulf coast at Kikori.
B. Field Production and Processing Facilities
5. The project facilities and existing oil and gas production infrastructure are shown schematically in Figure 2. A simplified process flow diagram for the existing Kutubu Central Production Facility and the proposed Hides Production Facility and Kutubu CGCP is in Figure 3.
6. Hides. The Hides gas field has been producing since 1991. An overview of the existing gas fields and proposed facilities in the Hides area is in Figure 4. The existing Hides gathering system consists of aboveground pipelines from the Hides 1 and Hides 2 production wells to the existing Hides gas plant. Under the Project, eight new wells will be drilled and three existing wells will be improved during three drilling campaigns, from 2008 to 2017. A total area of about 6 to 10 hectares (ha) will be cleared to construct four new wellpads (areas to accommodate drilling facilities and full assemblies to control the flow of fluids and gas) to complement the three existing ones. The Project’s new gathering system to transport gas to the new Hides Production Facility will consist of aboveground pipelines that will connect the wells to a buried spine line (550 millimeters [mm] in diameter). Production from the Hides 1 and 2 wells will tie directly into the new spine line. The Hides Production Facility will separate the wellstream (fluid and gas) into wet gas and condensate. The unmanned facility and associated wells will be controlled from Kutubu using microwave communications.
7. Kutubu. The Kutubu complex comprises approximately 50 existing wells, including production and shut-in oil wells, gas injection wells, and a produced water injection well. The Project does not plan to drill any new wells in the Kutubu fields, and the Kutubu Central Production Facility will remain in operation without significant changes after the Project commences operations. The new Kutubu CGCP, with a capacity of 600,000 standard cubic feet per day (mscfd), is designed to process wet gas to produce sales-quality natural gas, stable condensate, and a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) side stream (Figure 5). The Kutubu CGCP will include (i) separation, slug handling, dehydration, gas conditioning, and compression equipment; (ii) liquid treatment to produce a stable condensate product to be reinjected into wells in the Kutubu fields; and (iii) services and utilities required to complement the new process facilities. A new elevated flare will be installed for the CGCP. The stable condensate product will be blended with the Central Production Facility’s crude oil product, and the LPG will be reinjected into wells in the Kutubu fields.
8. Agogo and Moran, and Gobe. The Agogo fields have been producing oil since 1992 and Moran fields have been in production since 1998 (Figure 5). Agogo and Moran gas is expected to be available to the Project around 2022. The Gobe fields have been producing crude oil for export since 1998. An overview of the existing and proposed features of the Gobe area is in Figure 6. The existing Gobe Production Facility will need to be modified to condition gas to sales specifications. Gobe gas is planned to be developed around 2015.
9. Environmental Compliance of Existing Oil Facilities. The existing oil facilities operate under an environmental management plan (EMP) that was developed after the existing oil operator received an environmental permit for Kutubu, including Agogo, and for the SE Mananda projects, in 1990. Since then, other licenses have been approved for the Gobe and Moran projects with environmental management under a single EMP for the
3 operations phase. The existing oil facilities were built and currently operate in full compliance with the associated laws and regulations under the Oil and Gas Act 1998 and the Environment Act 2000. Activities related to compliance with environmental regulations are conducted on a scheduled basis, with monitoring of waste (liquids and solids) done on a monthly interval and reported to DEC. Reports on the results of the monthly monitoring, other environmental measurements and status updates are submitted to DEC on a quarterly basis as required. The programs and findings reported to the Government are then audited by DEC yearly. Since the inception of the oil project and commencement of environmental monitoring, there have been no notices of violation, breaches, fines or other penalties associated with the compliance with the environmental laws and regulations in PNG.
C. Onshore Pipelines and Construction Access Ways
10. Onshore pipelines will be buried in the ROW of existing oil pipelines. In some locations, new ROWs supported by new construction access ways will be required. Consequently, the Project is generally a brownfield venture, i.e., developed within or around areas of the existing facilities. A construction ROW of 21 meters (m) in width will be required for the mainline pipelines, incorporating an access way 7 m wide. Pipelines will be made of carbon steel and buried in a trench to 750 mm deep. The 330 km onshore pipeline ROW to be constructed during the period from 2006 to 2009 will run from the Hides 1 well site to the Hides Production Facility (20 km), from the Hides Production Facility to the Kutubu CGCP (118 km), from the Kutubu CGCP to Kopi (158 km) and from Kopi to the Omati landfall (34 km). Main construction activities include vegetation clearing; trench excavation; pipe stringing, bending, and lowering; and backfilling. There will be a total of 304 km of access roads, comprising 229 km of existing roads and 75 km of new roads. All these access roads are Government-owned and will become public after Project construction. In addition, there will be 34 km of new access ways between Kopi and the Omati landfall and 20 km at Hides that will not become public. For the most part, the pipeline will be buried in the access way and will not require a separate ROW. In addition, 15 bridges will be built at new locations, 22 existing bridges will be rebuilt or modified, and 5 existing bridges will be replaced.
11. The main pipelines are as follows.
(i) Hides area: freshwater line, glycol injection line, pipelines from the wells, and the Hides spine line that will deliver the wet natural gas from the field to the Hides Production Facility. These pipelines require a new access way.
(ii) Three pipelines from the Hides Production Facility to the Kutubu CGCP: the Hides wet gas pipeline, the Hides liquid pipeline, and the glycol return line. These pipelines require a new ROW with new access ways or upgraded existing roads.
(iii) Gobe Production Facility to the new sales gas pipeline: this pipeline will use the existing oil pipeline ROW between the Gobe Production Facility and the Kutubu crude oil export pipeline ROW.
(iv) Agogo Production Facility to the Kutubu CGCP: this pipeline will use the existing oil pipeline ROW between the Agogo Production Facility and Kutubu.
(v) Kutubu CGCP to the Omati landfall: the sales gas pipeline will mostly use the existing Kutubu crude oil export pipeline ROW between Kutubu and Kopi, part of which will require a new ROW and new or upgraded access ways. A new ROW will be constructed between Kopi and the Omati River landfall.
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
D. Offshore Pipeline
12. The offshore sales gas pipeline will run for 273 km through low-lying, swampy prograding5 delta complexes at the head of the Gulf of Papua, out across the muddy seabed of the Gulf itself, and around the delta front of the Fly River to the PNG–Australia border in Torres Strait. From there, AGL Petronas Consortium (APC) will build the continuation of the pipeline to markets in Australia. The sales gas pipeline will reach landfall in Australia at Cape York, Queensland. The Australian components of the overall development are subject to Australian federal and Queensland State EIA processes (Chapter V, Section F).
13. The offshore pipeline will be laid by a conventional laybarge (a barge used for pipeline construction) on the seabed along the majority of the proposed route, where a combination of its inherent weight, provided by a concrete coating, and self-burial in areas of softer sediment will provide the necessary stability. In some localized areas, such as shipping channels and the Omati riverbed, active burial will be required.
E. Construction Support Bases and Ancillaries
14. There are established bases for existing petroleum development operations at Nogoli (accommodation), Moro (accommodation and airfield), the Ridge (accommodation), Gobe (accommodation and airfield), and Kopi (accommodation and wharf). Kopi wharf facilities will be expanded and upgraded, i.e., retention, modification, and refurbishment of the existing wharf; construction of a 30 m-long wharf; and construction of a receiving warehouse. A number of existing quarries will be recommissioned and a limited number of new quarries will be established to provide the civil construction materials required by the Project. Other supporting and ancillary facilities envisioned include electrical power generation units, telecommunications, potable and construction water, waste management facilities, hydrotesting (testing pipeline integrity using water) and mobile excavator equipment, drilling rigs, offices, fuel depots and laydown areas (areas of construction site used to sort and store construction materials), warehouses and maintenance facilities, pipe-coating plants, concrete batching plants, and fabrication shops.
F. Schedule
15. An indicative summary schedule is in Figure 7. The main project milestones are (i) project EIA and government approval in principle expected in May 2006, (ii) full funding (Quarter 4, 2006), (iii) construction (2006–2009), and (iv) commissioning and first gas 2009.
G. Implementation
16. The Project will provide an estimated 2,500 jobs during the construction phase. It will engage specialized engineering contractors to construct the onshore and offshore pipelines and the gas production facilities. About 70% of the workforce is expected to be PNG nationals, subject to availability of appropriately qualified and skilled individuals. It is expected that the combined oil and gas operations staff (including contract service providers) will be approximately 2,400 at project start-up in 2009. The workforce will be similar in nature to the composition of the existing oil operations—approximately 70% contractors and 30% employees. International staff will form about 10–15% of the workforce; this will decline over time as the number of PNG nationals increases.
5 A prograding delta is a delta that is advancing seaward through outbuilding of sediment deposition.
10
11
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Onshore Setting
1. Location, Geology, Seismicity, and Landform
17. The Kikori basin, one of the most remote areas of PNG, runs in a northwest to southeast direction from the central cordillera of New Guinea. Its northern end is part of the extensive Southern Fold Mountains, which cover some 2.3 million ha between the Gulf of Papua and the Irian Jaya border. The Project’s onshore locations extend from Hides, located in the higher elevations of the Papuan fold belt at 2,700 m above sea level (ASL), and, characterized by ridges and ravines, limestone karst, and incised volcanic landforms; to Kutubu at 1,500 m ASL; down to the karst plains of the Kikori basin lowlands and the delta landforms of the Kikori and Omati rivers bordering the Gulf of Papua.
18. Limestone is the dominant surface geological feature in the region, and karstification (erosion by solution) is a major influence. Minor landforms include (i) volcanics (ii) fluvial erosion and mass movement landforms in the mountain systems to the north and east of the Kikori basin (iii) littoral plains along both banks of the lower reaches of the Kikori and Omati rivers and old dune complexes within the Omati–Kikori delta and (iv) fluvial deposition in the lower Kikori basin and in perched valleys of the Ai’io and Mubi rivers at higher elevations. The onshore components are located on the northern portion of the tectonic Australian Plate. The seismicity of the Kikori region is classified zone 3, which is moderate according to PNG building standards. The results of two seismic assessments and one geohazard study have been considered in the project design process.
2. Climate and Air Quality
19. The climate of the Kikori basin is influenced by the northwest monsoon (November to May) and southeast trade winds (June to October). Mean annual precipitation in the project area ranges from 2,500 mm at Tari to 4,500 mm at Kutubu and 5,700 mm at Kikori. Humidity is consistently high (73%—90%). Upland area climate is dominated by cloud and fog, although in drought the uplands can become dry enough to burn. Droughts associated with El Niño–Southern Oscillation events tend to occur at intervals of 7 to10 years. Tropical cyclones pass through Torres Strait and the Gulf of Papua about twice every 7 years but remain south of latitude 9.5°S, so they are unlikely to reach land in PNG.
20. The wind regimes of the coastal plain generally bring higher winds during the northwest monsoon season. The winds in the Gulf of Papua are associated with storms rising to 65 kilometers per hour. The mountain areas of the Kikori basin are affected by the monsoonal winds. The wind regime at Hides Ridge is also influenced by local topography, and strong winds prevail most of the day at higher elevations. The project area is remote from existing industrial pollution sources. Industrial air emissions sources in the project area are well known, limited in number, and widely separated. Consequently, the ambient air quality is generally good with negligible concentrations of gaseous pollutants, except during droughts when wildfires can occur at higher, more settled elevations.
3. River Systems and Hydrology
21. Flow regimes in the main rivers of the project area are dominated by surface runoff, and many rivers have flow rates that increase sharply in response to regional rainfall. A large part of the base flow in watercourses in the karst landscape is groundwater inflow from subterranean streams. The project area lies mainly within the catchment of the Kikori basin. It is drained by the Tagari, Hegigio, and Kikori rivers.6 Below the Kopi support base, the Project enters the catchment of the Omati River (Figure 6). These rivers or their tributaries
6 These rivers are all part of one watercourse that changes name along its various reaches.
12 drain areas in which project construction will occur or are crossed by project pipelines. Mean daily river flows in the project area (north to south) are as follows: Tagari River at Nogoli Bridge, 119 cubic meters per second (m3/s); Hegigio River upstream of the Hegigio Gorge, 740 m3/s; and Kikori River at Kaiam, 1,508 m3/s. Estimated mean flow in the Omati River adjacent to the landfall site is 243 m3/s. Lentic waters generally comprise numerous swamp areas; Lake Kutubu is the only large, open water body in the project area.
4. Water Quality
22. The water quality of the upper and middle basin streams of the Kikori basin is typical of other PNG rivers in limestone areas, with pH of 7.4–8.2, moderate to high water hardness, low conductivity (salinity), and low nutrient and trace metal concentrations. Turbidity in these streams is generally low, at less than 2 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit); total suspended sediments (TSS) are also low, at generally less than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l). However, in the upper Hegigio River, median concentrations of TSS are about 80 mg/l (ranging widely from 48 to 420 mg/l); turbidity shows similar variability (1–120 NTU). Further south in the Kikori basin, streams have higher median TSS (e.g., 14 mg/l for Utiti creek and 36 mg/l for Howoi creek) and generally exhibit the large variation in TSS of the more northerly streams. These wide variations are attributable to antecedent rainfall, landslides, and other ground disturbances. Lake Kutubu has a pH of 7.6–8.1, low conductivity, and a TSS value of 1.4 mg/l, making the water exceptionally clear. Lake Kutubu is oligomictic, i.e., generally stratified with only occasional overturning (vertical circulation).
5. Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
23. Terrestrial biodiversity information presented here is based on three flora and fauna studies carried out in 2005 under the EIA study, and 51 flora or fauna studies carried out by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) since 1995 in the Kikori Integrated Conservation and Development Program (KICDP)7 area (Figure 8). The KICDP area encompasses the entire area drained by the Kikori River and its tributaries. The WWF studies have made the Kikori basin one of the biologically best known areas in PNG. The flora surveys used plot- based sampling, and the fauna surveys used a rapid assessment program. The surveys for the EIS used similar techniques (except plot-based plant sampling), as well as electronic bat detection and “camera trapping”8 methods.
24. Vegetation. Virtually the entire Kikori basin is covered in tropical forest. Forest structure and diversity are influenced by altitude, climate, topography, soils, geology, degree of waterlogging, and disturbance regime. Species diversity and tree size tend to decrease as altitude increases. The cooler climate, rainfall regime, and fogs of the uplands favor epiphytes, ferns, certain conifers, broad-leaved trees adapted to cooler climate, and mosses, although trees at all altitudes generally contain epiphytes. The KICDP area features sizeable tracts of relatively little-disturbed and sparsely populated moist tropical forest. There are 22 broad vegetation groups identified in the KICDP area. The Project will affect some parts of each of the 13 vegetation groups. The total area of these 13 broad vegetation groups in the KICDP area is estimated at 1,719,600 ha. Figure 8 shows the 22 broad vegetation groups or land use in KICDP area, using a simplified form of the PNG forest inventory management system.
7 KICDP was established in 1993 by the PNG National Executive Council, with the objective to facilitate the conservation of diverse ecosystems and biologically rich natural resources of the region by local people, and to promote local-scale developments compatible with the conservation of biodiversity in the Kikori River basin. KICDP has been a joint initiative of WWF and successive operators and co-venturers of the Kutubu Petroleum Development Project. 8 Camera trapping is a system that allows photographs of wildlife to be taken when humans are not present. “Traps”—or cameras with infrared sensors enclosed in waterproof casings—detect heat and motion, so that whenever a living object crosses in front of the trap a photo is taken 13
25. Flora. New Guinea has more than 25,000 species of vascular plants and over 3,000 species of ferns, ranking first in the world for ferns and fifth in terms of the number of flowering plants and first for ferns. Although the KICDP area has not been fully surveyed, the expectation of high diversity of species of flora has been confirmed by WWF surveys on broad-scale patterns of vegetation composition and forest ecology.
26. Over 100 families of tracheophytes have been recorded in the KICDP area. Dominant families in the Darai Plateau and Libano River areas are Orchidaceae, Rubiaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, Lauraceae, and Araceae, which together account for 39.5% of the species. The dominant families recorded in the northern parts (Hides and Benaria) of the KICDP area are dicotyledons, followed by ferns, monocotyledons, and gymnosperms. The northern collections are not dominated by any particular groups of families. Only 10 families out of 111 (Araliacea, Polypodicaeae, Thelypteridaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Ericaceae, Melastomataceae, Moraceae, Euphorbiacea, Myrtcaeae, and Rubiacea) were represented by more than 15 species. Together, they account for only 25% of all species. Data from the WWF surveys and general understanding of forest composition show that, although species density may be similar across forest types, different species will have different habitat and altitude preferences. In the medium and small crowned forest of the upper hill zone (600– 200 m ASL) around the Ridge Camp and the Agogo Production Facility, the genera Castanopsis, Chisocheton, Cinnamomum, Cryptocarya, Syzygium, Elaeocarpus, Elmerillia, and Opocumonia are common. The swamp forests in the intermontane basins near, for example, Kantobo village are richer in such genera as Nauclea, Pangium, Pometia, Sloanea, Terminalia, Dracontomelon, Myristica, and Aglaia. Lowland forests below 400 m ASL share many species and genera with the uplands, particularly Elaeocarpus, Sloanea, and Syzygium, but typically contain more characteristically lowland genera, such as Planchonia, Intsia, Nauclea, Bischofia, Terminalia, Ficus, Cananga, Alstonia, Pometia, Diospyros, Garcinia, Maniltoa, Anisoptera, Canarium, and Pterocarpus.
27. The swamp forests and woodlands contain a mix of lowland forest and swamp species, such as sago palm and the coastal lowland species Dillenia alata, as well as some mangroves (e.g., Xylocarpus granatum). Palms, of which 55 species have been recorded in the KICDP area, are more common in wetter forests, such as those that occur in the lowlands and intermontane swamps. A total of 133 of 661 species recorded around the Hides Range and Benaria River area were ferns. Orchids, most of which are epiphytic, may be the most speciose (rich in number of species) family in the KICDP area. One study recorded 342 orchid species from 58 genera from Lake Kutubu and surrounding areas (700– 1,400 m ASL, and another study collected 156 species from the Darai Plateau and 134 from the Libano River area. In the higher forests above 1,800 m ASL, epiphytes and ferns may account for 75% of species diversity.
28. The most significant aspect of floristics in relation to impact assessment is whether certain forest types, plant groups, or species are concentrated in small areas along the pipeline ROWs and could therefore be disproportionately impacted. The forest types associated with the pipeline ROWs and other project infrastructure are generally widespread, the karst flora does not appear to be locally endemic, and the more restricted montane forest above 1,200 m ASL has a flora typical of the New Guinea highlands in general. It is extremely rare that plant species have distributions restricted to one very small area within a forest; most species are broadly and sparsely distributed. Three forest types need particular consideration for impact analysis: the lower montane small crowned forest with Nothofagus on Hides Ridge, the swamp forest complexes, and the swamp woodland and forest complexes. These forest types are the most restricted in distribution within the KICDP area and are particularly sensitive to fire and dieback.
14
15
29. Fauna. The combined terrestrial fauna data of the WWF and the three EIA surveys in 2005 comprise 3,089 field records. The 412 field records for nonflying mammals show 79 species in 10 families in the KICDP area, 43 of which (54%) are rodents. After rodents, the most speciose families are cuscuses, marsupial carnivores, and kangaroos. In general, the number of species declines as altitude increases, but marsupials, particularly arboreal species, increase with increased altitude. The richest bioregions are the two volcanic bioregions (where soils are better) and the Mubi River karst (where there are many sample subsites). The nonflying mammal fauna of New Guinea is highly endemic. Seventy percent of the species are restricted to New Guinea or the PNG mainland. Seventy-five percent of species recorded to date in the KICDP area are New Guinea endemics. Endemism increases towards the northern upland section of the KICDP area (from 37.5% in the Kikori lowlands bioregion to 72% in the northern montane karst).
30. The 2,180 avifauna field records show 389 bird species in the KICDP area, with a possible additional 155 species. Parrots, pigeons, honeyeaters, and birds-of-paradise are the largest families and together account for over 28% of the total species in the KICDP area. New Guinea’s tropical forests support a high proportion of frugivores and nectarivores, e.g., 16 species of fruit-doves (Ptilonopus) and imperial-pigeons (Ducula), and 14 species of brush-tongued lories and lorikeets. Notable groups of the passerine families include four species of fairywrens (Maluridae family), 32 honeyeaters (Meliphagidae), 16 warblers and scrubwrens (Pardalotidae), and 17 robins (Petroicidae). The KICDP area supports at least half of the 40 living species of birds-of-paradise and over two-thirds of the 31 species recorded in New Guinea. The 195 bat field records show 43 identified and 3 unidentified bat species from the KICDP area. Analysis of broad avian habitat preferences by KICDP bioregions shows that forest species dominate. Most of these species can tolerate some disturbance; the majority can be found in secondary forests and sometimes scrublands and gardens. Migratory avian species are concentrated in the Kikori lowlands bioregion and include the migratory waders (Scolopacidae and Charadriidae) that visit tidal and coastal mudflats from September to April. The pipeline ROWs do not traverse any areas that are important for concentrations of migratory waders.
31. The 260 field records of frog species and 42 field records of reptile species in the KICDP area show that Microhylidae and tree frogs (Hylidae) dominate the frog fauna. A distinctive component of the frog fauna occurs predominantly at middle or high altitudes, and many species occur only at lower altitudes. Most reptiles are species inhabiting forest or forest clearings, and a significant group of aquatic turtles and crocodiles relies on large water bodies (rivers, lakes, and swamps).
32. The 33 WWF wildlife surveys at Kutubu and to the south down to Kikori and the three EIA surveys to the northwest of Kutubu at Hides, Nogoli, and Benaria have discovered 81 species of plants and animals new to science. These include a tree fern (Cyathea species), three unusual calcium-depositing ferns, four species of Rattus, a Murexia species of marsupial carnivore, and a rock-dwelling giant rat. The 50 species of frogs new to science represent over half of the known species of frogs in the KICDP area.
33. Noteworthy Terrestrial Areas and Features. In general, the conservation values of the project area are high, and numerous local-scale landform features—such as sinkholes, spires, towers, caves, springs and waterfalls—are to be found. These values and features are not uniformly at risk from the Project. The five noteworthy areas include: (i) lower montane forest with Nothofagus on the karst of Hides Ridge, which supports high plant and animal diversity (ii) sinkhole swamps on Hides Ridge, which are microhabitats that consist of small pools at the bottom of some sinkholes and dolines (a natural enclosed depression found in karst landscapes) and are the only habitats in which tree frogs and other water- dependent frogs can breed (iii) caves, which are abundant in the karst areas of the Kikori basin and are critical to certain species of bats (particular bat species require particular types
16 of caves and they are selective about the caves in which they roost and breed) (iv) swamp forests, which support a range of specialist vertebrates, including the twelve-wired bird-of- paradise, the New Guinea flightless rail, and a range of aquatic fauna like turtles and crocodiles (these forests tend to be resilient habitats but can be damaged by fire in drought years and by permanent changes to the local hydrology) and (v) stream banks and riparian vegetation at higher elevations, which support specialist vertebrates (birds and frogs).
34. Informal and Formal Conservation Areas. PNG is recognized as a country of high biodiversity. It ranks sixth in the world in terms of endemism for mammals, birds, and amphibians. In terms of species per 1,000 square kilometers (km2), it ranks second for amphibians, fifth for mammals, and ninth for birds. WWF has identified 11 zones of high biodiversity in the Kikori basin (Figure 9). Two of these zones are classified wildlife management areas (WMAs), established to conserve forests with the permission and co- management of landowners (protected areas are difficult to designate in PNG where 97% of the land is privately owned). Six of these zones will be affected by the proposed pipeline ROWs: (i) Agogo and Iwa Ranges, (ii) Lake Kutubu WMA, (iii) Kantobo/Wassi Falls and Gobi karst ridge system, (iv) Utiti Creek, (v) Neiru Creek catchment and lower swamp forest, and (vi) Lower Kikori River delta mangrove and swamp forest.
35. Lake Kutubu, which is located within the Lake Kutubu WMA, is a Ramsar-listed wetland of international conservation significance9 and is one of the two designated government conservation areas in the KICDP. The pipelines from Hides to the Kutubu CGCP will run along a road through relatively easy terrain in the northern part of the lake’s catchment. However, the pipeline will avoid the lake itself and is located no closer than about 500 m from the northern edge of the lake (Figure 5). The Neiru/Airds Hills WMA is located to the southeast of Kopi and will not be impacted by the Project. 36. Conservation Status of Flora and Fauna. Wildlife species listed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in the project area are mostly those that are hunted across their range. Table 1 shows the number of listed species in the various IUCN categories. Twelve fish species are also included in the list. Four nonflying mammals, 15 birds and 10 reptiles (turtles and crocodiles) are protected, and 4 nonflying mammals and 27 birds are restricted by the PNG Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966, 1978. The majority of the listed birds are raptors and birds-of-paradise, and the reptiles are crocodiles and turtles. Table 1: Numbers of IUCN-Listed Terrestrial Species
Near Data Group Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Threatened Deficient Nonflying Mammals 3 3 6 2 4 Bats 0+1 5+6 8+3 Birds 6+2 10+5 1+5 Frogs 5 Reptiles 2 Plants 1 1 2 Total 4+1 4 21+8 20+8 10+5 Note: The figures indicate the number of species recorded plus bats and birds that could occur Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited. 37. There are no concentrations of listed species in any particular bioregion or part of the project area proposed to be the site of project facilities or pipelines. Remoteness, soil infertility, and malaria have kept human populations in the project area at low densities, limiting pressure from activities such as hunting and forest clearing pressure over most of the area.
