11 February 2013 Approval process for 4th Gladstone LNG EIS just as flawed Rushed and pressured public servants were given impossible deadlines to approve Queensland’s massive new coal seam gas industry including three LNG plants for Curtis Island and raise questions about whether the public good and environmental impacts were ever properly assessed. Environment group Save the Reef says political pressure and staff cutbacks have increased workloads on the public service under the Newman Government and that