9 The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands. The official title is The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat. 17
18
6. Aquatic Flora and Fauna
38. The project area offers a wide variety of riverine, lacustrine, subterranean stream, swamp, estuarine, and mangrove habitats. The tidal floodplain of the Omati-Kikori delta, inundated by tides twice a day, provides a rich diversity of habitats and varying salinity supporting a mix of freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish fauna, as well as crocodiles, turtles, and dolphins. The riverbed of the lower Omati River is an active zone of sedimentation with 1–3 m of deep soft silts and fine sands that represent a poor habitat of low structural diversity for bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates. The narrow fringing line of nypa palms (Nypa fruiticans) along the bank provides nursery and breeding habitat for estuarine macroinvertebrates, as well as fish.
39. Aquatic Flora. Many of the river mainstreams are turbid, which precludes the establishment of submerged aquatic macrophytes, benthic algae, or diatoms. However, clear water streams occur in the upper catchment of the Kikori basin, especially where they drain karst terrain. The aquatic flora of Lake Kutubu has been the subject of considerable study owing to its high conservation value and Ramsar site listing. The lake habitats fall into three vegetation zones characterized by the presence of aquatic macrophytes: (i) the tall emergent zone that fringes the lake margins to a depth of 2.5 m (ii) the aquatic mixed plant beds zone, which covers depths of 3–4 m and (iii) the aquatic Characeae plant beds zone, which ranges from 2.5 m to 7.5 m.
40. Aquatic Fauna. The total number of freshwater fish in the Kikori basin is currently estimated at 115 species. Fifteen species are endemic to the Kikori basin (12 in Lake Kutubu). IUCN lists 12 freshwater fish fauna that occur in or are likely to be present in the Kikori basin and are of conservation concern. The macroinvertebrate aquatic fauna in the Kikori River system include decapod crustaceans, three species of freshwater crayfish, a few species of freshwater prawns, and various aquatic insects.
41. Six species of freshwater turtle inhabit the Kikori River system. The trade of freshwater turtles is strictly regulated by law, although none is listed as protected species in the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act, 1966. IUCN lists both the pig-nosed turtle and Bibron’s soft-shell turtle as vulnerable, and Siebenrock’s snake-necked turtle as “lower risk.” Two species of crocodiles are found in the Kikori River system: saltwater (Crocodylus porosus) and New Guinea freshwater (C. novaeguineae). The latter species is endemic to New Guinea. Both species are classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List and as restricted by the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act. There are no freshwater marine mammals in PNG but three species of coastal dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris, Sousa chinensis, and Tusiops aduncus) and the dugong (Dugong dugon) may be found in the lower freshwater and estuarine reaches of the Omati and Kikori rivers.
7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Resource Use
42. Karst terrain and regular inundation limits the amount of land suitable for agriculture, which contributes less to subsistence activities than sago production, hunting, gathering, and fishing. Sago palm stands provide around 100–150 kilograms (kg) of flour per mature palm and by-products such as the leaves are used for roofing and basket weaving. Sago provides approximately 75% of food by volume for many of the villages in the Kutubu area. Other bush plants are gathered or cultivated, such as Derris species for fish poison, timber for dugout canoes, paper mulberry for plaited carrying bags, tobacco plants for smoking, bamboo for cooking and water-storage vessels, tigasso tree oil for self-decoration and rituals, black palm for bows, and cassowary feathers and hornbill beaks for trading.
43. Hunted game includes pigs, cassowaries, wallabies, bandicoots, bush hens, megapodes, rats, frogs, phalangers, snakes, flying foxes, hornbills, pigeons, crocodiles, and lizards. The main limit on hunting in the Omati and Kikori basins is not availability of species 19 but accessibility due to seasonal flooding. The principal freshwater and migratory fish species targeted by artisanal and subsistence fisheries in the Omati-Kikori delta are fork- tailed catfish, barramundi, fewfish, beach salmon, threadfin salmon, mullet, sharks, and sawfish. In upland areas, fishing is less important than gardening and is carried out for subsistence only. The freshwater fish of Lake Kutubu provide a very important source of dietary protein for local communities in the catchment, with as much as 70 tons of fish harvested annually. One study showed that three species accounted for 80% of the Lake Kutubu catch: 35% freshwater crayfish, 23% Adamson’s grunters, and 22% fimbriate gudgeons.
44. The main sources of drinking water in the upper catchments are tributary rivers, streams of the major rivers, and groundwater. Drinking water is occasionally sourced from the major rivers, although they are generally too turbid. Permanent springs and side streams are also available to many riverine villages in Southern Highlands Province. Drinking and washing water is also sourced from rainwater collected in drums and buckets.
8. Regeneration
45. Two studies examined vegetation regrowth on a range of Kutubu Petroleum Development Project sites, including the ROW, wellpads, helipads, and access ways to drill sites. The studies concluded that regeneration was vigorous. Many pioneer and forest tree species developed rapidly (within 3 years) on areas of disturbed soils, limestone scree mixed with soils, and sidecast spoil (excavated material moved to the downslope side of a temporary access structure). However, regeneration was poor to nonexistent on areas of hard limestone pavement or compacted limestone.
9. Economic Development (Onshore)
46. Industrial development to date in the Kikori basin area has involved oil and gas exploration and production and large-scale commercial logging began in the lower Kikori in 1996. The major oil and gas operations are the Hides Gas to Electricity Project and the Kutubu, Gobe, and Moran petroleum development projects. The historic pattern of sparse population has not changed since oil and gas production began in the early 1990s, with localized exceptions around the main petroleum production facilities at Kutubu and Hides. Logging occurs in three forest management areas (FMA), with an estimated area logged to date of about 2,300 ha.
47. The EIS’s Supporting Study #1 (Biodiversity Studies for the PNG Gas Project) showed evidences that the effects of the oil and gas industry on biodiversity in the KICDP area have been limited and localized to the areas of direct disturbance. The Project will broaden somewhat the development footprint at the extremities of the existing oil and gas infrastructure and extend the life of the industry in the region by several decades. The project area has a very low potential for broad-acre commercial agriculture. However, there is potential for small-scale, high-value crops, such as vanilla and chili.
10. Socio-Cultural and Socioeconomic Setting
48. Population. The onshore project area—the people and places likely to be immediately and directly and/or indirectly impacted by the Project and its associated benefit streams—contains an estimated 23,760 persons comprising 4,104 households. This population is distributed among five geographically based catchments: Hides (50%), Moran (7%), Kutubu (12%), Gobe (14%), and Kikori (17%). The project area includes 98 census unit communities indicative of where the major impacts are likely to be felt in the short to medium term, and where the majority of the affected people currently live. The linguo- cultural (linguistic media for expression) groups identified in the project area are as follows: (i) the Fasu, who occupy the western and southeastern fringes of Lake Kutubu down to
20
Tamidigi, and claim land on both the eastern and western borders of the Hegigio and Tagari River; (ii) the Huli, who inhabit the areas northwest from Yalenda through Baguale–Homa– Paua–Yarale–Tari–Koroba, and the area on the western side of the Hegigio and Tagari River from south of Komo through to Nogoli–Yaluba–Mogora–Pugua–Lebani and Tanggi; (iii) the Onabasulu, who inhabit the land west of the Hegigio River on the eastern edge of the Great Papuan Plateau; (iv) the Foi, who inhabit the northeastern fringes of Lake Kutubu extending along the Pimaga to Poroma Road; (v) the Samberigi peoples, who variously speak Sau, Kewa, and Polopa, and inhabit the northern Gobe area; and (vi) the aggregation of Kikori peoples frequently referred to as the Kairi (Rumu), who inhabit the Kopi and Ogomabu environs; (vii) the Ikobi (Kasere, Omati, Ikobi Kairi), a large group of Kasere speakers, many of whom reside in Omati; (viii) the Porome (Kibiri), who are clustered in the vicinity of Neiru Creek and the villages of Doibo, Veiru, and Babaio; and (ix) the Kerewo, who are originally from Goaribari Island.
49. Social Organization. The social organization in the project area is based on patrilineal descent under which people are distributed among named clan and subclan groups. Settlement patterns vary from scattered households to hamlets and longhouse villages. Some clans are small (30 members), which often break into separate primary landholding groups after a few generations. Most clans have representatives in more than one village, so what is encountered in each village is, in effect, a local clan segment. Leadership is a mix of both ascribed (leaders are based on primogeniture in the direct male line from the founder) and achieved (“big men” ascend to power by virtue of entrepreneurial, oratorical, and fighting prowess). All ethnic groups in and around the project area maintain their own cultural and social identity. This ethnic diversity constitutes the predominant social organization throughout PNG society, although both community organizations associated with petroleum projects and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) now also play a part in social organization in the project area.
50. Representative Community Organizations. One of the most significant effects of petroleum projects to date in PNG has been the formation of three types of formal representative entities: (i) incorporated land groups—there are 700–800 incorporated land groups from Hides to Kikori, with highly variable levels of social groupings (individual, family, subclan, and clan) (ii) landowner companies—landowner groups have established more than 30 companies to undertake business ventures in and around customary clan property, including contracts with existing petroleum operations and (iii) landowner associations— these are less formal entities.
51. Health. Malaria is among the top five causes of morbidity and mortality. It is also the leading cause of lost work hours among the oil industry workforce in the project area. Tuberculosis is widespread in project area villages. Japanese Encephalitis has been found in the Gulf area. The main problems in delivery of health services include: (i) inadequate medicine supply, (ii) lack of aid-post orderlies, (iii) difficulties in staff retention, and (iv) inadequate levels of immunization and infectious disease control. Infant mortality rates are high and 2–4% of infants and children suffer from malnutrition. Around a third of the health facilities shown were closed or not functioning for reasons such as lack of staff or medicines.
52. The control and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases in PNG are hindered by cultural resistance to prevention and reporting. The actual number of HIV/AIDS cases in PNG is estimated at about 50,000 but there are no reliable statistics for infection rates. In 2005, the Operational Research Unit of the PNG Institute of Medical Research conducted research in Kutubu and Kikori on HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Among the problems found were suboptimal condom use, lack of HIV/AIDS awareness, and high sexually transmitted disease caseloads. 53. Education. Provincial education is managed independently from the Department of Education except for matters related to national standards and curriculum. Provincial 21 education branches oversee education services, headed by a principal education adviser. Although many villages in the project area have registered their elementary schools, many are inoperative. Only a very small percentage of children advance past elementary school level. Major problems include shortages of supplies and trained teachers, and high staff turnover. School buildings built with tax credit monies are often left empty if teachers are not supplied by the provincial government. 54. Transportation. Prior to the development of the Kutubu oil field, access to the project area was by foot; ship to Kikori; or aircraft to Pimaga, Kutubu; or the grass airstrips serving various mission stations. The only roads were within and adjacent to the Kikori and Pimaga government stations, and were not linked to other areas. Since 1990, more than 800 km of roads have been constructed in the project area, increasing the mobility of the population in the region and facilitating their exposure to development services. 55. Economic Activity. Local business development in the project area is mainly through landowner companies. Trade stores are the most common village-based economic venture, but they are hampered by lack of reinvestment and supply difficulties. Other common small-scale business ventures in the project area include logging and sawmills; cash crops such as chilies, coffee, and vanilla; and poultry. Business development is constrained by factors such as dependence on subsistence agriculture, inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, and redirection of profits to bride wealth and clan networks. Compared with other rural areas in PNG, the project area has relatively high employment levels and diversified sources of income. The percentages of household survey respondents who reported receiving income from defined sources were as follows: (i) royalty payments, 33% (ii) cash crops, 35% (iii) employment, 11% (iv) sale of livestock, 23% and (v) business activities, 11%. 56. Agriculture and Fishing. In Southern Highlands Province, swidden horticulture using a bush fallow approach predominates, with sweet potato as the principal crop. Commercialized agriculture has been unsustainable to date. Agricultural and livestock opportunities remain largely undeveloped because of lack of communications and transport infrastructure, poor planning, and inefficient business practices. The only crops likely to offer a viable basis for sustained agricultural business are coffee and sago. Fish is the main source of protein for people living around Lake Kutubu but lake fish catches are reported to be in decline. In the Kikori delta, fish, crab, and shellfish have traditionally been important sources of food and cash income. 57. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Archaeology and cultural heritage surveys undertaken by the Project, with assistance and advice from landowners in the project area, have identified numerous cultural heritage sites and materials in certain locations along the proposed ROW/access way alignments. Sites are isolated or clustered and include old village sites, rock shelters containing ossuaries, and burial and sacred sites. There are two areas of high cultural heritage significance in the project area: Kopi and its environs in the south and Dagia in the north. 58. Further surveys to define cultural heritage site boundaries and sensitivities with more precision—so that avoidance or other appropriate actions can be planned—began in November 2005 and will conclude in May 2006. These investigations are being conducted by PNG archaeologists, including specialists from the PNG National Museum, with detailed knowledge and experience in these areas, and involve consultation with landowners in the project area (see also paragraph 133). The report is expected in June 2006 59. Government. Local-level governments (LLGs) have certain legislative powers and, in principle, are guaranteed funding. However, they only function in some parts of PNG’s provinces. Provincial governments have included LLG administration costs in forecast budgets but have done little to arrange for accounts into which funds, such as development levies, might flow. The project area covers six LLGs in Southern Highlands Province and two LLGs in Gulf Province. Of these eight, only two are functional and one is semi-functional. For
22 much of the project area, this has meant that local development is driven by provincial governments. Provincial governments and LLGs are financed by grants from the national Government and internal revenue. In Southern Highlands Province, oil-related revenues have amounted to about 40% of the province’s annual budget. 60. Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs). The Community Development Initiative Foundation is the main NGO working to address the development aspirations and social needs of rural communities across Southern Highlands and Gulf provinces under rolling 3- year agreements with existing petroleum operations. Various faith-based organizations are active at the community level in the project area to address social, health, education, and sustainable agriculture challenges. PNG and international environmental and social NGOs, most prominent of which is the WWF, have been active in undertaking various studies in the project area since 1995. B. Offshore Setting 1. Physical Geography 61. The Gulf of Papua forms a crescent of about 50,000 km2 bordering the southern coast of PNG. The shoreline is a low-lying swampland of delta complexes of the large rivers that drain central New Guinea. In general, the seabed sediments in the Gulf of Papua provide a relatively uniform, soft benthic habitat, interspersed with sunken trees. In the Fly River delta proper, to the north of the offshore sales gas pipeline route, there are zones of local relief associated with relict channels from the low Holocene sea stand and both active and abandoned modern tidal channels. Torres Strait, extending approximately 150 km from north to south, is a hydrologically dynamic environment of reefs, cays, small continental islands, and shoals (Figure 10).
2. Climate 62. Wind patterns in Torres Strait and the Gulf are highly seasonal, with two wind regimes: the northwest monsoon (November to April), with winds generally less than 31 kph (kilometer per hour), and the southeast trades (May to October) with winds often exceeding 31 kph. The Gulf and Strait have low to moderate cyclone risk. Cyclones, which mainly occur between February and April, generate storm-force winds and long-period waves that cause substantial seabed scouring and sediment movement in shallow waters. Maximum and minimum daily mean air temperatures are 28°C and 22°C (July) and 32°C and 25°C (November) at Daru near the PNG coast. They vary little along the proposed route. Annual rainfall ranges from about 1,500 mm to 2,000 mm, with the highest totals on the southern PNG shoreline. Monthly rainfall averages 200–300 mm, increasing to an average 400 mm during the wet season, from April to August. 3. Oceanography 63. Tides in the Gulf are semidiurnal to mixed, with maximum spring tides of 4.0 m and mean spring tides of 2.5–3.0 m in the western Gulf and slightly lower in the east. Tidal ranges in the Strait are about 3 m and are affected by out-of-phase tides in the bordering Gulf of Papua and Coral Sea as well as the Gulf of Carpentaria and Arafura Sea. The current in the Gulf of Papua is dominated by a clockwise gyre causing most of the freshwater and sediment delivered to the Gulf to travel eastward rather than southward toward the Torres Strait. In the Strait, current speed and direction generally reflect the orientation of reefs and channels and the degree of channel restriction. 23
24
64. The Gulf receives very large volumes of freshwater (15,000 m3/s) and sediment (350 million tones [Mt]/year) from the rivers. High suspended sediment loads in the Gulf come from the rivers, continuous reworking of sediments by currents and wave action, and fluid-mud bodies. Fine-grained sediment concentrations rarely fall below 500 mg/l at the river mouths, and surface turbid plumes typically extend up to 50 km offshore. In the Strait, TSS concentrations are naturally high but lower than in the Gulf, with typical values of 2.2–37 mg/l.
4. Marine Habitats 65. In the Gulf, the predominant marine habitat is deltaic muds, which descend to a carbonate platform below the 40 m depth contour. The muddy substrates do not feature any localized areas of special environmental significance. Unstable sediments nearshore show little evidence of bioturbation from benthic fauna, but the more stable sediments further offshore show higher densities of benthic fauna. Seagrass (flowering plants that grow in the marine saline marine environment) in the Strait stabilizes sediments and provides nursery and feeding habitat for prawns, lobsters, turtles, dugong, and fish. Various substrates (including reefs, foreshore areas, and shallow inter-reef seabed) support extensive areas of seagrass and algae (17,000 km2).
5. Marine Flora and Fauna 66. The dominant flora of the Torres Strait is seagrass (in the Gulf of Papua, high silt loads from the Fly and Purari rivers apparently inhibit colonization by seagrass). Seagrass in the Strait stabilizes sediments and provides nursery and feeding habitat for prawns, lobsters, turtles, dugong and fish. Various substrates (including reefs, foreshore areas and shallow inter-reef seabed) support extensive areas of seagrass and algae (17,000 km2). Two broad seagrass communities have been identified in Torres Strait, i.e. reef-top and inter-reefal. The reef-top seagrass communities are diverse but dominated by the large strap-like species, such as Thalasia hemprichii, Enhalus acoroides and Cymodocea spp. These communities are widely distributed on most reefs throughout the Strait. Seagrass in Torres Strait undergoes periodic cycles of dieback over a temporal scale of decades. These cyclical changes affect the distribution and abundance of dugongs and rock lobsters and also sediment movement. Recent evidence indicates that episodes of dieback occurred in the 1970s and the early 1980s; and in 1993 and 2000, poor rock lobster recruitment coincided with periods of seagrass dieback.
67. The marine fauna of the Gulf is reasonably well known from observations of prawn trawler catches since the 1970s. Along sample locations of trawler catches in 2004 and 2005 that coincide with the proposed offshore pipeline route, typical species observed included two commercial prawn species, numerous species of fish (pony fish, hairtails, anchovies, clupeids, jewfish, goatfish, Bombay duck); invertebrates (squid, crabs, mantis shrimp); and reptiles (sea snakes and marine turtles, such as the green and the olive Ridley, although there are no known nesting beaches for any species of marine turtle in the Gulf). The reef, inter-reef channels, and seagrass areas of the Strait support a variety of fish and shellfish species. Prawns, rock lobster, Spanish mackerel (Scomberomourus commerson), pearl shell (Pinctada maxima), bêche-de-mer (e.g., Holothuria scabra), and trochus (Trochus niloticus) support significant commercial and subsistence fisheries.
68. Marine mammals in the Gulf include the dugong, which is listed as vulnerable to extinction in the 2004 IUCN Red List and is a protected species under the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act, 1966. Large whales are rarely seen, but five dolphin species are present. Torres Strait supports the largest known population of dugongs in the world, as well as six of the world’s seven species of sea turtle, one of which, the flatback (Natator depressus), has a restricted distribution and is endemic to Australia. The coral reef areas cover only about 5% of the Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ), and the pipeline alignment has been designed to avoid the coral reef (see Figure 10. 25
6. Habitat Along the Route 69. The proposed route of the gas pipeline across the Gulf of Papua is shown in Figure 10. The marine habitats of the proposed route are predominantly the deltaic muds of the main river channels (Fly, Kikori and Purari rivers) and delta front, and the carbonate platform below depths of 40 to 50 m. Reef habitats and seagrass beds occur mainly to the west of Daru Island since high suspended sediment loads inhibit their development in the Gulf. The muddy substrates in the western Gulf do not contain any localized environmental features that would form a constraint to route selection. The prodelta of the Fly River (and other rivers) consists of muds of land origin and because of their rapid but unstable deposition, these sediments show little evidence of bioturbation from benthic fauna. Further offshore and away from the delta, the sediments become more stable and have higher densities of benthic infauna. The inter-reef area accounts for 95% (about 40,000 km2) of the TSPZ. Table 6 shows habitat that will be traversed by the gas pipelines--muddy substrate, epibenthos (animals and plants that live at the surface of the sea bed) and seagrass. It will not pass through coral reef. 7. Economic Activities 70. The major economic activity in the offshore area is commercial fishing. In the Gulf, the commercial prawn trawl fishery, begun in 1967, has annual landings of around 1,000 tons worth about K10 million ($3.3 million). In 2003, the catch of the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery was worth approximately A$23.5 million ($18.1 million). The long-term potential commercial yield of tropical rock lobsters tails is estimated at 260 tons. Most reefs in the Strait are fished by freezer-boat operators or island-based indigenous fishers who take lobsters by diving with spears or handheld scoop nets. The Spanish mackerel fishery in eastern Torres Strait had a catch of 120 tons worth around A$1.2 million ($.9 million) in 2001. The other commercial use of offshore areas is for shipping channels. The proposed offshore pipeline route crosses the Great North East Channel (just inside the Australian Section of the TSPZ) and the Adolphus Channel (south of the TSPZ). 8. Social and Cultural Resources 71. There are two known historic shipwrecks protected under Australia’s Historic Shipwrecks Act, 1976, that appear to be near the proposed gas pipeline route. These are wooden cutters: the Newton, lost off Gabba Island in 1913; and the Vida, lost in 1914. An investigation of the potential for impacts on cultural heritage sites and other values of the sea and seabed surrounding Torres Strait islands has identified the cultural significance of the Basilisk Passage and established the preference of indigenous inhabitants for an alternative transit of Warrior Reefs via Tancred Passage (to the south of Basilisk Passage). C. Main Social, Economic, and Cultural Issues (Onshore and Offshore) 72. Three main issues affect the political framework within which the Project’s social interface will be managed: (i) grassroots confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver on promises to provide social services and infrastructure (survey information suggests a perception among many residents of the project area that the Government fails to honor commitments or engage with landowners) (ii) the structure, ownership, and governance of the companies that hold landowners’ equity and can take advantage of the business opportunities that the Project will bring and (iii) the push (mainly by southern highlanders) to create a new, resource-rich province called Hela. These issues are all concerned, directly or indirectly, with the distribution of economic benefits to citizens. Underlying these issues is the challenge that local landowner groups will face in adopting an approach based on cooperation and sharing rather than competition. Other social issues are associated with the Gas Project Co-operative and Sharing Agreement (GPCSA), and include (i) disagreement over landowner representation (in the negotiation or administration of benefit sharing) (ii) inability to agree on benefit sharing (iii) resistance by provincial governors to the statutory
26 role of the expenditure implementation committee and (iv) destabilization of the GPCSA by factional or ethnic rivalries.
73. A new landowner company (National Energy Company Limited [NECL]) has been proposed to provide construction-related and other services to the Project. Landowner support for NECL is variable, depending on the relative satisfaction with existing landowner companies. Other issues are related to (i) clan fragmentation (ii) empowerment of women (iii) disparities in local-level project involvement leading to potential unequal distribution of benefits (iv) consumerism (v) migration, law, and order and (vi) post-project sustainability.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternative Without Project 74. The implications of the without-project option for the Project are twofold: (i) strategic opportunity costs, and (ii) impacts avoided and benefits foregone.
75. There are two strategic opportunity costs associated with the without-project scenario. First, the failure to take advantage of the synergies presented by the existing oil and gas infrastructure; second, the loss of opportunities in the future to, in turn, build on the Project’s infrastructure to develop new fields. While the Project’s resource base depends mainly on the Hides gas field, the feasibility of the Project relies on synergies with the existing oil and gas developments and on three factors in particular: (i) the opportunity to convert the existing field production infrastructure of the Kutubu, Gobe, and Moran petroleum development projects to gas production at an acceptable additional cost (ii) the availability of the crude oil export pipeline ROW for the placement of a large amount of the onshore route of the new sales gas pipeline at an acceptable additional cost and (iii) the opportunity, offered by a market for the gas, to blow down the gas caps of the currently producing oil reservoirs at the appropriate times. If the Project were not built now, the synergies of combined oil and gas production operations would progressively diminish and finally vanish when oil production stops in about 20 years’ time.
76. The second opportunity cost of the without-project scenario is foreclosure on future development options: (i) potential value-adding, gas-based industries—such as methanol production, LPG, and compressed natural gas (CNG)—will have no supply source and (ii) undeveloped gas and condensate fields to the northwest of the existing production operations will not have the synergies of following the Project into production. Instead, they will have to face the more difficult commercial hurdles of stand-alone development, with a correspondingly reduced chance of meeting investment criteria.
77. The without-project option runs counter to the principles and policies of successive governments, in particular: (i) falling short of the full attainment of the nation’s economic and social development objectives (ii) disappointing the expectations of the local people, who have generally expressed strong support for the Project to proceed (iii) ending the economic benefits of existing oil production operations earlier than necessary and (iv) shortening the period of active oil industry employment, training, and contracting opportunities. The loss of economic benefits would affect government services related to health, education, and training.
78. In quantitative terms, these departures from long-standing and widely supported national policies and development objectives would forego the following: (i) net present value to PNG from $3 billion to $4 billion over about 30 years from first gas (anticipated to be 2009) to about 2039 (ii) construction direct employment peaking at 2,500 (combined oil and gas operations, including contract service providers, will be similar to construction with the number of permanent direct operations employment at about 2,400) (iii) net cash flow to the Government and project area landowners of between from $3.2 billion to $5.6 billion over a 27
30-year period from first gas in 2009 to 2039—compared to $1.7 billion from 2009 to the projected end of oil production in 2025 and (iv) a substantial contribution to gross domestic product, estimated to peak at 9% some 12 years after first gas.
B. Alternative Products
79. Three alternative products were evaluated: liquefied natural gas (LNG), LPG and CNG. LNG projects require a very large gas resource to underwrite long-term supply contracts with customers, and project lead times are long. LNG projects also require major capital investments. Such projects are generally adopted when customers are too far from the gas resource to be economically reached by pipeline. This is not the case for the Project, so the LNG option was not retained. LPG is traded globally. The production of LPG which is traded globally at an export scale has been evaluated; it was found that the cost of fractionation, storage, and offloading facilities make this option uneconomical. CNG involves pipeline-quality natural gas being compressed and transported in pressure tanks by tanker to export markets. A group of energy and transport companies are studying the possibility of shipping CNG from PNG to New Zealand to replace a declining local gas supply and cover what is expected to be a national shortage of natural gas beginning in 2009. As far as the Project is concerned, a feasible CNG development would add to, rather than replace, natural gas export by pipeline.
C. Alternative Sales Gas Pipeline Route
80. An alternative for the sales gas pipeline route would be to build an entirely new ROW to travel the shortest distance over land to the shortest sea crossing of Torres Strait. This would involve a corridor generally southwest from the Kutubu Central Production Facility; passing to the south of Mt Bosavi; running across the floodplains of the Strickland, Bamu, and Aramaia rivers to cross the Fly River; then tracking south across swamps, savannah, and flooded grassland to a landfall on Torres Strait. A sales gas pipeline running along this general corridor might involve up to 300 km less offshore pipeline and could be some 160 km shorter overall. However, the majority of the new corridor would pass through largely undisturbed forested areas, swamps, and other wetlands; causing greater adverse environmental impacts than would the use of the the existing Kutubu-Kopi-Omati ROW. The new ROW would also be technically more challenging than the Kutubu-Kopi-Omati ROW since it passes through mountainous and floodplain areas, making both construction and logistics more costly. The choice of the existing Kutubu-Kopi-Omati ROW was found to be more advantageous in terms of engineering, environmental impact, and cost
D. Alternative Facility Locations and Greenfield Pipeline Route 81. For similar reasons, use of established production and processing facilities, civil works (such as the Kutubu crude oil export pipeline ROW) and support facilities allows for an optimal functional fit and reduces the use of new areas. The selected route in the section from Hides to Kutubu was chosen because of existing roads along most of the route. The Kutubu crude oil export pipeline runs from a landfall location inland from Kopi down the Kikori River and south-southeast into the Gulf of Papua. A sales gas pipeline with a similar landfall location would need to share the same river channel as—and possibly cross over— the oil pipeline. The safety risks this poses to both pipelines that were avoided through the choice of landfall location for the sales gas pipeline on the Omati River. 82. Two lower impact alternatives to a conventional field development on the Hides Ridge were examined: (i) valleys for surface location of drill wells, which were found to be technically infeasible; and (ii) helicopter-supported construction of field facilities on the Hides Ridge, as had been done for the existing facilities, but which were found to be impractical for facilities required to handle a wellstream production more than 40 times the existing volume.
28
E. Alternative Project-Only and Public Access Roads 83. The Project requires roads to service the pipeline ROWs and plant sites during construction and to provide access for inspections, maintenance, and emergency response during operations. An alternative—involving closed, project-only access ways to valve stations, cathodic protection test points, and pipelines in general—has security advantages during operations and would have been the Project’s preference. The environmental benefits of this option would arise from the inability of the general population to use the roads to travel or settle across the project area, or for commercial establishments to exploit the natural resources. However, strategic roads have long been an infrastructure policy objective of successive governments. The Government’s road commitments are set out in the GPCSA and include completion of links from Tari at the Highlands near Idauwi to the Gulf coast at Kikori. The Project will complete construction access ways between Idauwi and Kopi as public roads to fulfill government policy objectives as set out in the GPCSA.
F. Spoil Management 84. Road construction in mountainous terrain in PNG requires sidecasting of spoil in accordance with the Roads Manual of the PNG Department of Works. The effect of this method is to smother vegetation and temporarily increase sediment loading in adjacent watercourses. Therefore, the Project examined the alternative of avoiding spoil sidecasting- related impacts by trucking spoil to dedicated deposition sites for the most difficult and unstable sections of pipeline ROW. These sections pass through the incised, steep (45 degree slope), volcanic terrain between the Maruba and Pawgana rivers. There are about 40 km of these two rivers and their tributaries in the area between the ROW route and their confluences with the much larger Hegigio River as it enters its own unstable section through the Hegigio Gorge. 85. This analysis indicated that environmental impacts might be reduced and translocated in the short term (1–2 years) but not avoided. In the long term (3 years and beyond) there would be little advantage, as natural recovery of vegetation and water quality will take place. The analysis reflects the experience of the ongoing Kutubu Petroleum Development Project, which has been one of rapid natural revegetation of sidecast spoil and recovery of water quality in watercourses affected by earthworks. The decision to follow standard PNG road construction practices rather than employ the alternative of trucking spoil to dedicated dumps weighed these small and short-term environmental benefits against the environmental, cost, safety, and schedule drawbacks of trucking to dedicated spoil dumps, i.e., (i) a large increase in spoil volumes associated with widening the construction ROW formation in very steep terrain to allow truck traffic to circulate (ii) the hazards of turning, passing, and reversing large trucks on narrow benches in very steep terrain and (iii) a cost increase of about $140 million.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
86. The Project is required to meet the environmental standards and guidelines set by the relevant government authorities. Where these are absent, appropriate and prudent standards and criteria from industry associations and other authorities have been adopted. These include the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Air Quality (air quality) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, formerly Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission for airborne volatile organic compounds. The standards or guidelines for water quality, air quality, and noise are tabulated in Appendix 1, Sections A, B, and C. The Project satisfies the goals for oil and gas development (onshore) in the areas of process best practice for air and water, as detailed in the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (World Bank, 1998). The Project’s compliance with these goals is described is in Appendix 1, Section D. 29
87. The definitions used to classify the spatial and temporal scale of impacts are provided in Appendix 2, Section A. The significance of the impacts has been assessed generally on a scale of “significant,” “moderate,” “minor,” or “not significant.” However, a specific scale of impact significance is used for biodiversity assessment (Appendix 2, Section B).
A. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Onshore)
1. Preconstruction Activities 88. Preconstruction activities undertaken to date have included seismic surveys, exploration and evaluation drilling, topographic and hydrographic surveys, geotechnical and other engineering site investigations, and environmental and socioeconomic investigations. The impacts of these activities have been limited, localized, and also transient.
2. Early Works 89. The Project’s required early works will involve (i) constructing a receiving warehouse, camps, and laydown area, and telecommunication towers, and main fuel depot at the Kopi support base; (ii) upgrading the wharf facilities at Kopi; (iii) repairing the existing road from Kopi to the Mubi River (iv) building several bridges along the proposed or existing ROW and (v) starting earthworks on other road sections north of the Mubi River. The environmental impacts will be mitigated first by minimizing the new area required for the facility, and second by designing the modified and new wharfs at Kopi to (i) parallel the existing frontage of the Kikori River, and (ii) to take into account of channel hydraulics and other hydrodynamic characteristics of the Lower Kikori River that may affect the long-term stability of the river frontage. The impacts of the overall early works activities have been assessed as limited, localized, and transient.
3. Construction and Operations 90. The Project’s construction and operations impacts have been assessed together. The main environmental impacts related to construction reflect the clearing of vegetation (habitat loss and biodiversity impacts) and the sidecasting of spoil (habitat loss, biodiversity impacts, and sediment impact on watercourses). Clearing of vegetation will have a localized direct impact (as the area affected is relatively limited and linear). Sidecasting of ROW spoil, on the other hand, will have a conspicuous and major immediate local impact, followed by natural revegetation and watercourse recovery.
a. Effects on Watercourses 91. The Project will temporarily increase the amount of sediment entering the project area’s surface water system during construction, with concomitant effects on hydrology and aquatic habitats. Bulk earthworks in sections of the pipeline ROW/access way alignments that cross swamp and flat karst terrains will displace and disturb limited quantities of soil, resulting in limited erosion and delivery of fine sediment to watercourses. In steeper gradient karst terrain, the generally competent limestone material that is displaced and disturbed by bulk earthworks is predicted to remain at the angle of repose close to the point of sidecasting, with limited erosion and delivery of fine sediment to watercourses. The estimated bulk earthwork and batter gradient from the cut along all sections of the pipeline ROW (330 km) is about 7.78 million m3 with an average of 0.02 million m3/km. In the mountainous areas of Idauwi to Homa (54 km), the bulk earthwork is estimated at 0.05 million m3/km. Mitigation measures to prevent impacts to watercourses and at watercourse crossings include: (i) developing specific plans for watercourse construction sites that address watercourse diversions, disturbance limits, equipment limitations, and erosion control measures (ii) limiting the clearing of riparian vegetation to the width required to safely accommodate pipeline ROW/access way crossings (iii) reclaiming construction- disturbed watercourse banks and (iv) locating soil stockpiles away from watercourse banks.
30
Following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, watercourses draining these types of areas are predicted to experience negligible (not significant) residual impacts in the short term or longer. 92. Impacts of bulk earthworks for ROW/access way construction on the hydrology, aquatic habitats, flora, and fauna of the project area are mainly limited to portions of those watercourses draining areas with steep terrain and readily erodible volcanic soils, particularly between Homa and Idauwi (e.g., the 10 km construction section between the Pawgano and Maruba rivers). During the first year of pipeline/access way construction, TSS concentrations in the lower Pawgano River at the local scale (i.e., 2–10 km of river downstream from construction works) are predicted to increase by about 40% at median river flow rates (i.e., from a background value of 40–55 mg/l) and by about 90% at high flow rates (i.e., from a background value of 80–150 mg/l). No increases in TSS are predicted at low flow rates where overland flows and sediment laden runoff from construction sites and sidecast spoil are predicted to be very low to nonexistent. Similar patterns of sediment delivery and water quality impacts are predicted for the lower Maruba River. These increases in TSS are predicted to be minor in the short term (i.e., at the end of the first year) and negligible in the medium (1–5 years) to long (>5 years) term. 93. The rivers and streams along this section of the Homa to Idauwi ROW are subject to periodic landslips and landslides. There is a history of natural increases in in-river/in-stream sedimentation, elevated water turbidities, and high TSS concentrations to which the aquatic habitats and biological communities are intermittently exposed and from which they recover. Rapid recovery of water quality, aquatic habitats, and aquatic biological communities of sediment-impacted rivers or streams is achieved as active and natural revegetation stabilizes sidecast material. As in-river/in-stream sediments are scoured and transported downstream, water quality improves and successful recolonization by fish and macroinvertebrates occurs progressively with the establishment of viable self-reproducing and sustainable populations. 94. The relatively rapid recovery of the mainstream aquatic ecosystems of rivers in PNG temporarily affected by sediment is commonly observed following natural landslide events and gives some confidence to these impact assessments. The principal measures to mitigate impacts to watercourses from sediment delivery resulting from sidecast spoil in areas of steep terrain and highly erodible volcanic soils include: (i) the implementation of appropriate site-specific erosion and drainage control measures (where required, sediment traps or other sediment control structures will be installed to intercept sediment-laden surface runoff) (ii) active revegetation with indigenous species in areas that display problematic erosion or poor natural regrowth and (iii) post-construction inspection and monitoring of rehabilitated and revegetated areas and the implementation of remedial works as appropriate. No significant residual impacts on the aquatic habitats, flora and fauna, and water-associated fauna of watercourses or water bodies in the project area are predicted during operations.
b. Effects on Forests and Biodiversity 95. The KICDP area is virtually still covered by forests (Figure 8). There are 13 vegetation groups (forests) that will partially be affected by the Project. The total area of these 13 vegetation groups in the KICDP is estimated at 1,719,600 ha. The Project will clear about 641 ha (0.04%) of the total area covered by 13 vegetation groups, comprising about 387 ha in the greenfield segments and about 254 ha in the brownfield segments. Table 2 shows that the total area of primary forests that will be cleared by the Project is about 293 ha (0.02%) of the total area covered by 13 vegetation groups in the KICDP area. Therefore, the total forest area that will be cleared by the Project is about 0.04% of the total forest in the KICDP area and the area of primary forest that will be cleared is around 0.02%. In addition forest recovery may occur in about 40% of the cleared area. It is predicted that such forest clearing will not affect the forest function in the ecosystem unit. 31
Table 2: Areas of Vegetation/Substrate Lost to the Project by Greenfield and Brownfield Areas Brownfields Greenfields % of Total % of Total Area Area Area Area Vegetation/Substrate Brownfields Greenfields (ha) (km2) (ha) (km2) Condition Type Area Area A. Primary forest 34.17 0.34 7.79 258.53 2.58 61.40 B. Primary but with likely 0.00 0.00 13.32 0.13 3.16 intensive local use C. Late secondary or 89.09 0.89 20.31 26.89 0.27 6.39 heavily disturbed primary D. Logged forest 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.04 0.85 E. Pioneer/early 108.59 1.08 24.75 10.55 0.10 2.51 secondary F. Gardens secondary 4.12 0.04 0.94 53.63 0.54 12.74 Complexes G. Road edge 17.65 0.18 4.02 20.15 0.20 4.78 H. Road surface 140.85 1.41 32.11 33.17 0.33 7.88 I. Oil ROW surface 35.24 0.35 8.03 0.47 0.01 0.11 J. Existing clear flow line 3.46 0.03 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 and forest edge K. River 0.29 0.01 0.07 0.78 0.01 0.18 L. Facility 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 M. Open 4.97 0.05 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 438.68 4.39 100.00 421.09 4.21 100.0 ha = hectare, km2 = square kilometer, ROW = right-of-way. Source: Memorandum on old-growth forest losses in the PNG Gas Project. Esso Highlands Limited. 5 April 2006.
96. Most of the area along the existing crude oil export pipeline easement (with the exception of the area kept clear over the pipeline proper) is regenerating well naturally. Soil- dominated surfaces (the dominant substrate through gentle terrain) and limestone cuttings have regenerated readily. However, limestone pavement, rubble, and larger sidecast material have not naturally regenerated very well to date. Mitigation measures will include active revegetation using indigenous species in such areas associated with the Project. Since the Project’s access ways (pipeline ROW) between Kopi and Idauwi will ultimately be public roads; therefore, regeneration will only be permitted over that part of the clearing not required for road pavement or drainage. In those areas, regeneration will be allowed so as to leave a 7 m cleared path within the ROW for pipeline monitoring, maintenance, and emergency response. It is estimated that forest recovery of up to 40% of the cleared area may occur within the lifetime of the Project.
97. Over the operational life of the Project, only indirect impacts are predicted to have the potential to produce long-term and widespread biodiversity impacts of a high level: fire, dieback, invasive weeds and exotic pest fauna, flora collection and hunting by non-project personnel, and commercial forestry. For the most part, the risk of such impacts was already present because of existing oil and gas developments. However, isolation and difficult access have been critical factors in reducing the risk of these indirect impacts and maintaining the habitat integrity and biodiversity of the Kikori basin. The completion of access ways as public roads from Idauwi to Kopi may facilitate indirect impacts and result in increased pressure on the forest and its biodiversity. Weed, pathogen, and fire management plans that will be implemented prior to construction will remain functional over the life of the Project. The Project’s environmental sensitivity training for the workforce (including contractors)—which will prohibit hunting, gathering of bush foods, and possession of wildlife products—will also assist in mitigating potential indirect impacts.
98. Nevertheless, the Kikori basin benefits from considerable natural protection by virtue of its infertile and inhospitable karst terrain, and the prevalence of malaria, as well as unique
32 customary land ownership that includes resistance to squatting, and also discourages encroachment. Widespread deforestation in the region is thus unlikely. Nonetheless, as global experiences indicate that building access roads through primary forest is frequently followed by encroachment and deforestation. Therefore, a supplementary EIA study to assess in more detail the likely indirect impacts on forest and the biodiversity and to recommend practical mitigation measures is being carried out by the Government and ADB.
c. Impacts in Noteworthy Areas
99. Hides Ridge. Some 90 ha of this noteworthy area will be disturbed for the spineline ROW, the width of which has been decreased from the usual 21 m to 12 m in order to minimize earthworks in steep terrain. Most of the disturbed area will be allowed to regrow, with a 7 m access way remaining to allow vehicle access for the life of the Project. Active revegetation using indigenous species has been proposed because of slow growth rates and slow regeneration in high altitude areas. The Project’s mitigation measures in this little- disturbed and sensitive area will be focused on (i) reducing construction footprints and damage to the forest edge, (ii) undertaking prudent procedures for materials handling and disposal, (iii) strictly controlling the workforce, and (iv) implementing appropriate quarantine procedures for equipment and vehicles. These measures are intended to result in the overall direct residual impacts of construction being low to moderate, and limited, or very limited in extent. Indirect impacts are the more significant issue in this area, and mitigation measures will be focused on controlling public access to the Hides Ridge road, which will be privately held by the Project (with local landowner cooperation).
100. Sinkhole Swamps. Potential construction-related impacts on shallow sinkhole swamps (less than 50 m vertical depth) are predicted to be highest in the Hides Ridge area. It is estimated that 3–5.6 ha of the Hides Ridge sinkhole habitat, which extends for a total area of about 133 ha, will be affected by infilling from sidecast spoil (although not all affected sinkholes contain swamps). Extensive sinkhole terrain occurs at similar elevations on the Karius Range to the south and in the ranges to the northwest. Although only a small area of sinkhole swamp will be affected, the Project will implement precautionary measures in spoil sidecasting to minimize impacts on these areas, and will undertake surveys for cave-roosting bats before any side casting of spoils into deep sinkholes. Overall, the residual impact of project-related activities on sinkhole swamps is predicted to be low to moderate, limited in extent, and medium- to long-term in duration.
101. Caves. The Kikori basin area features a diversity of bat species, many of which inhabit caves. Some caves constitute unique habitats for bat colonies, so disturbance on these habitats may have significant impact on the colony. Preconstruction cave surveys, in particular for cave-dwelling Bulmer fruit bats will be implemented to determine whether significant bat-supporting caves occur near proposed construction works areas, and if these are found, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented according to the proximity of each cave and the susceptibility to disturbance of its resident bats. These mitigation measures, particularly minimizing noise and vibration, are predicted to reduce potential residual impacts on cave-dwelling bats to negligible or low levels, and residual direct disturbance impacts are predicted to be very limited in extent and short-term in duration.
102. Swamp Forests. Limited amounts of swamp woodland and forest complex vegetation will be cleared (up to 66 ha) in the Kopi to Omati segment of the sales gas pipeline ROW, and the direct impact of this clearing is predicted to be initially high, limited in extent, and of moderate duration. A number of mitigation measures address these impacts. The nominal ROW width is limited to 21 m, and the standard measures for pest and weed control and worker environmental sensitivity training will be implemented. The construction ROW in this section of the route will be allowed to naturally revegetate. An access way will not be maintained during operations. Routine inspections during operations will be 33 conducted by helicopter. Residual impacts on the hydrology of swamp forests after the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures are predicted to be low.
103. Watercourse Crossings. On the lowland rivers in the project area, where there are stream banks and riparian vegetation, trenching for pipeline construction at watercourse crossings will have little impact on riverine fauna, such as torrent frogs, which are adapted to a shifting substrate. The implementation of appropriate mitigation measures at watercourse crossings is predicted to reduce residual impacts to negligible or low levels, and they will be of limited extent and short duration.
d. Impacts on High Biodiversity Zones
104. Table 3 gives the potential areas of disturbance from clearing by the Project in the six high biodiversity zones. An estimated 189 ha will be disturbed by clearing—largely for construction of the ROW and access ways—which represents approximately 0.02% of the total land area of 792,006 ha covered by all the high biodiversity zones. Much of this clearing (about 80%) will be located in four of the zones containing facilities related to current oil production at Kutubu, i.e., Agogo and Iwa Ranges, Lake Kutubu WMA, Kantobo/Wassi Falls and Gobe karst ridge system, and Utiti Creek area.
Table 3: Potential Impacts on High Biodiversity Zones Project Footprint Area of Zone % of Zone covered by Area within Zone (ha) Project Footprint (%) Zone (ha) A. Mount Sisa 50,042 0 0.00 B. Mount Bosavi 101,776 0 0.00 C. Agogo and Iwa Ranges 32,758 64 0.20 D. Lake Kutubu and WMA 35,897 39 0.11 E. Blind cave-dwelling fish habitat 17,588 0 0.00 F. Kantobo/Wassi Falls and Gobe karst ridge system 32,463 10 0.03 G. Darai Plateau and associated limestone karst country 255,910 0 0.00 H. Upper Seribi River and Lubu River 60,271 0 0.00 I. Utiti Creek area 17,502 35 0.20 J. Veiru Creek catchment and lower swamp forest 20,909 38 0.18 K. Lower Kikori River delta mangrove and swamp forest 166,890 3 0.002 Subtotal (Brownfield) 148 0.02 Subtotal (Greenfield) 41 0.002 Total 792,006 189 0.02 ha = hectare, WMA = wildlife management area. Notes: (i) 21 meter corridor was used (worst case scenario) - 10.5 meter buffer. (ii) Bold text denotes the area of the WWF High Biodiversity Zone where the right-of-way/access ways use existing brownfield areas (brownfield is where the new pipelines and/or newly constructed access ways and newly constructed facilities run immediately alongside or within an existing oil pipeline, and/or road, and/or track and/or facility). Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited.
105. Access approval in accordance with the government regulations will be obtained for any section of the ROW passing through protected areas, including the Lake Kutubu WMA. Mitigation measures proposed by the Project that will contribute to limiting impacts on the high biodiversity zones include: (i) prohibition on disturbance/harassment of wildlife, hunting of fauna, gathering of plants or bush foods, and possession of wildlife products by project workers during working hours and while living in project-provided accommodations (ii) prohibition on establishment of gardens and introduction of exotic invasive plants species or live exotic animals by project workers (iii) establishment and implementation of weed and
34 pathogen management and fire management plans prior to early works or construction activities (iv) active revegetation using indigenous species in specific areas (i.e., Hides Ridge; areas of steep, unstable volcanic soils; and Lake Kutubu catchment) (v) allowing natural revegetation, except for trees, on sections of completed pipeline ROWs that are not required for access ways (vi) performing post-construction inspections for erosion and sediment control works along the upgraded road/pipeline ROW within the catchment of Lake Kutubu, and implementing remedial works as appropriate (including reviewing feedback from water quality monitoring for advance warning of deteriorated water quality because of increased suspended sediment loading and (vii) providing educational program and environmental sensitivity training to the contractors and their staff.
106. The ongoing Kutubu Petroleum Development Project has provided support to WWF activities in the KICDP since 1995. The Project proposes to supplement this ongoing support to WWF, the terms of which are being discussed with WWF. The support to WWF will be targeted at various programs as follows: protected area management program; monitoring of the impacts on indicator species and invasive species management plans; environmental awareness and communication in local communities; eco-enterprises; and protected/ endangered species management plans. Project financial support to WWF to undertake these activities will be approximately US$100,000/year from 2007 to 2009.
e. Impacts on Listed Species or Species New to Science
107. The only listed fauna species of concern in relation to direct project-related impacts is an as-yet unknown colony of the cave-dwelling Bulmer’s fruit bat in the Hides Ridge area. Such a colony would be only the second to have been found, and its loss would be a very significant impact. Preconstruction cave surveys for this species are intended specifically to prevent this unlikely but still possible situation. The Project will implement a range of mitigation measures to limit impacts on species of conservation significance. Specifically for bats, the Project will implement appropriate protection measures including: (i) pre- construction surveys in areas likely to be inhabited by bats, especially areas where blasting will occur (ii) avoidance of blasting or use of controlled blasting procedures, where practical, within 100 m of known bat inhabited caves (iii) survey of potential quarry sites to ensure that they are not located on or near caves with bat colonies (iv) avoidance of excavating or quarrying pinnacles with bat colonies and (v) implementing special actions if Bulmer's fruit bat is discovered.
f. Effects on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
108. Limited quantities of emissions will be generated during the construction phase transiently over a several hundred kilometer-long work area. Particulate matter (i.e. dust) is the emission of most relevance during construction and will be controlled by conventional methods including: (i) restriction of vehicle speed limits on unsealed roads and pipeline ROWs/access ways, (ii) limits on the extent of vegetation clearing and the time period that surfaces are exposed prior to rehabilitation, and (iii) use of water carts to suppress dust where and when required.
109. Typical chemical composition of Hides wet gas is summarized in Table 4. Total sulfur and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are present only as trace components; consequently, emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from facilities during operations will be nonexistent to negligible. Due to the very low sulfur content of the fuels and the very low particulate matter and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions associated with burning natural gas as fuel, the only emissions that required a detailed assessment were NO2 and particulates that are less than 10 micron in diameter (PM10) during the operations phase. These were assessed using dispersion models to predict ground-level concentrations of emissions, which were then compared with the proposed project air quality targets. Table 5 shows that the Project’s air quality targets will be met without the implementation of special management or mitigation measures. 35
110. The Kutubu CGCP will contain a mercury extraction unit. Mercury extraction filters will be managed by a specialist contractor responsible for replacement and appropriate recycling and disposal of removed spent filters about every 5 years.
111. Peak annual construction phase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will occur in 2008, i.e., 92 kiloton (kt) carbon dioxide (CO2-equivalent). Peak annual operations phase greenhouse gas GHG emissions of 489 kt (CO2-equivalent) will begin in 2013 and are expected to remain at this level through 2029. In Australia, the displacement of coal and fuel oil by PNG gas will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 million tons per year (with a net reduction, after taking into account the gas production-related emissions, of about two-thirds of this amount).
Table 4: Typical Chemical Composition of Hides Wet Gas Main Components Mole (%) Main Components Mole (%)
H2O 0.11 C6_1* 0.32 Nitrogen 0.91 C7_1* 0.34 CO2 0.41 C8_1* 0.15 Methane 88.13 C9_1* 0.08 Ethane 6.29 C10_1* 0.03 Propane 1.91 C11_1* 0.01 i-Butane 0.42 C13_1* 0.00 n-Butane 0.48 C20_1* 0.00 i-Pentane 0.24 C32_1* 0.00 n-Pentane 0.16 EGlycol/TEGlycol 0.01/0.00 Trace Components Total Sulfur 0.22 mg/Sm3
H2S 0.19 mg/Sm3 Hg 0.12 Microg/Sm3 Source: Esso Highlands Limited
36
Table 5: Predicted Project Emissions compared to Proposed Air Quality Targets Assessment Project Target Predicted Substance Source Criteria (µg/m3) Emissions a Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 350 WHO (2000) Negligible 24-hour 100-150 WHO (2000) Negligible 1-year 40-60 WHO (2000) Negligible Carbon monoxide 15-minute 100,000 WHO (1987) Negligibleb (CO) 30-minute 60,000 WHO (1987) Negligible 1-hour average 30,000 WHO (1987) Negligible 8-hour average 10,000 WHO (1987) Negligible Nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 400 WHO (1987) 200 (NO2) 24-hour 150 WHO (1987) Hydrogen sulfide 1-year <5,000 at World Bank Negligiblea c (H2S) boundary (1998) d e f PM10 24-hour 125 WHO (1987) 45; 20–m30; 1-year 50 WHO (1987) 0.1;e <0.1;f,g
a Emissions of SO2 can also be seen to comply by examining the estimated emission rates for SO2 and noting that they are 500 times less than emissions of NO2 for any given item of plant, while the compliance standard is similar to that of NO2. b Compliance of CO emissions with the relevant assessment can be determined by noting that the emissions of CO are in every case much less than emissions of nitrogen oxides 3 (NOx) and the assessment criterion for 1-hour CO concentrations is 30,000 µg/m 3 compared with the 1-hour average assessment criterion for NO2 which is 400 µg/m . c Corresponds to no offensive odor at plant/facility boundary. d Health indicator for respirable dust capable of being inhaled into the lungs. e Predicted level at closest receptor (1km) to Hides Production Facility during construction works. f Predicted level at closest receptor (1km) to Kutubu CGCP during construction works. g During pipeline/access way construction, 24-hour PM10 standard is unlikely to be exceeded by residences 400 m or more from the construction area. The annual PM10 goal is not particularly relevant because of the transient nature of the construction works. Source: Esso Highlands Limited
g. Effects of Noise 112. The modeling of noise emissions considered a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week schedule for project construction and operations activities. On that basis, modeling predicts that there will be periods during pipeline ROW/access way construction when the Project’s noise objectives will not be met at up to 50 dwellings for up to 12 weeks. The ambient noise environment measured at Hides, which is considered typical of the project area, is about 39– 44 decibel (dB[A]), with the highest levels recorded in the evening. Project construction noise targets are 60 dB(A) for daytime receptor exposure (for less than 4 weeks) and 50 dB(A) (4– 26 weeks); 48 dB(A) for evening; and 47 dB(A) for night. The majority of sensitive human receptors (around 30 dwellings—an estimated at the time of the EIA study) are located within 500 m of the proposed project construction activities and are predicted to experience temporary noise impacts during construction works over 60 dB(A) during the daytime, evening, and night; receptors 500 m to 1,600 m are predicted to experience noise impacts greater than 48 dB(A) in the evening and 47 dB(A) at night. 113. Construction activities will incorporate mitigation measures and appropriate techniques for the control of noise to limit impacts on receptors in the vicinity of noise sources as follows: (i) siting of “fixed” pieces of equipment, such as generators, in locations removed from settlements (ii) fitting of pneumatic tools operated near settlements with an effective air exhaust port (iii) affixing noise labels to all mobile air compressors (the unit with the lowest noise rating that meets the requirements of the job will be used where work is conducted in a noise-sensitive location) (iv) maintaining noise suppression devices on construction vehicles and equipment (v) notifying landowners of intended work and duration 37 where noise from construction activities may impact and (vi) considering construction works schedules to mitigate noise emission impacts during the evening and at night. 114. Monitoring of noise emissions will be undertaken where project construction activities take place in the vicinity of villages and dwellings. No project-related noise nuisance is anticipated during the operations phase. B. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Offshore) 115. The offshore pipeline route will avoid coral reefs, cays, and islands. The main environmental effects associated with marine pipelines are disturbances to the benthic habitat during construction and laying of the pipeline (pipelaying) and the obstruction created when the pipe lies on, rather than under, the seabed during operations. Anchored laybarges10 drag their anchor chains across the seabed during pipelaying. This type of disturbance will be of little significance in the muddy sediments of the Gulf of Papua. However, the anchor chains will abrade the sparse and intermittent cover of epibenthos11 and seagrass in Torres Strait. The percentage of affected area covered by these epibenthos communities is predicted to be less than 0.1% (Table 6), and full recovery of the disturbed seabed is anticipated. Table 6: Areas of Seabed Habitat Disturbed Seabed Anchor Distance Total Area Scarring and Seabed Trench Total Area Seabed Crossed by of Feature Anchor Chain Excavationb Disturbed Habitat Type Pipeline 2 (km ) Abrasiona (km) (km2) (%) (km2) (%) (km2) (%) Gulf of Papua 170 36,000 1.70 0.005 8.50 0.024 10.20 0.028 sedimentsc Torres Strait epibenthosd Dense 0 3,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sparse 4,040 0.20 0.005 1.00 0.025 1.20 0.030 Very sparse 65 7,200 0.65 0.009 3.25 0.045 3.90 0.054 Absent 119 4,450 1.19 0.027 5.95 0.134 7.14 0.160 Torres Strait 76 8,710d 0.76 0.009 3.80 0.044 4.56 0.052 seagrass ha = hectare, km = kilometer, km2 = square kilometer. a At 1 ha/km. b At 5 ha/km. c Gulf of Papua to 60 meter depth. d The area of Torres Strait for which mapped information exists Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited. 116. Once laid and commissioned, the offshore pipeline will become a passive feature of the seabed. The pipeline is expected to self-bury for most of its length in the soft sediments of the Gulf of Papua, thereby reducing the likelihood of snagging by fishing gear used by prawn trawlers in the region. No exclusion zone around the laid offshore sales gas pipeline will be established, and damage to fishing gear and loss of catch will be compensated under predetermined reporting and evidentiary protocols, as is the normal practice.
117. The risk of impact to marine mammals from collisions with vessels will be mitigated by (i) the slow speeds of pipelaying vessels; and (ii) the implementation of a marine mammal observation procedure, which will document all observations of and encounters with marine mammals. Where a whale or dugong is observed within close proximity (e.g., 500 m) of the pipelaying vessel, activities will be slowed to the extent practical until the animals have moved further away. There are no areas of recognized aggregation, breeding, or resting activity for any endangered species of whales traversed by the offshore sales gas pipeline.
10 Vessel specially equipped to lay submarine pipelines. 11 Organisms that live on the ocean’s bottom.
38
The installed pipeline presents no obstacle to the annual rock lobster migration from Torres Strait across the Gulf of Papua.
C. Waste Management
118. The Project and its contractors will comply with applicable PNG legislative requirements related to the management of wastes, and appropriate industry waste management standards and practices will be implemented in the absence of such requirements. Waste management plans will be incorporated into the construction and operations modules of the EMP.
119. Most wastes produced by the oil operations—after neutralization, volume reduction by incineration, or other means—are disposed of using company-managed, controlled landfills located close to the oil processing facilities. There are four waste treatment and disposal sites (waste management areas) at Hides, Kutubu, Gobe, and Kopi. They follow DEC requirements. Major wastes generated include trash, sewage residue, and scrap metal. The largest controlled landfill site is close to the Kutubu Central Production Facility, where the newest cell has a capacity of 500,000 m3. At this site, the planned landfill capacity is adequate for future expansion including the Project’s waste disposal requirements from areas surrounding Kutubu. There are very limited opportunities for waste recycling and reuse in the project area. The landfills are controlled by permits issued by DEC.
120. There may be a need to develop new landfills in the Hides area near the Hides Production Facility in and the Gobe area for the disposal of ash, and other inert non- hazardous waste streams, including scrap metal. Ash resulting from incineration will undergo regular testing and landfills receiving ash will be lined and monitored for potential leachates and ash resulting from incineration will undergo regular testing. Additional incinerator capacity may need to be added to reduce waste volumes and the use of incinerators to reduce waste volumes is a key factor in waste management for the Project. Incinerators will include a combination of domestic-scale incinerators at temporary construction camps with a capacity of 4–8 m3/day and high-temperature industrial incinerators with a capacity of up to 20 m3/day. All incinerators will meet the following general requirements: state of the art technology; off gas treatment to meet emission standards as required; feeding systems capable of handling liquids and solids. It will also be designed to meet the environmental standard as outlined in PPAH. The preparation of waste management plans for the construction and operations phases of the Project will review and define the types, sizes, locations, and specifications for any new waste management facilities. All developments will comply with government environmental requirements. The proposed project facilities at Hides and Kutubu will follow wastewater design and operating practices similar to those at the existing Kutubu Central Production Facility.
121. The Kutubu Central Production Facility has a containment system that collects oil drips from processing equipment. Oily water is drained into a central oil/water separation facility; from there, the oil is recycled into the oil stream and the separated water is reinjected with produced formation water. There is a clean water pond system which collects non-oily rainwater runoff from the site. Any oil collected in this process is also returned to the oil stream. The clean rainwater is discharged in accordance with DEC permit requirements.
122. Cuttings from drilling the Hides wells will be disposed of off the wellpads by reinjection or burial in accordance with government requirements and industry practice. Low toxicity water-based drilling fluids used in the Hides drilling programs will be recycled in the drilling process and disposed in accordance with discharge-specific government permit requirements and standard industry practice. Monitoring for presence of foam drilling fluids in emergent watercourses and surface waters will be undertaken, and monitoring for impacts on fish and macro-invertebrate will be assessed as necessary. 39
123. Each onshore pipeline section will be tested hydrostatically using water typically sourced from local waterways. The water will be treated as needed with small quantities of low toxicity oxygen scavengers12 and biocides. Test water will be reused in each successive section where it is practicable to do so and will be disposed of in accordance with discharge- specific government permit requirements. Where a biocide is used, the test water will be treated to neutralize the biocide prior to discharge. The Kutubu CGCP to Kopi pipeline section, the largest volume segment, will require 60 million liters of hydrotest water. The other gas pipeline segments have the following volumes: Hides-1 to HPF – 5.9 million liters, HPF to CPF – 27.1 million liters, Kopi scraper station to Omati landfall – 12.5 million liters. Disposal will be in accordance with DEC permits.
124. Wastewater discharges from processing plants and permanent camps have been assessed to have a negligible impact on receiving rivers. Planned direct discharges into watercourses or rivers include treated sewage effluent and storm water. There are no direct discharges into Lake Kutubu. In most cases, the Project will use existing discharge points. It is predicted that there will be no residual water quality impacts from treated production facility site runoff or treated sewage effluents, since the discharges will be treated to comply with effluent quality standards included in the waste discharge permits that are based on the Government Prescribed Water Quality Guidelines (Appendix 1 A ‘Water Quality’). Therefore, no residual impacts on aquatic ecology at the site are anticipated during operations.
D. Social Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (Onshore and Offshore)
125. For the purposes of social impact assessment discussion, presentation, and collation of survey findings, the project area census units are generally grouped into five regional project catchment areas: Hides, Moran, Kutubu, Gobe, and Kikori.
1. Economic Impact
126. Net cash flow to governments and landowners due to the Project is projected to be at least $3.2 billion over the nominal project life. Allocations of royalty and equity benefits under the Oil and Gas Act, 1998—to project area landowners, local-level governments, and provincial governments—are to be agreed to by these parties and the Government, and documented in the GPCSA.
2. Local Business Development
127. A new single-purpose landowner company (NECL) is being developed to provide construction-related and other services to the Project—in particular, those that are outside the scope of existing landowner companies’ skills or operations. The project operator will seek to contract labor for construction and services with or through NECL and in conjunction with existing project area landowner companies. This approach will be adopted to fulfill the objectives and obligations under the GPCSA and the Oil and Gas Act, 1998, aimed at maximizing the use of local labor and materials. The project operator will also meet certain establishment costs of NECL.
3. Land Use and Damages
128. PNG legislation provides for compensation to be paid to landowners and land occupiers for (i) the deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the surface of the land; (ii) damage to the surface of the land or to trees, fish, or animals (iii) ROWs over the land; and (iv) any other damages that are a consequence of the use of land under a license.
12 These remove dissolved oxygen from the water used for the hydrostatic testing (hydrotest) to reduce corrosion potential.
40
129. A guideline, consistent with these legislative requirements, is in place to provide fair and transparent compensation for land use changes and demonstrable project-associated damages. Compensation is expected to be required for the use of 3 ha of undeveloped land for the Hides Production Facility and the granting of an easement for ROWs of new construction access ways. The Project will exercise care to avoid damage to areas outside of the facility sites and pipeline ROW perimeters. No identified permanent impacts on the TSPZ are predicted other than some very restricted and temporary interference with sea- based subsistence fishing activities during the pipelaying construction period.
4. Infrastructure
130. A portion of the government’s project-generated revenue is expected to be used to fund the construction of public roads and other infrastructure investments in the project area. Development of transportation infrastructure ranks as the second most frequently cited topic (behind education) among surveyed residents in the project area. The Project entails the construction of public roads and road improvements in the project area from Kopi to Idauwi, as contemplated by the GPCSA; over 75 km of new public roads will be built, and almost 229 km of existing roads will be improved. These roads will have limited and controlled public access during construction and they will be opened for full public access upon initiation of gas sales. The actual date for full public access will be coordinated with the Government.
131. Training will be provided to project and contractor personnel about how to manage heightened security and health risks associated with the extended public road system. Project security personnel will work cooperatively with area police officials. 5. Cultural Heritage
132. Measures to manage impacts on and conserve the cultural heritage of the project area that will be adopted by the Project include (i) avoidance of known cultural heritage sites of high significance to the extent practicable in the detailed project planning design phase (ii) salvage and recording of sites in the project footprint prior to ground disturbance by early works and construction activities (iii) monitoring by archaeologists of ground disturbance activities during early works and construction activities, and implementation of tactical mitigation measures based on preset protocols when materials are uncovered (iv) workshops with the project operator’s and contractors’ workers (including landowner companies’ personnel) to explain cultural sensitivities and issues in the project area and (v) preparation of an archaeology management plan. The archaeology management plan will guide the Project regarding management of potential archaeological artifacts findings during construction in the project area. It will be prepared in liaison with archaeologists from the PNG National Museum and will be available as part of Module 1 of the EMP. Additionally the Project will provide partial funding or in-kind support through a Community Area Planning program or contributions to formal initiatives undertaken by the National Museum to develop a cultural heritage management plan, cultural foundation, or cultural centers in the project impact area during the construction period.
6. Social Impacts and Initiatives
133. Health. Incoming workers from outside the area may facilitate the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in project-supported programs and initiatives in the project area during the construction period to address priority health issues (e.g., malaria, HIV/AIDS, and medical or paramedical training) to enhance and sustain existing health delivery services by public agencies in the long term.
134. Education. During the construction period, the Project will support programs and initiatives in the project area during the construction period to address vocational and community-skills educational needs, improved access to the College of Distance Education, 41 additional scholarship programs, and educational issues (e.g., enrolment, teacher training, field support, and gender equity) to enhance and sustain existing educational services and needed vocational education training by public agencies in the long term. 135. Female Empowerment. During the construction period, the Project will support programs and initiatives in the project area that provide educational and training opportunities for women and girls, including health and vocational education targeted toward women, scholarships for local female managers of community organizations, and support for women’s and girls’ projects in the project area. 136. Community Representative Organizations. Community representative organizations are a source of local dissatisfaction, which in turn creates difficulties for government and operating resource companies. The Government has processes in place to negotiate solutions to issues raised by community representative organizations. 137. Resettlement. Survey is ongoing to determine the total number of households to be relocated. Total head count will be confirmed in June 2006. A full resettlement plan that will also incorporate processes for the compensation payable for land occupied by the Project facilities is currently being prepared. 138. Indigenous Peoples. Under the Oil and Gas Act, landowners are entitled to a specified share of equity and royalty benefits from the Project. The Oil and Gas Act establishes the relevant procedures in relation to benefit sharing. To further address issues, of indigenous peoples, an indigenous peoples development plan is under preparation.
E. Cumulative Impacts 139. Of the range of existing and possible future activities arising from the Project, those with the greatest potential for cumulative environmental impacts are commercial forestry, enhanced population mobility, and hunting of fauna and collection of flora. Agriculture development is constrained by various factors; and other forms of development (such as fisheries, tourism, and mining) seem unlikely to be extensive in scope. 140. Commercial Forestry. There are eight forest management areas (FMAs) located partially or wholly within the KICDP area (Figure 11). The presence of an improved road system completed by the Project enhances possible access to the existing and proposed FMAs. For the “Turama Block 1,” “Kikori Block 2” and “East Kikori” FMAs, all of which are in production, the new road is not expected to provide benefits over and above the existing company’s road and river transport infrastructure already in place. The “Pi Tukere” and “Bosavi” FMAs13 are undeveloped and remote from the new road. The two proposed FMAs, “Nogoli” and “Kutubu-Poroma,” are both in highly constrained karst terrain, within which a logging road network would be expensive to establish. The new road, however, will pass close to both FMAs, which may facilitate transport of logs and other forest products. 141. For the Hekiko FMA, the section of road that might facilitate the trucking of logs on the eastern side of the Hegigio River already exists and is accessible to light vehicles up to the Gobe turnoff, beyond which point it is closed. It is possible that the improved public road system associated with the Project could potentially lead to expanded or accelerated timber harvesting in this FMA. More likely, however, would be for the future operators of this concession to follow existing log export practices and construct a road to a point on the western bank of the Hegigio River, from which barges would travel down river to ships moored off the Kikori delta.
13 Pi Tukere is a small block to the north of the project area with possible markets in Tari, and Bosavi is situated to the west of the new road, separated by the Kikori River and difficult ridge terrain
42
43
142. The conclusion of the EIA is that new and improved public roads associated with the Project may provide a only a small fraction of benefits to overall forestry operations in the project area. Despite this conclusion, experience elsewhere shows that indirect impacts of building roads through primary forests can have adverse consequences for the forests and their biodiversity. Such experience is particularly important for the Project given that the KICDP (where the Project is located) is part of the largest uninhabited lowland rainforest in PNG, which harbors biodiversity of global significance, with many endemic and endangered species. In addition, high biodiversity zones, ecologically noteworthy areas, a Ramsar site, and nature reserves exist in the area. It is therefore essential to assess the indirect/induced environmental impacts of the roads more thoroughly, and provide recommendations on mitigation measures. An additional study is being undertaken from mid-May to end of July 2006) to assess the indirect/induced impact of the road. The result of the study will be presented in a supplementary EIA that will provide recommendations on (i) actions that should be taken to avoid and/or minimize indirect impacts of the roads on forests and biodiversity in the KICDP area and (ii) practical and credible mitigation measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts of the roads, and prepare the EMP. Recommendations of this study will be provided to the Government (DEC) as additional inputs, and ADB Management for consideration.
143. Enhanced Population Mobility. The scenario for future population movement, settlement, and associated activities in the project area is based on the following factors: (i) enhanced business opportunities will arise from the new/upgraded public road system associated with the Project, such as trade stores, public motor vehicle operations, banking, and cash cropping; (ii) the ability to settle, establish subsistence gardens, and conduct business with travelers will be constrained by the inhospitable and unproductive terrain and soils, malaria, and the resistance of current landowners to squatting (iii) permanent settlement will most likely center on Moro, Kopi, and Kikori and, if the eastern road link is completed, at its junction with the western link at the Samberigi turnoff and (iv) the prospects of settlement will become more attractive as the three existing centers grow. However, there will be limited employment available and it is not expected that the amount of money flowing to project area landowners will be sufficient to support an ever-growing population. This scenario assumes that Highlanders from Tari, Porgera, Chimbu, etc. will find the Tari-Kikori road a more attractive way of transporting goods to Port Moresby than air freight. Future growth will probably concentrate on existing towns. Only sporadic settlement along the improved public road system associated with the Project is expected.
144. Hunting of Fauna and Collection of Flora. The improved public road system associated with the Project will enable poachers to use vehicles to travel further afield to poach wildlife. Close supervision by any related government agency will be difficult because of remoteness of the area. The supplementary EIA will explore mitigation measures to control hunting and poaching of wildlife due to movement and activities on the public roads. The Project will also implement measures (during project operations) to limit impacts on biodiversity by project workers in project managed areas such as implementing policies and prohibitions related to wildlife disturbance and harassment, hunting and vegetation gardening, etc. Involvement of landowners in supervising road sections is one possible approach. Restrictions on carrying guns for hunting will also be considered when preparing the detailed EMP.
145. Agriculture. The agricultural potential of the project area is constrained by unfavorable terrain, soils, and drainage. Most existing small-scale gardens and settlements are located in the volcanic soils on gentle terrain east of Hides and around Komo. Past attempts at large-scale agricultural development have failed. The main future potential lies with high-value crops on small holdings. The upgraded road system will improve access to markets for agricultural produce, especially those previously reliant on the 600-km road link to Lae.
44
F. Associated Impacts
1. EIA Review Process in Australia and ADB Environment Policy and Guidelines
146. The alignment of EIA processes in Australia (Queensland in particular) with ADB’s Environment Policy and its corresponding Environmental Assessment Guidelines14 has been reviewed under four headings: (i) legislative policy, (ii) environmental assessment processes, (iii) contents of the environment assessment document, and (iv) monitoring and evaluation.
147. Legislative Policy. Federal EIA processes have existed in Australia since the introduction of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, 1974. This was later replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. The State of Queensland initiated formal EIA processes with an amendment to the State Development and Public Works Organization Act, 1971, which provides a head of power for environmental coordination and EIA processes. A number of legislative and policy initiatives have been brought forward with respect to EIA: Environmental Protection Act, 1994, which provides the impetus for implementing the EIA process; Integrated Planning Act, 1997; Nature Conservation Act, 1992; Marine Parks Act, 1982; Native Title Act, 1993; Petroleum Act, 1923; Aboriginal Land Act, 1992; Torres Strait Islander Land Act, 1991; Forestry Act, 1959; Fisheries Act, 1994; Coastal Protection and Management Act, 1995; Queensland Heritage Act, 1992; and others. These environmental policy instruments are consistent with ADB’s Environment Policy, which is grounded on ADB's Poverty Reduction Strategy and Long-Term Strategic Framework (2001–2015). ADB’s Environment Policy contains five main elements: (i) promoting environment and natural resource management interventions to reduce poverty, (ii) assisting developing member countries to mainstream environmental considerations in economic growth, (iii) helping maintain global and regional life support systems that underpin future development prospects, (iv) building partnerships to maximize the impact of ADB lending and nonlending activities, and (v) integrating environmental considerations across all ADB operations.
148. Environmental Assessment Processes. The EIA process in Australia typically includes: (i) an application stage, with an initial advice statement or project description that involves consideration of the type of environmental assessment suitable for the proposal, (ii) development of terms of reference, (iii) development and implementation of a consultation plan by the project proponent. (iv) preparation of a draft report and EMP, (v) public review of the draft report and EMP, (vi) draft and/or final assessment report by the Government that contains recommendations for the proposal, and (vii) further development of the EMP. The Australian environmental assessment process is similar to ADB environmental requirements where the environmental assessment process starts as soon as potential projects for ADB financing are identified, followed by environmental categorization, preparing terms of reference for the project preparatory technical assistance, preparation of the environmental assessment report, consultations and public disclosure with environmental assessment reports accessible to interested parties and the general public, and compliance monitoring of project implementation.
149. Contents of the EIA Document. The content of the EIA documentation required by the Australian environmental guidelines has been reviewed, and is found to be generally similar to ADB’s EIA format.15
14 ADB’s Environmental Policy (2002), and Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2003) 15 The EIS document submitted to the EPA for consideration normally has the following contents: (i) introduction, (ii) project assessment and approval process, (iii) project substantiation/alternatives, (iv) environmental planning and investigations, (v) description of the environment/project setting, (vi) project description, (vii) impact assessment and mitigating measures, (viii) environmental management plan, (ix) conclusion and recommendations, and (x) maps and appendices/annexes. 45
150. Monitoring and Evaluation. The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets, monitors, and enforces standards following the provisions set forth in the Environmental Protection Act, 1994. In undertaking monitoring activities, the EPA normally seeks the assistance of other government agencies that have some stake in the development project. These monitoring and evaluation processes are in alignment with ADB processes to ensure that environmental impacts are mitigated to acceptable levels.
2. Australian Gas Pipeline Project
151. The Project covers the facilities and pipeline on the mainland of PNG through the Gulf of Papua to the border with Australia in Torres Strait. A separate but associated project has responsibility for the pipeline from there to landfall at Cape York (about 162 km) and on to customers throughout Queensland, Australia. In Australia, there are three components to the project: (i) the Cape York to Gladstone Pipeline running from the PNG–Australia undersea border through the Torres Strait making landfall at Cable Beach, Cape York to the Central Queensland cities of Gladstone and Townsville (via a short lateral pipeline) (ii) the Ballera Lateral pipeline from the Cape York to Gladstone pipeline near Keelbottom Creek, north of Charters Towers to Ballera in South West Queensland, and on to the Omicron mainline valve on the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline near the Queensland and NSW border and (iii) the Gove Lateral pipeline to be constructed from the Cape York to Gladstone Pipeline near Batavia Downs, north of Weipa to the coast and then under the Gulf of Carpentaria to Gove, with a spur line to Weipa.
152. The Australian project will be developed by APC, which will construct and operate the pipelines. In 1996, the South Pacific Pipeline Company Pty Ltd (SPPL), a subsidiary wholly owned and operated by Chevron Asiatic Limited, initiated investigation of the feasibility of building and operating a gas pipeline from PNG to Australia. In March 1998, SPPL submitted a combined draft environmental impact statement and impact assessment study (draft EIS /IAS) for public and agency consultation in Australia. In June 1998, SPPL submitted the final EIS/IAS supplement, to seek approvals under both Commonwealth and Queensland legislation. In November 1998, the responsible Queensland State and Australian Federal ministers approved the final EIS/IAS with recommendations.
153. The EIS/IAS reports present detailed assessments of environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the Cape York to Gladstone Pipeline. It provided extensive discussions on how the possible environmental impacts could be mitigated. The EMP contained commitments that APC should observe during pre-construction, construction, and operations. ADB’s analysis of the environmental assessment process in Australia has found that the EIS/IAS complies with Queensland and Australian Commonwealth requirements as well as ADB guidelines.
154. APC is currently completing the front end engineering and design (FEED) to establish the physical design, engineering feasibility, costs, and deliverability for all three main components of the pipeline project. In addition, APC is progressively fulfilling the recommendations for environmental approval of the Cape York to Gladstone Mainline, as well as preparing full EIAs under applicable Australian Federal, Queensland State, and Northern Territory legislation for the Ballera and Gove Laterals. Initial route planning for the Ballera and Gove Laterals has included routing criteria of known environmental, social, and cultural heritage constraints to preempt potential land use and resource conflicts in the planning and design process. This process has been further assisted by ground truthing of the proposed route (the use of a ground survey to confirm the findings of an aerial survey) of the proposed route.
155. The Australia pipeline project is scheduled to reach project approval and financial close in the second half of 2006 consistent with the timetable of the Project.
46
3. Indicative Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
156. Offshore. Construction phase impacts will arise from dragging the laybarge anchor system along the seabed and from the excavation and backfilling needed to level the seabed and bury the pipeline. The physical effects of these activities will be direct disturbance of the seabed and offsite sedimentation and turbidity. These impacts are unavoidable but are, however, localized and short-term. Evidence of case studies of anthropogenic impacts on similar marine environments suggests that short-term sediment impacts can be tolerated by the marine communities. The recovery of small areas of seagrasses or epibenthos that will be adversely affected by construction to their pre-existing conditions is expected to be well underway within a year.
157. With regard to impact on resources, it was assessed that fisheries—both traditional (dugong, turtle, barramundi and other subsistence) and commercial (prawn, rock lobster, Spanish mackerel, bêche-de-mer, pearl and trochus)—will not be materially affected by the project. Like most beaches in Queensland, the landfall location at Cable Beach supports minor turtle nesting, but this is not significant locally or regionally. Impacts on mangroves, water quality, recreational fisheries, tourism and recreation, and shorebirds have also been assessed as low.
158. Onshore. Short-term onshore construction impacts reflect mainly vegetation clearing and trenching, new offsite borrow pits, access tracks, construction camps and other infrastructure. In the long term, backfilling the trench, control of erosion and weeds and monitoring and remediation where necessary of rehabilitated areas should bring the residual impact down to that of a narrow, grassed corridor over the buried pipeline. The area within 5 m of the pipeline centerline must remain free of large trees; but over much of the route, regrowth will be allowed at intervals that are less than the natural spacing of woodland and savannah trees. Over time, the initial pipeline construction clearing should become increasingly difficult to see. Water for pipeline integrity pressure testing will contain traces of corrosion-inhibiting reagents (oxygen scavengers) and biocides, which will be discharged onto land for evaporation. The toxicity effect of the chemicals, however, will rapidly degrade in the air and the main anticipated impact will only be color and staining. Effects on land itself and on downstream ecosystems are expected to be minimal.
159. The objective of route design has been to avoid in particular rainforest, vine forest, inland dry rainforest and brigalow and to skirt wetlands at their ephemeral fringes. Woodland is extensive and will be traversed over long distances. The riparian forests will be inevitably crossed at the numerous watercourses but they can be readily rehabilitated. The pipelines traverse regional ecosystems (Mainline only) and vegetation communities (Mainline and Ballera and Gove laterals) that have been classified by the Queensland EPA under the Vegetation Management Act as “of concern.” The significant plant communities have been largely avoided, such that the effect on the conservation of listed flora should be small and insignificant in proportion to the small area of habitat affected relative to adjacent unaffected areas. The Project is also expected to have no significant adverse impact on fauna in general or on rare and endangered species in particular. The Project is unlikely to pose danger to migratory fauna.
160. The Mainline route design has avoided the more significant natural features on Cape York, such as the mangroves, the rainforests of the Lockerbie Scrub, the Bertiehaugh Dry Vine Forests and the Fanning River Caves and Fanning River Limestone Area. Extensive tracts of Cape York Peninsula are identified as “wilderness” areas and were ranked and mapped by Environment Australia in the 1990s. These areas can generally be avoided. The Mainline route avoids all other protected areas (Jardine River, Lakefield, Chillagoe-Mungana 47
Caves, Bowling Green and Dipperu National Parks) and will cross the Mungkan Kandju and Homevale National Parks through existing transit corridors.
161. The project proponent has observed due process in consultation, negotiation, and compensation in securing legal access to the land required by the Project. Consultations have already begun and agreements are being sought to comply with legislative requirements and meet the reasonable expectations of native title holders as to the recognition of impacts on their rights arising from the construction and operation of the project. General principles, including principles of compensation, have also been set out to secure access over lands. The provisions of the Australian Petroleum Act will be applied if compulsory acquisition becomes necessary.
VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
162. The economic analysis undertaken for the Project examines project economic viability from the perspective of both PNG and Australia. The analysis includes assessment of recent studies on gas demand and the role of the Project in least-cost generation expansion planning for each country. The economic costs and benefits associated with the Project cover the construction period (2007–2009) and a 31-year operation period (2009– 2039).
163. The total value of output attributed to the Project, which is the export to Australia as the economic analysis does not include gas consumption in PNG, is estimated to be between $14 and $23 billion (undiscounted constant 2006 US dollars), depending on the various assumptions. There will be a direct financial flow to PNG and many jobs will be created. During the gas pipeline construction phase, as many as 2,500 jobs will be created, while about 2,400 jobs (including contractors) will be maintained to operate oil and gas facilities through the life of the Project.
164. The Project will supply gas consumers in Australia, largely in the electricity power and mineral processing sectors through the pipeline. There are three sources of demand and potential demand creation in Australia: (i) gas consumers who would expand their operations; (ii) gas consumers who would switch from other energy sources to gas; and (iii) gas consumers who would start new projects because of the availability of gas.
165. The gas supplied by the Project to consumers in Australia will enable existing energy users to transfer to clean-burning natural gas in exchange for carbon intensive fuel such as coal. The significant GHGs that are released during the combustion of natural gas are CO2 and NO2. According to a recent ACIL Tasman report (November 2004) on environment, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided would be around 1 million tons CO2 (Mt CO2) equivalent per year for the first 2 years of gas supply. The avoided GHG emissions would peak at 4 Mt CO2 equivalent in 2015, and remain at around 2 Mt CO2 equivalent throughout the remainder of the life of the Project. The report also estimated that overall emissions would be 0.90% higher in 2020 under the “with-project scenario” because of demand creation by new projects, while total GHG emissions would have a 1.05% reduction as a result of the greater proportion of natural gas in the fuel mix.
166. PNG environmental and social planning and impact assessment studies (excluding previous phases of the Project from 1995 to 2003) from 2004 through 2006 will total about $6 million. During the construction period from 2007−2009, the budget for the gas project environment and community affairs departments will be about $7 million per year to ensure that environmental and social impacts are properly addressed.
48
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
167. The EMP framework presented in this section will serve as a basis for the development of detailed EMP modules and detailed environmental monitoring and reporting plans. The proposed mitigation measures presented in the EIA/SEIA are anticipated to be implemented progressively during the Project’s construction and operations phases through a multi-module EMP (Table 7). The five modules of the EMP reflect the Project’s phases. These modules will take into account the proposed mitigation measures presented in the EIA/SEIA, the conditions of approval stipulated by the Government, and the requirements agreed with lending institutions associated with the Project. They are activity-based modules that will direct contractors to more detailed procedures, work instructions, and guidelines which will be developed to manage environmental and socioeconomic aspects of the Project.
Table 7: Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Modules EMP Module Project Element(s) Module 1 PNG Gas Project Early Works EMP Module 2 Well drilling Onshore Construction EMP Wellhead installation Construction of gas facilities: Hides, Kutubu, Agogo, Kopi, Gobe Construction of onshore pipelines and access ways Module 3 Offshore pipeline installation Offshore Construction EMP Construction of the pipeline landfall crossing and installation of the pipeline at the landfall crossing Module 4 PNG Gas Project (gas operations) Operations EMP Module 5 PNG Gas Project (facility-by-facility decommissioning) Closure Plan EMP = environmental management plan, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited.
168. The EMP modules will be prepared by the Project (taking into consideration the EMP framework presented in this SEIA) and will be reviewed by project management, of the co- venturers, and DEC. ADB will provide inputs on the draft EMP through DEC. The project’s EMP will document the actions and responsibilities of the project operator to ensure that the environmental and social mitigation measures as proposed by the Project are implemented and monitored as appropriate. The current timetable for the preparation of the EMP modules is as follows: (i) Modules 1 to 3 – Quarter 2 to Quarter 3, 2006, (ii) Module 4 – 2008, and (iii) Module 5 – at an appropriate time during operations, approximately 1 to 3 years prior to the commencement of decommissioning activities. The EMP modules will cover the following elements: (i) mitigation measures (ii) monitoring and reporting procedures (iii) environmental training (iv) public consultation (v) mechanism and procedures for feedback and adjustment (such as requirements for corrective actions) The EMP modules will also include project institutional arrangements and cost estimates for implementing the mitigation measures to the extent possible, monitoring and reporting, environmental training, and public consultation.
169. The EMP modules will specify management practices and processes required to comply with (i) applicable PNG legislative requirements related to environmental and socioeconomic matters (ii) environmental and socioeconomic requirements included in permits, licenses, approvals, etc., issued to the Project (iii) environmental and socioeconomic commitments appearing in the Project’s EIA (iv) environmental and social 49 requirements of international financing institutions (including ADB) that may provide funding to certain project participants and (v) the project operator’s corporate environmental policies.
A. Environmental Management Framework
170. The environmental management framework that focuses on potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures is summarized in Appendix 3. This EMP framework should be read together with the environmental mitigation measures presented in the main body of the SEIA, since they complement each other. The EMP framework will be further developed into five EMP modules as indicated in Table 7. DEC will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the environmental management plan under each EMP module. In undertaking the tasks, DEC will establish a committee consisting of representatives from key agencies as core members (e.g. Department of Petroleum and Energy, Department of Works, Department of Transport, Department of Lands and Physical Planning). Relevant agencies will be involved in the committee to supervise the implementation of prescribed mitigation measures in their respective sectors as indicated in the environmental management framework. Project-specific institutional arrangements (including detailed responsibilities of proponent, contractors, government authorities, and staffing and training for environmental management), monitoring plan (parameters and frequencies, reporting) will be presented in the EMP modules.
171. Most of the mitigation measures are captured in the design standards; others will be captured in the Project design. Consistent with the Project's contracting strategy of integrating environmental protection and mitigation activities into the contractors’ scope of work, the Project's environmental mitigation objectives will be included in the bid packages upon which contractors are developing their base rates. Therefore, the costs associated with environmental protection and mitigation activities will be included in the contractors’ contract. Implementation of such mitigation measures will be monitored during project implementation.
B. Environmental Monitoring Framework
172. The proposed environmental monitoring framework is summarized in Appendix 4. The DEC will, in accordance with relevant statutes, has responsibility for protection and conservation of the environment, including monitoring the implementation of environmental management plans of development projects. In undertaking the task for this Project, DEC will be assisted by relevant agencies. The key agencies that will be involved in the committee for the monitoring of the Project during implementation are as follows: Department of Petroleum and Energy (DPE), responsible for environmental safeguards and monitoring of mining operations including oil and gas; Department of Works (DOW), responsible for environmental safeguards and monitoring of infrastructure construction such as roads and wharves; Department of Transport, responsible for monitoring of transport related matters under the Project; Department of Lands and Physical Planning, responsible for monitoring of land acquisition and area planning. Relevant agencies (e.g., PNG Forest Authority, National Fisheries Authority, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Gulf Provincial Government, Southern Highlands Provincial Government) will also be involved in the committee
173. The environmental coordinator (a representative from the project proponent) and/or contractors will also be responsible for on-site monitoring of project implementation. Expert assistance (for the independent monitoring) will be recruited in consultation with ADB to assist in review of EMP implementation for selected activities. This expert assistance will be sourced from domestic institutions, such as the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) and University of Technology (Unitech). It has been estimated that the annual cost to the DEC of these activities will be in the order of K850,000 ($283,500), which will come from the statutory budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues.
50
174. Prior to the start of the project construction activities, detailed monitoring programs will be developed for the construction and operations phases of the Project, in consultation with DEC. Monitoring programs for each module will be developed together with the EMP module. They are anticipated to include project management areas such as: (i) water and wastewater, (ii) solid waste, (iii) erosion and sediment control, (iv) rehabilitation, (v) key social effects, and (vi) pipeline integrity. Reporting of monitoring programs will be prepared by each entity and/or agency responsible for undertaking the monitoring activity. The environmental coordinator (a representative of the project proponent who is responsible for on-site monitoring) will report to the project operator on the result of monitoring activity, and highlight issues that may appear in the field. The project operator will determine the need for feedback or specific actions to address these issues. Such specific actions will be carried out in consultation with DEC and the relevant agency (for example, any significant cultural heritage sites found within the pipeline ROW will require consultation with DEC and the National Museum). The project operator will provide quarterly monitoring report to the PNG Gas Office (on behalf of the Government). Relevant agencies will undertake monitoring activity in coordination with DEC. The result of monitoring program undertaken by the monitoring committee will be reported quarterly to the PNG Gas Office (on behalf of the Government), who will compile the monitoring report for the Joint Venture and lenders. Reporting mechanisms and frequency of reporting will be further refined and adjusted during preparation of EMP modules.
175. The environmental management and monitoring frameworks will be further refined when more detailed information becomes available. The monitoring programs will define: (i) monitoring locations, (ii) variables to be measured, (iii) sample collection and field measurement methods, (iv) frequency of monitoring, (v) reporting, and (vi) responsible parties. Mechanisms for reporting the results of monitoring to DEC will be developed and documented in the EMP modules. Internal assessment of EMP implementation by the regulatory authorities and the project operator will also be undertaken. The schedule for government assessments will be determined in consultation with DEC.
C. Institutional Capacity and Arrangements
1. Institutional Capacity
176. DEC will be the key agency in undertaking the supervision of environmental management and monitoring of project implementation. The institutional capacity of DEC has been assessed, particularly its ability to undertake the monitoring tasks. The agency’s capacity to fully carry out its mandate for environmental monitoring and enforcement has been constrained by limited specialized skills in various areas, inadequate numbers of senior officers able to undertake monitoring tasks, information problems, and limited operational funds.
177. DEC has benefited from technical assistance for institutional strengthening from various donor agencies. Most recently, assistance of about AU$6 million ($4.62 million) was provided by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) under the “PNG Department of Environment and Conservation Strengthening Project,” implemented from August 1994 to June 1999. The overall goal of the project was to improve the capability of DEC staff in planning and management of activities and resources, particularly in environment and conservation management and in water resources and catchment management.
51
Specifically, the project objective was to identify and analyze the organizational concerns and issues facing DEC, and to strengthen its institutional capacity.16 It was instrumental in helping DEC develop a Strategic Plan and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Management. DEC has since undergone an institutional restructuring and strengthening. As part of the restructuring, DEC is organized under the following divisions, i.e. Nature Conservation, Environment, Project Co-ordination and Corporate Services. The Environment Division has four sections: EIA, Environmental Protection, Water Resource Management, and Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.
178. An ongoing project on “National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management” funded at $225,000 by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is under implementation (duration: 1 January 2005–31 December 2006).17 The implementing agency is the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and DEC is the national executing agency. The Australian Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) is also participating in the implementation of the project. Considering present DEC capacity in environmental management and monitoring and the increasing tasks under this mandate, ADB is also considering technical assistance for DEC institutional strengthening focusing on monitoring capacity. ADB will further consult with AusAID and UNDP the best and most efficient approaches to achieve the goal of DEC institutional strengthening.
179. The total number of positions available in DEC is 109, including 43 scientists (vacancies for 6 scientists) and 28 technical staff. The annual appropriation budget (under the Development Budget line) for 2005 was K1.7million ($0.59 million) with actual budget received was K1.3 million ($0.45 million); (under the Recurrent Budget line) the appropriation for 2005 was K5.2 million ($1.8 million) with actual budget received K5.1 million ($1.78 million). The appropriation budget for the ongoing fiscal year 2006 is K2.6 million ($0.91 million) under the recurrent budget for the ongoing fiscal year 2006, it is K5.7 million ($1.9 million). While budget appropriations have increased, limited funding is available to support important functions of surveying, compliance monitoring, and other field-based activities that DEC is mandated to perform.
180. DPE is currently implementing the World Bank assisted Gas Development and Utilization Technical Assistance Project. This $ 7.0 million loan (with $ 0.5 million counterpart fund) commenced on 30 September 2000 and is scheduled for completion by 31 March 2006. This 5-year project aims to build government capacity for efficient management of gas sector development through: (i) strengthening of the policy and regulatory framework to promote investment in gas development (ii) formulation and analysis of gas development schemes (iii) promotion of investment opportunities in gas and (iv) enhancing of monitoring and regulatory capacity of the Government to ensure optimal gas sector development.
16 The scope of the project include: (i) Senior management advice and strengthening, (ii) human resource development and training, (iii) strengthening work planning and scheduling capability, (iv) organization structure development, (v) accounting and financial control systems, (vi) strengthening environmental assessment and monitoring capacity, (vii) improving filing and office systems, personnel management and library service, (viii) managing endangered species, (ix) review and updating legislation, (x) environmental awareness raising, and (x) managing the environmental implications of human settlements on marine and coastal areas. 17 The general objective of the project is to identify the priorities and needs for capacity building within PNG to protect the global environment. By the end of project implementation, the project report will outline priority issues, capacity constraints and opportunities for capacity building for each thematic area of climate change, biodiversity, and desertification and land degradation.
52
181. Although DEC and DPE are not equipped with adequate laboratories for analysis of samples, laboratory facilities are available in-country to support programs and policies for environmental management, e.g., Unitech (residues/contaminants in food and environmental component, environmental contaminants/quality indices, water), UPNG, Chemistry Dept (heavy metals, oils, and some pesticides), OTML-Mining/Environmental Lab (analysis of ores and alloys and minerals, fuel, environmental, contaminants/quality indices, water, geochemistry, and biological monitoring), Porgera Joint Venture (analysis of ores and alloys and minerals, fuel, environmental, contaminants/quality indices, water, geochemistry, and biological monitoring), etc.
2. Institutional Arrangements
182. The proposed organizational chart to oversee the Project’s environmental and socioeconomic management systems, processes, and activities—which will be further detailed in the EMP modules—is in Figure 12. Details of the roles/responsibilities associated with the key positions are provided below.
183. The Safety, Health, Environment, and Security (SHES) Manager, based in Brisbane, Australia, will (i) prepare and steward approval and implementation of the EIS and project EMP, and apply for and steward approval of the environmental permits (ii) provide support to project functional groups regarding environmental and socioeconomic management (iii) oversee the activities of the environmental advisor, SHES report coordinator, and other advisors concerned with regulations, safety, operations integrity, management systems, and security (iv) oversee, as an indirect report, the activities/responsibilities of the SHES supervisor based in PNG and (v) coordinate environmental and socioeconomic activities during construction with the onshore subproject manager and offshore subproject manager.
184. The Environmental Advisor, based in Brisbane and reporting to the SHES manager, will (i) assist the SHES manager with development and implementation of the project’s EMP (ii) provide environmental and socioeconomic input to contractor bid packages, respond to queries from contract bidders with regard to requirements for environmental and socioeconomic management, and update contractors with additional environmental and socioeconomic requirements that may arise because of conditions in the project’s environmental permits, other related project licenses/permits/approvals, international financial institution loan agreements, or other factors (iii) review and approve contractor environmental management systems and contractor EMPs, together with the project contract representative, to facilitate alignment with the project EMP (iv) provide high level support to field environmental/socioeconomic and archaeological advisor(s) and (v) coordinate the activities of external environmental and archaeological resources as needed.
185. The SHES Report Coordinator, based in Brisbane and reporting to the SHES manager, will (i) compile safety, health, environmental, and security data, information, and statistics; and (ii) prepare required reports for distribution to various internal and external stakeholders.
186. Contract Representatives (not shown in Figure 12), based in Brisbane, will (i) ensure that contractors are aware of all relevant environmental and socioeconomic requirements, including applicable legislative requirements and requirements/commitments in the project’s EIA and EMP (ii) review and approve contract bidder regulatory compliance and environmental management systems and procedures, together with the project environmental advisor, and review and approve the successful contractors’ EMPs following contract award to facilitate alignment with the project EMP and (iii) steward contractor compliance with the contractor’ EMP, and all applicable environmental and socioeconomic requirements, with the assistance of the environmental advisor. 53
187. The Onshore Subproject Manager and Offshore Subproject Managers, based in Brisbane, will (i) steward contractor compliance with the contractors’ project-approved EMPs and all environmental and socioeconomic requirements that are applicable to their scope of work, (ii) have line responsibility for the field environmental/socioeconomic and archaeological coordinator(s), and (iii) coordinate the activities of the field archaeological advisor(s) and environmental/socioeconomic advisor(s) in consultation with the SHES manager.
188. The Onshore and Offshore Subproject Environmental Coordinators, based in the field and reporting to the onshore and offshore subproject managers, will (i) steward contractors’ environmental implementation and compliance with provisions of the contractors’ EMP, (ii) share best practices that evolve among the various construction contractors, (iii) assist in pre-disturbance environmental surveys and environmental monitoring during construction, and (iv) provide technical support to the contractor environmental specialists.
189. The Onshore Subproject Archaeological Coordinator, based in the field and reporting to the onshore subproject manager, will (i) review the contractors’ archaeological implementation and compliance with provisions of the contractors’ EMPs, (ii) share best practices that evolve among the various construction contractors, (iii) assist in pre- disturbance archaeological surveys and archaeological monitoring during construction, and (iv) provide technical support to the contractor archaeology specialists.
190. The Community Affairs Manager, based in PNG and reporting to the PNG in- country manager will have responsibility for overseeing a field-based community affairs team centrally located in Moro. The community affairs manager and team will (i) steward all PNG legislative and compliance requirements with respect to conduct of sociocultural fieldwork, (ii) provide support to construction and operations personnel where project activities may directly impact or involve interaction with landowners, (iii) process compensation payments for land access and damage, and (iv) monitor and manage all social issues that arise in connection with or as a result of project operations in the field.
191. Each Contractor will be responsible for (i) complying with all environmental and socioeconomic requirements applicable to its scope of work, and (ii) developing a contractor EMP to address aspects of environmental and socioeconomic management relevant to contractor’s scope of work. Contractor EMPs will be developed to systematically manage waste, specify environmental mitigation and monitoring activities, put in place methodologies to manage water pollution and provide for spill response, address relevant environmental and socioeconomic impacts as identified in the contractor EMP, and steward performance. Requirements for contractor EMPs will be included in contract bid packages, and must be compliant with the overall project EMP. 192. The EMP framework presented in this SEIA will be further developed into detailed EMP modules. Based on EMP modules, each contractor will be required to develop a complementary EMP (contractor EMP). The contractor EMP will be specific to the location, i.e. translating the project’s EMP module into a local EMP that is appropriate to the project activities and the environment setting of the area. Therefore, contractor EMPs will be specific to each contract, in which where environmental mitigations will be based on location and contractor’s activities and their potential impacts. The contract with each contractor will be legally binding. The contractor will also be required to comply with the project’s environmental and safety measures, and the Government environmental requirements and standards. The project operator will also monitor contractor environmental performance during project implementation, as noted earlier, and DEC will monitor overall Project environmental performance.
54
55
VIII. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE
193. Public consultation in the project area is an ongoing process involving routine interactions, formal presentations, and ad hoc meetings. Community relations are managed by the Project’s community affairs field team, which coordinates its activities with the current oil development operator. Village liaison officers play an important role in assisting with communications between the Project and communities. These officers live in their communities and are fluent in the local language. Their main role is to disseminate information about petroleum operations, including the Project, to the community and to represent the community affairs team in the field.
194. The public consultation and disclosure program has adopted appropriate approaches for each stakeholder group depending on its interest in and understanding of the Project, project access, and literacy level. Public attitudes and opinions about the Project at local landowner and community levels and other issues have been documented largely through a comprehensive household survey, which covered about 40% of the population in the project area. There have been 26 meetings with local landowner companies and ongoing regular consultation with government departments. Archaeological studies associated with the EIA and social impact assessment have included consultations with over 350 landowners in the project area. Consultations with NGOs have included both formal meetings and presentations and ongoing informal involvement of project area-based organizations. A summary of consultations undertaken for the Project is in Appendix 5.
195. The Project complied with relevant regulatory requirements for public consultation as follows: (i) distributed a brochure on the EIS scoping document18 in English and Tok Pisin to local communities, NGOs, government officials, and others; (ii) presented information about the Project to local communities in the project area, in April and October–November 2005, as part of the Project’s community awareness campaigns;19 (iii) undertook an EIS road show in coordination with DEC and the Department of Petroleum and Energy (23–27 January 2006) that involved presentations to and meetings with stakeholder groups in 27 local communities,20 as well as NGOs and government agency officials in Port Moresby; and (iv) advertised in the media regarding availability of the EIS for public review.
196. Modifications to project design resulting from public participation focus on avoidance of archaeological and cultural heritage sites of concern to local landowners. Specifically, additional archaeological surveys have been undertaken in the vicinity of Kopi, resulting in a recommendation from local landowners to reroute the pipeline in this area to avoid significant cultural heritage sites. This option is under investigation by the project operator. There may be other modifications to pipeline routing in response to landowner concerns about impacts to cultural heritage sites as more information on archaeology and cultural heritage becomes available.
18 PNG Gas Project EIS Inception Report Brochure, May 2005. 19 An information leaflet was translated in Tok Pisin and local languages, including Fasu, Foe, Huli, Kerewo, Kewa, and Kibiri. 20 Distributed approximately 250 copies each of the Executive Summary in English and Tok Pisin during the EIS “roadshow” to the following locations: Hides Town Hall, Idauwi, Teni, Awa Tangi (Koare), Benaria, Yarale, Paua, Moro Town Hall, Waro, Mano, Gesege, Kantobo, Baina, Kaiam, Kopi, Ogomabu, Kikori Station, Kopi Town Hall, Apeawa, Babaguna, Veiru, Goare and Bisi.
56
197. Consultation will continue during the construction and operations of the Project. This will include the regular preparation and distribution of printed materials, posting of informational material on websites, formal and informal discussions with landowners, development and implementation of mechanisms for receipt and handling of stakeholder concerns and comments, and communication of relevant project milestones via various media announcements. A grievance procedure will be established that will set out—for people affected by the Project—how to air their grievances so that they may be considered in a culturally appropriate and expeditious manner.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
198. A supplementary EIA will be undertaken (from mid-May to end of July 2006) to assess the indirect/induced impact of opening project roads to the public. The studies will provide recommendations on actions that should be taken to avoid and/or minimize indirect adverse impacts of the roads on forests and biodiversity in the Kikori river basin, and prepare environmental management and monitoring plans for the roads. The recommendations of the study aim at enhancing the integrated conservation and development approach, and ensuring the long term conservation of forests and the biodiversity in the KICDP. The result and recommendations of the supplementary EIA will be provided to DEC as input, and to ADB Management for consideration.
199. The Project will be a major undertaking for PNG, which will contribute to the country’s economic development. Considerable benefits—direct and indirect—are projected, including significant employment opportunities. Revenue from the sales of gas will add to PNG’s gross national product and generate substantial foreign exchange. The Government’s share of revenues can be used to support economic development, particularly in the Southern Highlands and Gulf provinces. The Project will also improve infrastructure and government services. Its continued support of programs and initiatives in health and education will bring benefits to people in the project area who are currently in desperate need of such services. The Project will also provide global environmental benefits by reducing GHG emissions through use of natural gas in place of other hydrocarbons such as oil.
200. Environmental issues arising from the Project’s construction and operations include the need to (i) protect the water quality of rivers, particularly during construction and (ii) manage effects on the terrestrial ecosystem, particularly forests and their biodiversity, and on the marine environment. Social issues include equitable distribution of project benefits, population migration along the road alignments, spread of contagious diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS, and management of land compensation. The Project has been planned and designed to manage its environmental impacts and minimize them to acceptable levels. A range of specific mitigation measures has been developed, taking into considering their feasibility and effectiveness. These mitigation measures will be adopted in project planning and design, and will be supported by adequate funding and staffing. The environmental monitoring plan will provide feedback to adapt the EMP to manage environmental impacts appropriately throughout the life of the Project. Overall, the Project may result in improvements to the life and welfare of people in the project area and throughout PNG.
Appendix 1 57
Appendix 1: Environmental Standards and Guidelines
A. Water Quality 1. Discharges to receiving waters must not cause a lowering of receiving water quality below the prescribed water quality guidelines, which protect aquatic ecosystems and which are outlined in Schedule 1 of Papua New Guinea’s (PNG’s) Environment Act, 2000 (Table A1.1). Table A1.1: PNG Prescribed Water Quality Guidelinesa Parameter Freshwater Seawater pH (pH units) No alteration to natural pH — Temperature No alteration greater than 2°C — Color No alteration to natural color — Turbidity NTU‡ No alteration greater than 25 NTU — Insoluble residues No insoluble residues or sludge — formation to occur Odor No alteration to natural odor — Taste No alteration to natural taste — Dissolved oxygen Not less than 6.0 mg/l Not less than 5.0 mg/l 2- Sulfate as SO4 400.0 mg/l — Sulfide as HS- 0.002 mg/l 0.002 mg/l Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) Dependent on pH and temperature‡ — - - Nitrates (NO3 + NO2 ) 45.0 mg/l 45.0 mg/l Chlorine (Total residual) 0.005 mg/l at pH 6 0.005 mg/l Fluoride 1.5 mg/l 1.5 mg/l Cyanide, free as HCN 0.005 mg/l 0.01 mg/l Potassium 5.0 mg/l 450.0 mg/l Arsenic 0.05 mg/l 0.05 mg/l Barium 1.0 mg/l 1.0 mg/l Boron 1.0 mg/l 2.0 mg/l Cadmium, dissolved 0.01 mg/l 0.001 mg/l Chromium (as hexavalent) 0.05 mg/l 0.01 mg/l Cobalt Limit of detectionb — Copper 1.0 mg/l 0.03 mg/l Iron, dissolved 1.0 mg/l 1.0 mg/l Lead 0.001 mg/l 0.004 mg/l Manganese, dissolved 0.5 mg/l 2.0 mg/l Mercury 0.0002 mg/l 0.002 mg/l Nickel 1.0 mg/l 1.0 mg/l Selenium 0.01 mg/l 0.01 mg/l Silver 0.05 mg/l 0.05 mg/l Tin 0.05 mg/l 0.05 mg/l Zinc 5.0 mg/l 5.0 mg/l Radioactivity (radioisotopes) None None Pesticides None None Toxicants (miscellaneous) None None Fats None None Grease None None Oil None None Tars None None Phenols 0.002 mg/l 0.002 mg/l Faecal coliformsc Not to exceed 200 colonies Not to exceed 200 colonies — = no criteria in the regulation. ‡ NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit. ‡ Ammonia as nitrogen, ranges from 0.04 mg/l at pH 9 (35°C) to 16.1 mg/l at pH 7 (5°C). a The Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection,(Environmental Act 2000. [Section 2(4)] provides that an environment permit (e.g., waste discharge permit) may authorize a discharge or use that reduces water quality below these guidelines. ‡ NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit. ‡ Ammonia as nitrogen, ranges from 0.04 mg/l at pH 9 (35°C) to 16.1 mg/l at pH 7 (5°C). b The standard for cobalt (as “limit of detectability”) was established in Schedule 4 of the Water Resources Regulation of the Water Resources Act, 1982. The routine method for metal analyses at that time was flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS), which has a typical detection limit of 0.03 mg/l
58 Appendix 1
(APHA/AWWA, 1992). Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS) was less commonly used during that period to achieve lower detection limits (typically 0.001 mg/l [APHA/AWWA, 1992]). c The criterion for faecal coliform bacteria (colonies per 100 ml is based on not fewer than five water samples collected over not more than a 30-day period. Source: Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection,(Environmental Act 2000.
B. Air Quality
2. In the absence of PNG air quality guidelines, the Project has adopted air quality targets consistent with the World Bank recommendation that, where possible, the World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe 1(WHO 1987 and WHO 2000) be used to assess air quality. While the WHO guidelines prescribe a risk-based approach to assessing the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) group of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), it is also relevant to assign project targets for each of these compounds. Therefore, in the absence of any specific WHO air quality targets the Effects Screening Levels used by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality2 (TCEQ) have been adopted by the Project. Table A1.2 summarizes the Project’s air quality targets.
Table A1.2: Project Air Quality Targets Assessment Project Target Source Substance Criteria (µg/m3) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 350 WHO (2000) 24-hour 100−150 WHO (2000) 1-year 40−60 WHO (2000) Carbon monoxide (CO) 15-minute 100,000 WHO (1987) 30-minute 60,000 WHO (1987) 1-hour average 30,000 WHO (1987) 8-hour average 10,000 WHO (1987) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 400 WHO (1987) 24-hour 150 WHO (1987) a Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 1-year <5,000 at boundary World Bank (1998) Benzene 1-hour 74 TCEQ (2003) 24-hour 12 TCEQ (2003) 1-year 3 TCEQ (2003) Toluene 1-hour 1,880 TCEQ (2003) 1-year 188 TCEQ (2003) Ethylbenzene 1-hour 2,000 TCEQ (2003) 1-year 200 TCEQ (2003) Xylene 1-hour 3,700 TCEQ (2003) 1-year 370 TCEQ (2003) p-Xylene 1-hour 2,079 TCEQ (2003) 1-year 208 TCEQ (2003) b PM10 24-hour 125 WHO (1987) 1-year 50 WHO (1987) Total suspended particulates 24-hour 150-230 WHO (1987) 1-year 60-90 WHO (1987) a Corresponds to no offensive odor at plant/facility boundary. b Health indicator for respirable dust capable of being inhaled into the lungs. Source: Esso High;ands Limited
1 World Health Organization. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd Edition. Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. World Health Organization. 1987. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2 TCEQ Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) reported in ug/m3 and ppb (10/1/2003).
Appendix 1 59
C. Noise 3. The Project’s noise targets are based on an acceptable exceedance of background noise levels measured during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) study. Table A1.3 summarizes the Project’s noise targets at sensitive receptors for each stage and component of the Project.
Table A1.3: Project Noise Targets (dB[A]) Project Criteria Day Evening Night Activity (0700–1800) (1800–2200) (2200–0700) Construction Sensitive human 60 48 47 receptor exposure for less than 4 weeks Sensitive human 50 48 47 receptor exposure for 4 to 26 weeks Operations Intrusiveness (LA90, 44 48 47 measured over a 15-minute period) Amenity, measured 55 50 45 over the entire period) dB(A) = A-weighted decibel (commonly used measurement for environmental and industrial noise). Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited.
D. Project Compliance with World Bank Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook
4. In the absence of ADB guidelines on oil and gas operations, the World Bank guidelines on PPAH are used. Project compliance with PPAH is presented below. Table A1.4: Drilling Management Best Practice Compliance Drilling Fluid Use directional drilling (horizontal and The number of new pads required is being minimized through use of extended reach) techniques to avoid existing pads, directional drilling techniques, and more than one well per sensitive surface areas and to gain wellpads. The remote locations of several targets, as well as the technical access to the reservoir from less difficulty of drilling perpendicular to the tectonic stress direction, requires sensitive surface areas. Where this is the construction of four new pad sites for the eight well program. not possible, provide an explanation. Use closed loop systems. The drilling fluid will be circulated within a closed system. Cuttings will be collected for further removal of liquids, followed by disposal in an approved manner. Reduce the hydrocarbon content of There is no plan to use hydrocarbon-based drilling fluids. Oil cuttings by mechanical, chemical, or contamination of the drilling fluid during operations is not relevant since thermal clean-up treatment where the wellbores (oriented hole during drilling) will not penetrate any oil- possible or transport them to shore for bearing reservoirs (targeted reservoirs are gas-condensate). treatment or disposal or consider annulus or downhole injection. Use enhanced solids control systems A state-of-the-art solids control system including centrifuges will be used to reduce the amount of wastes from to minimize dilution requirements. In addition, enhanced solids control in circulation systems and the amount of the form of cuttings dryers will be used to reduce the amount of liquid on dilution. cuttings and to reduce the amount of make-up water required. Develop and use chemicals with the Nontoxic biopolymers such as xanthan and polyanionic cellulose, and lowest toxicity and lowest levels of potassium chloride (KCl) will be used in the drilling fluid systems. To biologically available heavy metals and provide the density necessary for well control and hole stabilization, barite
60 Appendix 1
Best Practice Compliance other hazardous substances, (barium sulfate) will be used. Barite is the standard weighting agent used especially persistent organic chemicals in drilling fluids. Barium in this form is non-soluble and nontoxic. and substances with a potential to In order to avoid the use of hydrocarbon-based drilling fluids, 45 to 50 bioaccumulate.1 lb/bbl KCl (12–15% concentration level) will be necessary to prevent strength degradation and collapse of the water-sensitive shales. This concentration is accepted for offshore discharge in Australia and the North Sea, because KCl is considered a normal environmental background constituent. Minimize, and avoid where possible, If any special additive is required, the technically acceptable additive with the use of toxic additives in drilling the lowest potential toxicity will be selected. fluids.
Produced Water Management Consider alternatives to surface There is no produced water associated with the Project, only water from discharge of produced water, such as condensation. This will be recovered and disposed of into an existing reinjection, onshore treatment and water disposal well at Kutubu. disposal, and downhole separation of oil and water. Minimize the quantity and reduce the Produced water will not be discharged. toxicity of discharged produced water. Select the least hazardous chemicals Produced water will not be discharged. in order to minimize produced water toxicity. lb/bbl KCI = pounds per barrel of potassium chloride Source: Esso Highlands Limited
Table A1.5: Compliance with Oil and Gas Development (Onshore)—Technology Pollution Prevention and Control Project Design Basis Maximize the use of freshwater gel-based mud Yes systems. Eliminate the use of invert (diesel-based) muds. If the Yes use of diesel-based muds is necessary, reuse the muds. Recycle drilling mud decanted water. Yes, cuttings dryer technology used to reduce mud on cuttings. Use hydrogen sulfide scavengers to prevent No, hydrogen sulfide (H2S)scavengers will not be degradation of sweet wells by sulfate-reducing used as wells do not contain H2S. bacteria. Select less toxic biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and Corrosion Inhibitor will be selected according to other chemicals. appropriate standards and will be chosen based on lowest toxicity and level of effectiveness. Minimize gas flaring.a Flaring will generally only occur during a process upset. Store crude oil in tanks; tanks larger than 1,590 m3 Existing oil storage tanks have fixed roofs. Secondary should have secondary (double) seals. seals are not applicable to project scope. Minimize and control leakage from tanks and pipelines. Tanks will all be bunded; liquids pipeline will have leak detection systems to allow identification and rectification if a leak should occur. Practice corrosion prevention and monitor above- and Pipelines will have corrosion protection. Gas plant below-ground tanks, vessels, pipes, etc. piping and vessels are designed with appropriate materials/corrosion allowance. Periodic inspections will be conducted. 3 Remove (H2S) and mercaptans from sour gases Minimum trace quantities (H2S <1mg/Sm , (releasing greater than 1.8 kg of reduced sulfur Mercaptans <0.05mg/Sm3), no treatment required.
1 Bioaccumulation is a general term for the accumulation of substances, such as pesticides, methylmercury, or other organic chemicals in an organism or part of an organism.
Appendix 1 61
Pollution Prevention and Control Project Design Basis compounds per hour) before flaring. Use knockout drums on flares to prevent condensate Yes, LP and HP flare headers are equipped with emissions. knock-out drums and automatic level pumps to remove liquids. Regenerate spent amines and spent solvents, or send Not applicable. No amines will be used other than a off-site for recovery. minor amount in the corrosion inhibitor.
Use low NOx burners in process heaters, especially in Project does not specify low NOx burners. There are those with a design heat input of 4.2 X 1010 joules per four heaters proposed, each of which will burn about hour. 3.8 X 1010 joules per hour. Provide spill prevention and control measures (bunds, All potential spill areas will be bunded and part of the berms, and hard surfacing for storage tanks; pressure closed drain system. relief valves; high-level alarms). Recover oil from process wastewaters. Yes, separation ponds. Segregate storm water from process water. Yes. Implement leak detection and repair programs. Yes. Practice good housekeeping and ensure that Yes. appropriate operation and maintenance programs are in place. Target Pollution Loads Project Design Basis In drilling operations, the use of freshwater should be Yes, cuttings dryer technology used to minimize mud minimized by maximizing the use of drilling mud pond on cuttings, water recycled where possible, pond size decant water. Eliminate sour gas emissions by limited on Hides Ridge small pad footprint. Not sweetening and reuse. expected to have sour gas odor from mud/cuttings treatment system as reservoir is sweet. Treatment Technologies Project Design Basis Typically, air emissions of toxic organics are minimized Yes, the principal source of BTEX for the plant will be by routing such vapors to recovery systems, flares, or from the glycol regeneration package. The offgas boilers. Tail gases are scrubbed to remove sulfur from this package will be condensed and the compounds. wastewater with BTEX will be routed to the designated water disposal well. The decant from the drilling mud disposal sump is Yes, cuttings dryer technology used to minimize mud treated by coagulation and settling before discharge. on cuttings, water recycled where possible, pond size Alternatively, the sump fluids may be injected limited on Hides Ridge small pad footprint. Option to downhole into an approved disposal formation. transport decant water to Hides 4 for further pond treatment. Downhole disposal option being assessed. The drained and settled drilling mud solids are Mix, burial, cover option at Hides 4 is the most likely disposed of on land by capping; mixing, burying, and option. covering; trenching; or encapsulating. Other options include land spreading, land filling, incineration (for destruction of toxic organics), or in situ solidification/fixation. Effluents from the crude process may be treated using Open drain system will be passed through settling coagulation, de-emulsification, settling and filtration. ponds. Storm water runoff will go direct to reed bed. Stormwater is settled and if necessary, treated (by coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation) before discharge. a BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene; mercaptans = group of sulfur-containing organic chemical substances b However, flaring is preferred to venting. c Offgassing is the process of vaporizing (or evaporation) of volatile organic compounds released from a material. Source: Esso Highlands Limited
62 Appendix 1
Table A1.6: Compliance with International Finance Corporation Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines— Oil and Gas Development (Offshore) Parameter Criteria Unit Goal Project Goal Air Emissions Oil and Gas Sulfur oxides production (oil production) Maximum mg/Nm3 400 Not Applicable Oil and Gas production Nitrogen oxides Maximum mg/Nm3 Not Applicable Effluents Oil and Gas Not Applicable production Oil and grease Daily average mg/l 42 Oil and Gas Not Applicable production Oil and grease Monthly average mg/l 29 No discharge allowed except in compliance with 96 hr. LC-50 of SPP-3% vol. toxicity test first for Oil and Gas drilling fluids or alternatively testing based upon production Non-water based site-specific species agreed with IFC. Not Applicable Oil and Gas Discharge via caisson at least 15 m below sea Not Applicable production Non-water based surface. No discharge allowed except in compliance with Not Applicable 96 hr. LC-50 of SPP-3% vol. toxicity test first for Oil and Gas drilling fluids or alternatively testing based upon production Water-based site-specific species agreed with IFC. Oil and Gas Discharge via caisson at least 15 m below the Not Applicable production Water-based surface. Maximum chloride concentration must be less Not Applicable Oil and Gas than four times ambient concentration of fresh or production Water-based brackish receiving water. Oil and Gas No discharge allowed. Can only be used to free Not Applicable production Diesel oil stuck pipe in an emergency. Oil and Gas Additives and No limitation except toxicity testing of chemicals Not Applicable production chemicals for hazards. Oil and Gas Additives and Barite used will meet: Hg<1 mg/kg and Cd <3 Not Applicable production chemicals mg/kg dry weight (Total). Products known or suspected to cause taint, Not Applicable Oil and Gas Additives and endocrine disruption, or to contain heavy metals production chemicals will be avoided. Oil and Gas Discharge not permitted—reinject or take Not Applicable production Produced sand ashore. If separated and disposed at locations other Not Applicable Oil and Gas than the platform, it must, at a minimum, meet production Produced water these guidelines. Package treatment and chlorination to an Not Applicable average of 1 mg/l residual chlorine (because of Sanitary effluents concerns about chlorinated hydrocarbons Oil and Gas and sink drains alternative forms of disinfection should be production (gray water) evaluated). The effluent should result in a temperature increase of no more than 3o C at the edge of the zone where initial mixing and dilution take place. Oil and Gas Where the zone is not defined, use 100 m from production Cooling water the point of discharge. Not Applicable LC-50 = lethal concentration of the chemical in air that kills 50% of the test animals in a given time (usually four hours), mg/l = milligram per liter, mg/Nm3 = milligram per Normal cubic meter, SSP = suspended particulate phase. Source: Esso Highlands Limited
Appendix 1 63
Table A1.7: Compliance with World Bank Group Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook Air and Water Discharge Goals for Project Facilities (Onshore) Additional Parameter Criteria Unit Goal Design Basis Comments Air Emissions HPF & Gas production Sulfur oxides per m3 gas produced g/m3 <0.1 CGCP total 0.00004 HPF & Gas production Nitrogen oxides per m3 gas produced g/m3 10 to 12 CGCP total 2 HPF & Gas production VOCs per m3 gas produced g/m3 0.1 to 14 CGCP total Trace Gas production Methane per m3 gas produced g/m3 0.2 to 10 0.15 Oil production Nitrogen oxides per m3 gas produced g/m3 3.7 Not Applicable Oil production VOCs per m3 gas produced g/m3 3.3 to 26 Not Applicable Oil and Gas VOCs including Not Applicable production benzene Maximum mg/Nm3 20 Oil and Gas Not Applicable production Hydrogen sulfide Maximum mg/Nm3 30 Oil and Gas Sulfur oxides Not Applicable production (oil prod.) Maximum mg/Nm3 1000 Oil and Gas Nitrogen oxides 320 Not Applicable production (gas fired) Maximum mg/Nm3 (or 86 ng/J) Oil and Gas Nitrogen oxides 460 Not Applicable production (oil fired) Maximum mg/Nm3 (or 130 ng/J) Operations Integrity Oil and Gas Not offensive at Management production Odor Maximum receptor System in effect Oil and Gas Odor: hydrogen <5 mg/m3 at <1 mg/m³ in production sulfide Maximum property boundary Yes FEED stream Effluents Crude processing Oil and grease Typical values (average) mg/l 7-1,300 (200) Not Applicable Total organic Not Applicable Crude processing carbon Typical values (average) mg/l 30-1,600 (400) Crude processing TSS Typical values (average) mg/l 20-400 (70) Not Applicable total dissolved 30,000-200,000 Not Applicable Crude processing solids Typical values (average)mg/l (100,000) Crude processing BOD Typical values (average) mg/l 120-340 Not Applicable Crude processing COD Typical values (average) mg/l 180-580 Not Applicable Crude processing Phenols Typical values (average) mg/l 50 Not Applicable Crude processing Cadmium Typical values (average) mg/l 0.7 Not Applicable Crude processing Chromium Typical values (average) mg/l 2.3 Not Applicable Crude processing Copper Typical values (average) mg/l 0.4 Not Applicable Crude processing Lead Typical values (average) mg/l 0.2 Not Applicable Crude processing Mercury Typical values (average) mg/l 0.1 Not Applicable Crude processing Nickel Typical values (average) mg/l 0.4 Not Applicable Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to production pH surface waters Average to 9 will meet 6 to 9 Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to production BOD surface waters mg/l 50 will meet ≤50 mg/l Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to production TSS surface waters mg/l 50 will meet ≤50mg/l Oil and Gas Oil and grease Max - direct discharge to mg/l 20 Up to 40 mg/l will meet ≤20mg/l production surface waters is acceptable for facilities producing less than
64 Appendix 1
Additional Parameter Criteria Unit Goal Design Basis Comments 10,000 t/d Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to production Phenol surface waters mg/l 1 will meet ≤1 mg/l Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to production Sulfide surface waters mg/l 1 will meet ≤1 mg/l Including Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Oil and Gas Max - direct discharge to Hg, Ni, Se, production Total toxic metals surface waters mg/l 5 Ag, Tl, V, Zn will meet ≤5 mg/l At edge of mixing zone or within 100 There are no m of plans for use of discharge if open loop cooling Oil and Gas Temperature Max - direct discharge to no mixing water within the production increase surface waters °C <3 zone. process system. CGCP: Central Gas Conditioning Plant, HPF: Hides Production Facility. BOD = biological oxygen demand, CGCP = central gas conditioning plant, g/m3 = gram per cubic meter, HPF = Hides Production Facility, mg/l = milligram per liter, mg/Nm3 = milligram per Normal cubic meter, VOC = volatile organic compounds, Ag = silver, As = arsenic, Be = beryllium, Cd = cadmium, Cr = chromium, Cu = copper, Hg = mercury, Ni = nickel, Pb = lead, Sb = antinomy, Se = selenium, Tl = thallium, V = vanadium, Zn = zinc Source: Esso Highlands Limited
Appendix 2 65
Appendix 2: Definitions of Spatial, Temporal, and Biodiversity Impact Terminology
A. Spatial and Temporal Impact Definitions
1. The definitions used to classify the spatial and temporal impacts, together with classification of effects, nature of effects, and impact assessment criteria, are given below.
(1) Spatial Classification of Residual Impacts
2. Environmental effects have been evaluated in different spatial contexts for the terrestrial and freshwater aquatic environments, and these contexts are described below.
3. Terrestrial Environment. Residual impacts (those remaining after appropriate mitigation and management measures have been implemented) on the terrestrial environment are evaluated at the following five spatial scales:
(i) Very limited: Immediate environs of an impact location and extending to a radius of less than 200 meters (m). (ii) Limited: Immediate environs of an impact location and extending to a radius of 200 m to 2 km. (iii) Local: Generally occurring within a radius of 2 to 10 km from an impact location. (iv) Regional: Generally occurring over a large area that extends to a radius of more than 10 km from the impact location or up to 10% of the Kikori Integrated Conservation and Development Program (KICDP) area. (v) Widespread: Generally occurring over a large area that extends from more than 10% of the KICDP area to the national scale.
4. Aquatic Environment. The onshore freshwater or estuarine environment presents a different environmental domain from that of the terrestrial environment, and residual environmental impacts have therefore been evaluated in a longitudinal spatial context and relate mainly to the watercourses of the project area. Potential impacts on Lake Kutubu will be avoided by implementing site-specific mitigation and management measures. Residual impacts on the freshwater and estuarine aquatic environments have been evaluated at three spatial scales:
(i) Site scale: Immediate watercourse within 2 km downstream of a project impact location. (ii) Local scale: Extending 2 km to 10 km downstream from “site scale” waters and generally includes larger streams and tributaries of major rivers (e.g., Dagia, Wada, Maruba, Pawgano and Kondari rivers). (iii) Regional scale: Extending more than 10 km downstream from “local scale” waters and principally includes the mainstreams of major rivers of the project area, such as the Tagari, Hegigio, Mubi, and Kikori rivers.
(2) Temporal Classification of Residual Impacts
5. As with the spatial context, environmental effects have been evaluated in different temporal contexts for the terrestrial and freshwater aquatic environments.
6. Terrestrial Environment. Residual impacts on the terrestrial environment have been evaluated at the following three temporal scales:
(i) Short-term: Residual impacts lasting less than 7 years. (ii) Medium-term: Residual impacts lasting 7 to 25 years. (iii) Long-term: Residual impacts lasting more than 25 years.
66 Appendix 2
7. Aquatic Environment. Residual impacts on the onshore freshwater and estuarine aquatic environments have been evaluated at the following three temporal scales: (i) Short-term: Residual impacts lasting less than 1 year. (ii) Medium-term: Residual impacts lasting 1 to 5 years. (iii) Long-term: Residual impacts lasting more than 5 years.
B. Biodiversity Residual Impact Definitions
8. The criteria for assessing the residual impacts associated with project-related activities used in Supporting Study 1 are followed in this section. Residual impacts were categorically classified according to potential level, area of influence, and duration.
9. The classes of level of impacts are as follows: (i) Very high (V): Highly likely to have a very large impact on species’ population, community, or ecosystem survival or health, possibly even leading to extinction or system collapse. (ii) High (H): Likely to have a significant negative impact on species’ population, community or ecosystem survival or health. (iii) Moderate (M): Detectable but not significant; species’ populations or the areal extent of communities may be reduced but major changes to species’ population, community or ecosystem survival or health are unlikely. (iv) Low (L): Detectable but small and highly unlikely to have any significance. (v) Negligible (I): Unlikely to be detectable.
10. The extent of an impact is assessed as follows: (i) Widespread (5): In a large area of the KICDP area (>approx 10%) up to the national scale. (ii) Regional (4): In a large part (up to 10%) of the KICDP area region. (iii) Local (3): Generally occurring within 10 km of a project-related impact site. (iv) Limited (2): Immediate vicinity of a project-related impact site and extending for up to a 2 km radius. (v) Very limited (1): Immediate vicinity of a project-related impact site and extending less than a 200 m radius.
11. The duration of an impact was assessed as follows: (i) Short-term (S): lasting less than 7 years. (ii) Medium-term (M): lasting up to 25 years. (iii) Long-term (L): lasting more than 25 years.
12. The likely significance before the application of appropriate mitigation measures is based on estimates of impact level (negligible, low, moderate, high, and very high) combined with the likely geographic extent of impact (scale of 1 [very limited] to 5 [widespread]).
Appendix 3: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party Site investigations Pre- Disturbance of • Avoidance of areas (or exercise extreme care exercised n Project proponent • Department of on onshore/offshore construction habitat of investigating areas) identified as habitat of important species and consultants Environment and areas important such as bats Conservation species (DEC) Civil works activities Construction Disturbance of • Avoidance of sensitive habitats; prohibition on hunting of Project proponent • DEC (onshore) habitat of fauna, gathering of plants or bush foods or possession of and/or project • Department of important wildlife products by project workers or contractors, on contractors Petroleum and species during introduction of exotic invasive species of flora/fauna and on Energy (DPE) initial gardening; undertake education program and environmental • Department of construction sensitivity training undertaken; promotion of vegetation Works (DOW) activities regeneration at selected locations using indigenous plant • Department of species. Lands and Physical Planning (DLPP)
Kopi Wharf: Construction Affecting long- • Modified and new wharfs at Kopi designed to parallel existing Project proponent • DEC Upgrading and (onshore) term stability of frontage of Kikori River and account for channel hydraulics and project • DPE expanding existing Kikori River and other hydrodynamic characteristics contractors • DOW facilities, including frontage • DLPP constructing a 30 meter (m) wharf Preparing access Construction Disturbance of • Maximum use of existing right-of-way (ROW), access ways, Project proponent • DEC ways, bridges and (onshore) landform and and roads and/or project • DPE upgrading existing watercourses • Pipelines and access ways routed along ridgeline contractors • DOW roads • Avoidance of steep slopes, swamps, and high erosion areas • DLPP • Natural vegetation buffer strip between access ways and watercourses on valley-bottoms at selected locations • Erosion/sediment control structures on the access ways/pipeline ROW • Access way surfaces graded and shaped to conserve existing surface materials • Bridge and in-river bridge support construction takes into
account watercourse hydraulics 3 Appendix • Specific procedures for watercourse construction sites that address watercourse diversions, erosion control measures, etc. • Limiting clearing of riparian vegetation to width required to safely accommodate pipeline/access way crossings • Reclaimation of construction-disturbed watercourse banks 67 • Location of soil stockpiles away from watercourse banks
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party 68 Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party Preparing pipelines’ Construction Disturbance of • Pipeline and access way ROWs located within or adjacent to Project proponent • DEC ROWs (onshore) forest footprint of existing crude oil export pipeline to extent and/or project • DOW 3 Appendix possible contractors • DLPP • Avoidance of routing of access ways and pipelines (i) alongside slopes and headwalls, (ii) through swamps and wetlands, (iii) in high erosion and landslide-prone areas, (iv) through inner valley gorges, or (v) on slopes where sidecast spoil material could directly enter streams or high conservation value swamps at the base of some sinkholes • Implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts on watercourses and at watercourse crossings • Avoidance of unnecessary clearing of forests and implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts of forest and the biodiversity. • Trees felled in a manner that reduces damage to other trees • Timber felled to be salvaged for project use • Weeds and pathogen management plan established to protect biodiversity of Hides Ridge to be detailed in the environmental management plan (EMP)
Disturbance or • Protocols established and procedures defined to deal with • DEC collection of archaeological material exposed by land clearing and • National Museum archeological subsurface trenching works materials Construction of Construction Disturbance or • New facilities built to maximum extent practicable within Project proponent • DEC Facilities and (onshore) alteration of footprints of existing oil and gas facilities and/or project • DPE Erection of landform • Facility sites designed to reduce earthwork volumes and limit contractors Camps/Offices leading to site runoff and problematic soil erosion runoff and soil • Prohibition of hunting, gathering of plants or bush foods, and • Erection of erosion possession of wildlife products by project workers or camps, offices, contractors warehouses, Disturbance/ • Vegetation reestablished on earth batter slopes (where laydown areas, harassment of present) surrounding construction facility sites as soon as and fuel depots wildlife and practicable • Establishment of forest • Direct lights to reduce reflection in surrounding forest to batch plant and vegetation extent practicable aggregate • Where required, sediment control structures installed or crushing facilities runoff diverted to undisturbed vegetated land to encourage • Establishment of infiltration and reduce soil loss to watercourses power and water • All equipment areas at facility sites concreted, kerbed, and supplies facilities sloped to drain catchpits. Catchpits feed to interception pits • Construction of for oil/water separation and de-oiled water transferred to fabrication yards retention ponds. Oil then pumped to closed drain and any and other related residual surface oil in retention ponds recovered by
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party facilities skimmers • If practicable, establish only one Hides Ridge camp established at any one time Drilling Construction Disturbance of Wellpads appropriately designed and located to: Project proponent • DEC • Selection, (onshore) landform and • use existing wellpads, where possible and/or project • DPE clearing, grading forest. • reduce extent of vegetation clearing and earthworks by contractors and preparation of limiting to extent practicable size of wellpads wellpad and other • accommodate up to two wells per wellpad, where needed required facilities • Drilling wells Construction Contamination • Practices related to drilling fluid discharges implemented to Project proponent • DEC (onshore) of water ensure compliance with permit requirements and/or project • DPE • Visual monitoring for presence of foam drilling fluids in contractors emergent watercourses and surface waters undertaken • Typical wastewater streams associated with drilling, such as water-based, non-toxic whole drilling fluids and completion drilling fluids, diluted and discharged to vegetated land surfaces for natural infiltration • Oily water (from drilling) collected in water sumps, oil skimmed and removed and transported off-site to an approved facility • Gas flaring during Construction Emission of • Smoke emission monitored to meet requirements and Project proponent • DEC well testing (onshore) smoke acceptable standards and/or project • DPE contractors Onshore Construction Disturbance/ • Prohibition on hunting of fauna, gathering of plants or bush Project proponent • DEC Pipelaying (onshore) harassment of foods, and possession of wildlife products by project workers and/or project • DPE • Excavation of wildlife and contractors contractors • PNG Forest trench, pipe Authority stringing and Disturbance of • Rescue and record of fauna that fall into open trench (PNGFA) bending, landform, • Specific procedures developed for watercourse crossing • National Fisheries pipestring watercourses, construction sites that address watercourse diversions, Authority (NFA) welding, weld and forest disturbance limits, equipment limitations, and erosion control inspection and vegetation and measures where relevant joint coating mangrove • Limiting of nominal width of combined ROW and access way • trench preparation on Hides Ridge to 12 m for construction and allowing ROW and coating and access way to revegetate except for 7 m wide track inspection, required for maintenance and future drilling campaigns. 3 Appendix lowering-in, tie-in, • Where practicable, allow natural vegetation buffer strip and cathodic allowed between access ways and watercourses on valley- protection, and bottoms backfilling, clean up
Offshore Construction Disturbance of • Limiting of presweeping, trenching, and anchor deployment Project proponent • DEC 69 Pipelaying (Offshore) seabed/benthic to the extent practicable and/or project • NFA • Preparing the habitats • Route aligned to avoid coral reefs and limit traversing contractors • Gulf Provincial
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party 70 Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party route/seabed for seagrass areas Government offshore (GPG) Appendix 3 Appendix pipelaying • Pipeline safety Construction Interference • Where pipeline route crosses designated shipping channels, Project proponent • DEC (Offshore) with shipping aligned route to be as perpendicular as practicable to the and/or project • Department of channel contractors Transport (DOT) • Pipeline laid on the seabed in areas with adequate water depth or buried in shallower waters to avoid ship collision • Navigation charts updated to show the as-laid position and designate this area as a no-anchor zone • Pollution Construction Impact on • Domestic wastes from pipelaying vessels treated by Project proponent • DEC prevention (Offshore) marine biota disinfection of grey water and maceration of solid food waste and/or project • DOT from vessel before discharge, in accordance with MARPOL (1973/1978) contractors discharges and requirements spills • Storage, use, and handling of all hazardous materials and wastes on vessels in accordance with MARPOL (1973/1978) requirements • Appropriate spill response procedures and training for workers implemented • Deck water potentially in contact with oily surfaces passed through oil/water separators before discharge overboard • Security Construction Harm to local • Fishing and other vessels instructed to remain outside safe Project proponent • DEC (Offshore) fishermen and buffer zone around pipeline installation vessels and anchor and/or project • DPE disturbance of cables (if used) contractors • DOT fishing • Villagers informed about hazards of pipelaying vessels. • NFA activities • Survey vessel associated with laybarge to patrol safe buffer • GPG zone around pipelaying activities and warn other vessels of potential dangers • Regular radio communication procedures established to inform vessels operating nearby of day-to-day activities so they can observe the safe buffer zone • Pipelaying in Construction Alteration of • Pipeline buried in bed of the lower Omati River to protect it Project proponent • DEC Omati River (Offshore) channel and limit interruptions to bed sediment transport processes and/or project • DPE morphology • Fluvial processes in the Omati River considered in pipeline contractors • GPG design to reduce likelihood of pipeline exposure Commissioning of Construction Contamination • Reuse of hydrotest water to reduce discharge volumes Project proponent • DEC Sales Gas Pipeline (onshore) of water • Hydrotest water discharged on Hides Ridge to be treated and/or project • DPE • Hydrotest systems with biocide to prevent cross-contamination with live aquatic contractors onshore organisms • Hydrotest waters associated with onshore pipelines discharged to grade or to temporary holding dam. If discharge is to land for infiltration, outflow energies will be dissipated (e.g., via sprinkler or T-bar arrangements) to
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party prevent soil erosion • Pre-discharge sampling and analysis of hydrotest water undertaken as necessary to ensure compliance with conditions attached to relevant water discharge permit • Hydrotest Construction Impact on • Marine hydrotest water tested for suspended sediment Project proponent • DEC offshore (Offshore) marine biota content and, if necessary, filtered before filling pipeline and and/or project • DPE from hydrotest again before discharge to remove most solid contaminants. contractors • DOT discharge Applications made to PNG Government to discharge • NFA hydrotest water under a waste discharge permit and conditions applicable to quarantine issues • Training Construction Disturbance/ • Environmental sensitivity training provided to project Project proponent • DEC (onshore) harassment of workforce that includes overview of key flora and fauna and/or project • DPE Construction wildlife issues, mitigation measures, and policies/prohibitions related contractors • DOT (Offshore) to wildlife disturbance/harassment, hunting, and vegetation gathering • Offshore training to include a marine mammal observation procedure to warn crews of any marine mammal activity within close proximity of pipelaying vessel Operations Operations Pipeline leaks Pipelines designed to appropriate standards: Project proponent • DEC • Monitoring of gas potentially • Pipeline valves • DPE pressure for cause fire with • Central monitoring and valve control possible leak impact on • Emergency shutdown people, forest • Access control Operations Exotic plant • With agreement of local landowners, maintain Hides Ridge Project proponent • DEC introduction access way maintained as a private road for the life of the • PNGFA Disturbance of Project • GPG forests and • With agreement of local landowners, maintain Kopi to Omati • Southern wildlife ROW maintained as a private area for the life of the Project Highlands • Implementation of a weed and pathogen management plan Provincial Government (SHPG)
Indirect • Supplementary environmental impact assessment will be PNG Gas • DEC impacts on undertaken to assess indirect impacts on forests and Coordination forests and biodiversity to formulate the EMP and monitoring plan Office (supported biodiversity (expected to be completed end of July 2006) by ADB) 3 Appendix
• Discharging Operations Disturbance to • All water and wastewater discharges treated to comply with Project proponent • DEC wastewater, water quality conditions for discharge quality specified in relevant water sewage effluent, and natural discharge permits and other liquid water systems • Sewage treatment plants operated in accordance with
wastes manufacturer's specifications and to comply with conditions 71
for discharge quality (including disinfection) specified in relevant waste discharge permits
Project Activity/ Components/ Potential Mitigating Measures Responsible Monitoring Party 72 Sub-Activities Modules Impacts Party Inspection and Operations Pipeline leaks Periodic inspections along upgraded road/pipeline ROW within Project proponent • DEC Maintenance of potentially Lake Kutubu catchment, including:
• DPE 3 Appendix Pipeline cause fire with • Checking for problematic erosion areas and implementing • DOW impact on remedial works as appropriate • DOT people and • Inspecting ditches and culverts and removing accumulated forest debris • Conduct of Operations Disturbance to Procedures developed and implemented for appropriate Project proponent • DEC continuing/regular rivers because handling, transport, storage, and disposal of materials including • DPE inspection and of poor fuels, lubricating oils, drilling fluids, chemicals, and • DOT maintenance of handling and radionuclides: • Department of facilities storage of • Fuel, lubricating oils and chemicals stored in appropriately Labor and dangerous sized designated areas with impervious liners and bunds Industrial goods and • Procedures for vehicle/equipment refueling implemented to Relations chemicals prevent spillages, and appropriate spill containment equipment available at refueling sites • Appropriate spill response equipment provided at construction sites, and at fuel storage handling facilities • Security Operations Risk to local Implement speed limits along access way/pipeline ROWs Project proponent • DEC people • DPE • DOT
Dismantling/ Decommissioni Inappropriate • With agreement of local landowners, Hides Ridge access Project proponent • DEC Removal of ng access to way and Kopi to Omati ROW made impassable at end of • DPE Aboveground protected project life Facilities and areas. • The Kopi to Omati ROW will not be maintained for Access Ways Unnecessary accessibility upon completion of construction accidents that • Facility-by-facility decommissioning EMP prepared about may endanger 1 year before decommissioning activities begin human lives brought about by improper dismantling of facilities and structures Source: Esso Highland Limited, Government of PNG, ADB staff assessment.
Appendix 4: Environmental Monitoring Framework
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities All civil works activities • Avoidance of sensitive habitats Parameters: • Site inspections • Reporting as • Environmental • Prohibition of project workers • Hunting activities in • Records of arrests stipulated in coordinator (project from hunting of fauna, gathering areas surrounding the by police/ Government proponent) and/or of plants or bush foods or construction sites government officials issued licenses, contractors possession of wildlife products by • Transport and trade of • Feedback and permits, and • Department of project workers, on introduction of flora and fauna complaints by local approvals Environment and exotic invasive species of Locations: population Conservation (DEC) flora/fauna, and on gardening; • All construction sites, all Funding sources: undertake education program and main road junctions, • Proponents, or environmental sensitivity training local markets statutory budget undertaken; promotion of appropriation, or funds vegetation regeneration at accruing from project selected locations using revenue indigenous plant species Kopi Wharf: Upgrading • Modified and new wharfs at Kopi Parameters: • Engineering reports • Reporting as • Environmental and expanding existing designed to parallel existing • Amount and location of • Site inspections stipulated in coordinator (project facilities, including frontage of Kikori River and vegetation clearing Government proponent) and/or constructing a account for channel hydraulics • Erosion of issued licenses, contractors 30 meter (m) wharf embankments permits, and • DEC Locations: approvals Funding sources: • Surroundings of the • Proponents, or Kopi support base statutory budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project
revenues Appendix 4 Preparing access • Proper location of pipelines and Parameters: • Engineering report • Reporting as • Environmental. ways, bridges, and access ways routed along • Completion of detailed and construction stipulated in coordinator (project upgrading existing ridgeline and maximum use of revegetation monitoring reports Government proponent) roads existing right-of-way (ROW), plan • Site inspections issued licenses, • DEC access ways, and roads • Amount/location of • Feedback and permits, and Funding sources: • Application of appropriate site- vegetation clearing and complaints from local approvals • Proponents, or specific erosion and drainage revegetation population statutory budget control measures (e.g., ditch • Temporary erosion appropriation, or funds drains and culverts), where control on land and accruing from project required watercourses revenues • Application of active revegetation • Quality of permanent 73
74 Appendix Appendix 4
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities at selected locations erosion control • Specific procedures for structures watercourse construction sites Locations:
that address watercourse • All road sections diversions, erosion control • Hides Ridge measures, etc. • All proposed bridge locations Preparing pipelines’ • Pipeline and access way ROWs Parameters: • Engineering reports • Reporting as • Environmental ROWs located within or adjacent to • Agreed locations of • Weeds and stipulated in coordinator (project footprint of existing crude oil pipelines and access pathogen Government proponent) and/or export pipeline to maximum ways (detailed management issued licenses, contractors extent practicable engineering and design) procedures permits, and • DEC • Avoidance of routing of access • Amount and location of • Established approvals Funding Sources: ways and pipelines through vegetation clearing protocols • Proponents, or environmentally (and socially) • Temporary erosion • Papua New Guinea statutory budget sensitive areas control on land and (PNG) laws (e.g., appropriation, or funds • Application of professional watercourses National Museum accruing from project logging techniques and • Compliance with project and Art Gallery Act revenues avoidance of unnecessary protocols and National clearing of forests Locations: Property • Protocols established and • All proposed pipeline [Preservation] Act) procedures defined to deal with sections • Site inspections archaeological material exposed • Feedback and by land clearing and subsurface complaints from local trenching works population Construction of • New facilities built to maximum Parameters: • Engineering reports • Reporting as • Environmental Facilities and extent practicable within footprints • Locations of new • Records of arrests stipulated in coordinator (project Erection of of existing oil and gas facilities facilities by Government proponent) and/or Camps/Offices • Facility sites designed to reduce • Amount and location of police/government issued licenses, contractors • Erection of camps, earthwork volumes and limit site vegetation clearing and officials permits, and • DEC offices, warehouses, runoff and soil erosion revegetation • Site inspections approvals Funding Sources: laydown areas, and • Prohibition of hunting, gathering • Erosion control • Feedback and • Proponents, or fuel depots of plants or bush foods, and structures complaints from local statutory budget • Establishment of possession of wildlife products by • Hunting activities in the population appropriation, or funds batch plant and project workers or contractors areas surrounding accruing from project aggregate crushing • Vegetation reestablished on earth construction sites revenues facilities batter slopes (where present) • Transport and trade of • Establishment of surrounding construction facility flora and fauna
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities power and water sites as soon as practicable Location: supply facilities • All construction sites • Construction of and camps/offices fabrication yards and other related facilities Drilling Wellpads appropriately designed Parameters: • Drilling reports • Reporting as • Environmental • Selection, clearing, and located • Appropriate wellpad • Site inspections stipulated in coordinator (project grading, and designs • Project progress Government proponent) and/or preparation of • Amount and location of reports issued licenses, contractors wellpad and other vegetation clearing and permits, and • DEC required facilities revegetation approvals Funding Sources: Location: • Proponents, or • All drilling locations statutory budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues • Drilling wells • Practices related to drilling fluid Parameters: • Drilling permits • Reporting as • Environmental discharges implemented to • Visual monitoring for the • Site inspections stipulated in coordinator (project ensure compliance with permit presence of foam and • Drilling and Government proponent) and/or requirements impact on fish supervision reports issued licenses, contractors • Oily water (from drilling), collected • Compliance with drilling • Feedback and permits, and • DEC in water sumps, oil skimmed and permits complaints from local approvals Funding Sources: removed and transported off-site • Implementation of population • Proponents, or to an approved facility proper drilling and waste Statutory budget management practices appropriation, or funds Location: accruing from project Appendix 4 • All drilling locations revenues • Gas flaring during • High combustion efficiency • Smoke emission • Emission monitoring • Reporting as • Environmental well testing burners used evaluated using records and reports stipulated in coordinator (project • Smoke emission evaluated using standard procedures • Site inspections Government proponent) and/or standard procedures • Standard emission issued licenses, contractors parameters permits, and • DEC Location: approvals Funding Sources: • All drilling sites; all Proponents, or statutory emission sources budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues 75
76 Appendix Appendix 4
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities Onshore Pipelaying • Prohibition on hunting of fauna, Parameters: • Engineering design • Reporting as • Environmental • Excavation of gathering of plants or bush foods, • Hunting activities in the and construction stipulated in coordinator (project trench, pipe and possession of wildlife areas surrounding reports Government proponent) and/or
stringing and products by project workers and construction sites • Records of arrests issued licenses, contractors bending, pipestring contractors • Transport and trade of by police/ permits, and • DEC welding, weld • Limiting nominal width of flora and fauna government officials approvals Funding Sources: inspection, and joint combined ROW and access way • Revegetation of ROW • Site inspections • Proponents, or coating on Hides Ridge and allowing after construction • Feedback and statutory budget • Trench preparation ROW and access way to Location: complaints from local appropriation, or funds and coating revegetate except for a 7 m wide • All proposed pipeline population accruing from project inspection, lowering- track required for maintenance routes revenues in, tie-in, cathodic and future drilling campaigns • Main road junctions and protection, local markets backfilling, clean up Offshore Pipelaying • Limiting of presweeping, Parameters: • Site inspections • Reporting as • Environmental • Preparing the trenching, and anchor deployment • Compliance with stipulated in coordinator (project route/seabed for to the extent practicable professional Government proponent) and/or offshore pipelaying • Route aligned to avoid coral reefs construction practices issued licenses, contractors and limit traversing seagrass Location: permits, and • DEC areas • Agreed offshore pipeline approvals Funding Sources: • Implementation of marine routes • Proponents, or mammal observation procedure statutory budget and mitigation measures when appropriation, or funds such marine mammals are accruing from project observed revenues • Pipeline safety • Route aligned to be as Parameters: • Detailed engineering • Reporting as • Environmental perpendicular as practicable to • Compliance with reports stipulated in coordinator (project the channel where pipeline route designs and locations • Contractor’s Government proponent) and/or crosses designated shipping • Completion and quality completion reports issued licenses, contractors channels of updated navigation • Updated navigation permits, and • DEC • Pipeline buried in shallower charts charts approvals Funding Sources: waters to avoid ship collision Location: • Survey after • Proponents, or • Navigation charts updated to • Agreed offshore pipeline construction statutory budget show the as-laid position and to routes appropriation, or funds designate this area as a no- accruing from project anchor zone revenues • Pollution prevention • Domestic wastes from pipelaying Parameters: • Vessel inspections • Reporting as • Environmental vessels treated by disinfection of • Vessel permits and • Discussion and stipulated in coordinator (project
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities grey water, maceration of solid inspection feedback from Government proponent) and/or food waste before discharge; • Compliance with vessel workers issued licenses, contractors storage, use and handling of all MARPOL (1973/1978) • PNG and Australian permits, and • DEC hazardous materials and wastes requirements Coast Guard approvals Funding Sources: in accordance with MARPOL • Quality of spill response patrolling reports • Proponents, or (1973/1978) requirements procedures statutory budget • Appropriate spill response Location: appropriation, or funds procedures and training for • Pipelaying vessels accruing from project workers implemented revenues • Security • Fishing and other vessels Parameters: • Logs of radio • Reporting as • Environmental requested to remain outside safe • Occurrences of buffer communications stipulated in coordinator (project buffer zone around pipeline zone violations • Discussions and Government proponent) and/or installation vessels and anchor • Compliance with feedback from issued licenses, contractors cables (if used) established radio villagers permits, and • DEC • Villagers informed about hazards procedures • Accident reports and approvals Funding Sources: of pipelaying vessels Location: records • Proponents, or • Regular radio communication • Offshore pipeline routes; statutory budget procedures established nearby coastal villages appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues • Pipelaying in • Pipeline buried in bed of the lower Parameters: • Engineering and • Reporting as • Environmental Omati River Omati River to protect it and limit • Compliance with design reports stipulated in coordinator (project interruptions to bed sediment procedures and • Site inspections Government proponent) and/or transport processes standard construction • Discussions and issued licenses, contractors • Fluvial processes in the Omati practices feedback from permits, and • DEC River considered in pipeline Location: villagers approvals Funding Sources: design to reduce likelihood of • Lower Omati River • Proponents, or Appendix 4 pipeline exposure statutory budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues Commissioning of • Application of standard Parameters: • Site inspections • Reporting as • Environmental Sales Gas Pipeline environmentally sound • Compliance with during testing stipulated in coordinator (project • Hydrotest onshore procedures during hydrotest government stipulated • Water discharge Government proponent) and/or • Pre-discharge sampling and procedures permit issued licenses, contractors analysis of hydrotest water • Compliance with water • Test data permits, and • DEC undertaken as necessary to discharge permit • Discussions and approvals Funding Sources: ensure it complies with conditions Location: feedback from local • Proponents, or 77
78 Appendix Appendix 4
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities attached to relevant water • Entire onshore pipeline population and statutory budget discharge permit route governments appropriation, or funds accruing from project
revenues • Hydrotest offshore • Marine hydrotest water tested for Parameters: • Site inspections • Reporting as • Environmental suspended sediment content and, • Compliance with during testing stipulated in coordinator (project if necessary, filtered before filling government stipulated • Water discharge Government proponent) and/or pipeline and again before testing procedures permit issued licenses, contractors discharge to remove most solid • Compliance with • Test data permits, and • DEC contaminants. wastewater discharge • Discussions and approvals Funding Sources: • Applications made to PNG permit feedback from local • Proponents, or Government to discharge Location: population and statutory budget hydrotest water under a waste • Entire offshore pipeline governments appropriation, or funds discharge permit and conditions route accruing from project applicable to quarantine issues revenues • Training • Environmental sensitivity training Parameters: • Training material and • Reporting as • Environmental provided to project workforce that • Quality and quantity of documented training stipulated in coordinator (project includes overview of key flora and training provided sessions Government proponent) and/or fauna issues, mitigation Location: • Discussions and issued licenses, contractors measures, and policies/ and • Project offices and feedback from permits, and • DEC prohibitions related to wildlife facilities project workers approvals Funding Sources: disturbance and/or /harassment, • • Proponents, or hunting and vegetation gathering, statutory budget and marine offshore observation appropriation, or funds procedures accruing from project revenues Operations • Pipeline designed to appropriate Parameters: • Standard monitoring • Reporting as • Environmental • Monitoring of gas standards (pipeline valves, central • Compliance with and maintenance stipulated in coordinator (project pressure for monitoring and valve control, standard operation and reports Government proponent) possible leak emergency shutdown, etc.) maintenance (O&M) • Discussions and issued licenses, • DEC practices feedback from permits, and Funding Sources: Location: project workers approvals • Proponents, or • Entire pipeline facilities statutory budget appropriation, or funds accruing from project revenues • Access control • With agreement of local Parameters: • Routine checks for • Reporting as • Environmental
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities landowners, Hides Ridge access • Compliance with exotic plants and stipulated in coordinator (project way maintained as a private road landowner agreements animals as pat of site Government proponent) for the life of Project for Hides Ridge access access procedures issued licenses, • DEC • Implementation of a weed and way • Field checks for permits, and Funding Sources: pathogen management • Record of weed species, weeds on site approvals • Proponents budget procedures locations, and • Discussions and eradication measures feedback from local used population • Prohibition of introduction of exotic plants/animals at camps by project workers Locations: • Hides Ridge access way • Public road • A supplementary EIA (on indirect Parameters: • Roads EMP and Draft report in mid • DEC operation impacts of roads) undertaken by • Supplementary EIA monitoring plan and June, and final • ADB the Government and ADB to (including EMP and SIMMP acceptable report by end of assess indirect impacts on forests monitoring plan) and to all concerned July, 2006 and biodiversity and formulate the SIMMP prepared, and parties environmental management plan recommendations (EMP) and monitoring plan acceptable (expected to be completed end of Location: July 2006) • All roads within Kikori • Social impact management and Integrated Conservation monitoring plan (SIMMP) also and Development developed together with the Program (KICDP) area
supplementary EIA Appendix 4 • Discharging • Water and wastewater discharges Parameters: • Wastewater permits • Reporting as • Environmental wastewater, sewage treated to comply with conditions • Compliance with compliance reports stipulated in coordinator (project effluent, and other for discharge quality specified in wastewater discharge • Sewage treatment Government proponent) liquid wastes relevant water discharge permits permits plant operations issued licenses, • DEC • Sewage treatment plants Location: records permits, and Funding Sources: operated in accordance with • All project sewage • Plant inspections approvals • Proponents, or manufacturer's specifications and treatment plants and feedback and statutory budget in compliance with conditions for complaints from local appropriation, or funds discharge quality (including population and accruing from project disinfection) specified in relevant governments revenues waste discharge permits 79
80 Appendix Appendix 4
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities • Inspection and Periodic inspections along upgraded Parameters: • Inspection reports • Reporting as • Environmental maintenance of road/pipeline ROW within Lake • Compliance with • Feedback and stipulated in coordinator (project pipeline Kutubu catchment, including standard professional complaints from local Government proponent)
checking for problematic erosion operation and population and issued licenses, • DEC areas implementing remedial works management practices governments permits, and Funding Sources: as appropriate . Inspecting ditches • No problematic erosion, approvals • Proponents, or and culverts, and removing land degradation, or statutory budget accumulated debris clearing of vegetation at appropriation, or funds project sites accruing from project Location: revenues • All road and pipeline sections in Lake Kutubu WMA • Conduct of Procedures developed and Parameters: • Procedures for • Reporting as • Environmental continuing/regular implemented for appropriate • Procedures for waste waste management stipulated in coordinator (project inspection and handling, transport, storage and management according • Field inspections of Government proponent) maintenance of disposal of materials including fuels, to international project facilities and issued licenses, • DEC facilities lubricating oils, drilling fluids, professional standards discussions with permits, and Funding Sources: chemicals, and radionuclides • Development and project workers approvals • Proponent’s and/or implementation of • Feedback and contractor’s budget; approved waste complaints from local loan proceeds management population and procedures governments Location: • All project facilities • Security Speed limits implemented for project Parameters: • Field inspections of • Reporting as • Environmental vehicles along access way/pipeline • Establishment and project facilities and stipulated in coordinator (project ROWs compliance with speed discussions with Government proponent) limits by project vehicles project workers issued licenses, • DEC • Occurrences and • Project safety permits, and Funding Sources: number of accidents records approvals • Proponent’s and/or Location: • Feedback and • contractor’s budget; • All project locations complaints from local loan proceeds population and governments Dismantling/removal • With agreement of local Parameters: • Field inspection of • Reporting as • Environmental of aboveground landowners, Hides Ridge access • Closure of access ways access roads and stipulated in coordinator (project facilities and access way made impassable at end of and ROW ROW Government proponent)
Project Activity/ Summary of Impact Mitigation Parameters and Means of Verification Frequency and Monitoring Sub-Activities Locations Reporting Responsibilities ways project life • Completion and • Facility-by-facility issued licenses, • DEC • Kopi to Omati ROW not implementation of decommissioning permits, and Funding Sources: maintained for accessibility upon decommissioning EMPs EMPs approvals • Proponent’s budget, completion of construction Location: • Decommissioning and/or contractor’s • Facility-by-facility • Hides Ridge access way reports budget, or funds decommissioning EMP prepared • Kopi-Omati ROW accruing from project about 1 year before revenue decommissioning activities beginactivities begin Appendix Appendix 4 81
82 Appendix 5
Appendix 5: Consultation Summary
A. Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs)
Table A5.1: Consultation with NGOs Date of Meeting No. of Organizations Topics/Issues Stakeholder Meeting Location Attendees Represented Discussed WWF Kikori Integrated April 2005 Project area 12+ WWF EIS biodiversity studies Conservation and Biodiversity study Development Project team WWF South Pacific 21 June Esso Office 6 WWF South Pacific, Project briefing. Funding 2005 Port Moresby Esso, Enesar for WWF projects, logging, gardens on pipeline ROW The Nature 21 June Esso Office 7 The Nature Project briefing. Impacts Conservancy Pacific 2005 Port Moresby Conservancy Pacific from road, pollution, Island Countries Island Countries impact of revenues on Program Program, Esso, OSL, local communities, Enesar logging, household survey, sabotage risks Conservation 21 June Esso Office 6 Conservation Project briefing. Impacts International 2005 Port Moresby International, Esso, on ecosystems services OSL, Enesar (such as village water supplies), invasive species, impact on landscapes Conservation 21 June Esso Office 7 Conservation Project briefing Development Initiative 2005 Port Moresby Development Initiative, Esso, Enesar PEACE Foundation 22 June Esso Office 6 PEACE Foundation Project briefing. Road and Melanesia 2005 Port Moresby Melanesia, Esso, project revenue impacts, OSL, Enesar NGO projects relevant to PNG Gas Project CELCOR and 22 June Esso Office 7 CELCOR, Project briefing. Environmental Law 2005 Port Moresby Environmental Law Landowner representation Centre Centre, Esso, OSL, and benefit distribution, Enesar logging CELCOR = Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights, Inc. Statement, Esso = Esso Highlands Limited, NGO = Nongovernment organization, OSL = Oil Search Limited, PNG = Papua New Guinea, ROW = right-of-way, WWF = World Wide Fund for Nature. Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report; Vol. 2: Main Report Figures, Plates, and Attachments. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited
B. Landowner Companies and Landowners
Table A5.2: Consultations with Landowner Companies and Landowners Stakeholder Total No. Meeting Total No. Organizations Topics/Issues Meetings Location Attendees Represented Discussed Landowner companies 26 Port Moresby 794+ Landowner Establishment of NECL to (9) and local companies, Esso, represent landowner villages IAC, OSL companies, PNG Gas Project work contracts Landowners 28 28 project area Not Project area Gas awareness meetings in villages recorded communities, Esso, presentations to project April 2005 (250 OSL area communities and interviews survey of opinions of 250 logged) individuals. Distribution of information leaflets Landowners April and Project area 1,774 Project area Household survey June 2005 households community members
Appendix 5 83
Stakeholder Total No. Meeting Total No. Organizations Topics/Issues Meetings Location Attendees Represented Discussed and landowners Landowners 13 13 South Fly 2,940 South Fly community Gas awareness meetings villages members, Esso, presentation including from 9−22 specialist consultant discussion of perceived October and actual project benefits to coastal communities. Landowners 30 30 project area About Project area Gas Awareness program meetings villages 2,240 communities, Esso, roadshow, presenting from 15−20 OSL technical structure of October Project to communities. 2005 Landowners (Archaeology Study) Landowners 4 surveys Pipeline ROW 200+ Local landowners, Interviews with April– villages VLOs, archaeologists landowners regarding the October location of archaeological 2005 and cultural heritage sites. Esso Highlands Limited, IAC = Independent advisory company, OSL = Oil Search Limited, NECL = National Energy Company Limited, PNG = Papua New Guinea, ROW = right-of-way, VLO = Village liaison officer.
C. Collateral Forestry Assessment Consultations
Table A5.3: Consultations with Forest Management Areas Stakeholder Total No. Meeting Total No. Organizations Topics/Issues meetings Location Attendees Represented Discussed Turama Forest 15 Port Moresby, Average 3 EIS collateral forestry Access of pipeline ROW Industries meetings in Kikori River per study team, Turama road for logging, eco- April 2005 area, Lae, meeting Forest Industries, EU forestry policy, NGO Mendi Eco-Forestry, Eco- perspectives on logging Forestry Forum, SGS and government Forestry, UPNG enforcement, information remote sensing for EIS, logging, funding centre, local for eco-forestry position at landowners and WWF Kopi, oil palm portable sawmill plantation potential, operators in Kikori project benefits area, PNGFA, distribution Department of Forestry, PNG Forest Research Institute
Esso - Esso Highlands Limited; OSL - Oil Search Limited; IAC - independent advisory company; VLO - village liaison officer; CELCOR - Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights; PNGFA - PNG Forest Authority; NECL - National Energy Company Limited, FMA - forest management area . EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, NGO = Nongovernment organization, PNGFA = Papua New Guinea Forest Authority, ROW = right-of-way, SGS Forestry = Société Générale de Surveillance, UPNG = University of PNG, WWF = World Wide Fund for Nature, VLO - Village liaison officer, Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report; Vol. 2: Main Report Figures, Plates, and Attachments. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited
D. Project Response to Issues Raised During Consultation Sessions Table A5.4: Project Responses Issues Raised Project Response Potential for landowner issues related to Hydrological investigations of Omati River landfall were construction impacts as the pipeline enters the initiated; reported in EIS section 13.4 and Supporting Study Omati River. 13. TSPZ identified as habitat for several threatened Potential impacts on TSPZ habitat and fisheries investigated species. as part of EIS marine study (Supporting Study 9) and
84 Appendix 5
Issues Raised Project Response addressed in EIS Chapter 14. People in coastal villages of the Western Province A consultation program for all PNG communities along the adjacent to the proposed pipeline need to be coast and on offshore islands adjacent to pipeline route considered in the EIS consultation process. undertaken in October 2005. Reported in social impact assessment (Supporting Study 10). Recommendation that pipeline construction occur Fishery closure period does not apply to section of the during prawn fishery closure period. prawn trawling grounds traversed by proposed offshore sales gas pipeline (section 14.4 of the EIS). Sediment build up from the Fly River Delta could Based on recent data, a physical risk to the pipeline is not pose threat to pipeline integrity; monitoring studies expected (Supporting Study 9). might be required. Decommissioning plans for the pipeline Section 8.6 of the EIS Anchor drag impacts Temporary localized scouring of seabed will occur due to laybarge repositions during pipelaying activities. This is addressed in section 14.2 of the EIS. Security concerns related to not burying the Globally, most offshore pipelines are not buried. No security pipeline offshore. concerns are envisaged; offshore pipeline will only be buried where it needs protection (in shallow water, high current areas, shipping lanes, etc.). See section 7.3 of the EIS. Potential for noise or heat impacts from gas moving No such impacts are expected. through the pipeline. Questions raised about mitigation options for ROW Mitigation measures are addressed in EIS section 13.3. rehabilitation. Discussion on whether the 1999 cultural heritage Factual contents of the report reviewed and included in survey in the TSPZ will be included with the EIS. social impact assessment. Recommendations of the survey superseded by findings and recommendations of the October 2005 report (Hitchcock, 2005). Query regarding the status of the road between Road has been announced as a public road under the PNG Gobe and Kopi. Land Act (PNG National Gazette, No. G73, 5 September 1996). However, it essentially functions as a private road because of access difficulties, in particular the ferry crossing at Kaiam and the lack of connectivity to other public roads. Query about site monitoring of air quality An analysis of the Project’s air emissions indicates that air quality monitoring is not warranted (EIS section 13.8). In the absence of PNG criteria, the Project needs to Criteria for NO2 are included in section 13.9 of the EIS. determine the value for ambient criteria for NO2 emissions. One dwelling is potentially in the noise impact zone. No adverse noise impacts to residents in vicinity of project facilities are predicted during operations (section 13.9). Query on whether construction will take place on a Work may take place 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 24 hours per day, 7 days per week basis. Query whether the project awareness and Consultation program for all PNG communities along the consultation process covered Torres Strait coast and on offshore islands adjacent to the pipeline route community concerns about perceived project was undertaken in October 2005. This consultation is benefits. reported in the social impact assessment. Distribution of benefits from the PNG Gas Project or Distribution of benefits from the PNG Gas Project will be previous projects. specified in the GPCSA (EIS sections 11 and 15). Queries related to the establishment of NECL as An independent advisory company (IAC) has been tasked to the umbrella company for landowner companies. establish an appropriate landowner business development program. The process involved extensive and ongoing consultations with landowners and communities in the project area. Confirmation that stakeholder consultation process The Project’s public consultation and disclosure program was genuine and concern that landowners should has featured numerous landowner sessions. be dealt with directly. Gas emissions might cause “pollution rain”. Gaseous emissions from the Hides and Kutubu facilities during operations are not expected to result in formation of “acid rain” since emissions of SO2 and NOx concentrations will be very low. Air quality impacts from the Project are covered in EIS section 13.8. Concern about potential increases in law and order This is a government matter.
Appendix 5 85
Issues Raised Project Response problems. Majority of household survey respondents in the Environmental concerns addressed by the EIS in general. project area want the Project to proceed (82.8%): Concerns regarding a lack of forum/cooperation are 97% to 100% of villagers surveyed from Gobe, addressed by ongoing landowner consultations and by the Kikori, Kutubu, and Moran areas; 68% of villagers GPCSA forum process. Concerns for future generations, from the Hides area. Main objections were: issues related to provision of services by the Government, • Insufficient services to be provided by the and the Huli landowners’ desire for a Hela Province are all Government (40%) discussed in the social impact assessment. The last issue • Environmental concerns (26%) lies outside the Project’s realm of responsibility. • Concerns for future generations (15%) • Lack of forum/cooperation (12%) • Huli landowners’ desire for Hela Province (7%) Road link from Tari to Kikori: the majority of Concerns raised in relation to the Tari to Kikori road link are villagers from Gobe, Hides, Kutubu, and Moran are addressed in the social impact assessment. Impacts are in favor, against only 33% of the household survey addressed in EIS section 16. respondents from Kikori. The main concerns raised include ethnic tension, increase in criminal activity, and the potential for land takeover. Other issues raised include road surface and maintenance, security, links to other centers, and urgency to build the road. Promises made by the Government may not be Past problems were often linked with written agreements upheld. failing to reflect verbal promises; it may be possible to avoid these problems by implementing the GPCSA, which is a Landowner–Government agreement. Risk of gas pipeline exploding Hazard evaluation and adherence to regulatory requirements and standards will be incorporated into the design of the Project’s facilities and pipelines to maximize safety and security (EIS section 2.5.3). Road/pipeline ROW issues including: These issues are addressed in EIS sections 13 and 16. • People making gardens on the ROW • Availability of roads to logging vehicles • Grass fires lit by locals invading the forest • Spread of weeds during construction Sabotage risks regarding the pipelines Pipeline safety and security measures described in EIS section 2.5.4 will detect any damage caused by sabotage. In addition, most of the new pipelines will be buried. Benefits of active versus passive rehabilitation The Project will reclaim construction-disturbed land surfaces to facilitate natural revegetation. In areas where revegetation needs to be accelerated, active revegetation options will be evaluated. Impacts on ecosystem services such as No adverse impacts on village water supplies are predicted construction impacts on village water supplies. (EIS section 13.4). Benefits reaching their intended beneficiaries Main vehicles for distribution of benefits associated with the Project are the GPCSA and NECL (EIS sections 11 and 15). Landowner representation Addressed through landowner consultations undertaken by the Project and GPCSA forum process. Pipeline crossing existing logging roads and Project does not anticipate any adverse impacts related to potential interference with logging barge traffic. commercial forestry. Potential cumulative effects related to timber harvesting are discussed in EIS section16. Availability of roads to logging vehicles See EIS section16. Conversion of forest to oil palm plantation This matter lies outside the Project’s area of responsibility. Potential increases in migration leading to ethnic See EIS section 16. tension and increases in criminal activities. Distribution of project benefits to the wider Addressed in EIS section 15 and social impact assessment community and region. and will be determined in GPCSA consultation process. Requests for funding assistance to monitor forestry During construction phase, the Project will provide support activities in project area and promote landholder to WWF initiatives related to biodiversity conservation in the awareness of forestry issues and to provide project area. funding for ecoforestry advisor position at WWF Kopi.
86 Appendix 5
Issues Raised Project Response Previous lack of consultation regarding Surveys for archaeological and cultural heritage sites have archaeology and cultural heritage during past been and will be undertaken prior to construction of project construction activities. facilities, roads, pipelines, and supporting infrastructure. This will include consultation with local communities. Consultations undertaken during archaeological Additional studies undertaken in October 2005 around Kopi survey in the Kopi area suggested further study and between Kopi and Omati River landfall location, which was needed to fully determine potential impacts. was not previously surveyed. Follow-up survey work to be carried out in the first quarter of 2006 to resolve residual constraints. Consultations undertaken during the archaeological Additional studies will be undertaken in the first quarter of survey in the section of the pipeline ROW/access 2006 to resolve any routing constraints. This survey will way between the Hides Production Facility and involve consultation with local inhabitants. It is project policy Homa indicated potential for impacts to to avoid identified archaeological and cultural heritage sites archaeological and cultural heritage sites. to the extent practicable. EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, GPCSA = Gas Project Co-operation and Sharing Agreement, NO2, = nitrous dioxide, PNG = Papua New Guinea, ROW = right-of-way, TSPZ = Torres Strait Protected Zone, WWF = World Wide Fund for Nature Source: Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1: Main Report. PNG Gas Project. December 2005. Esso Highlands Limited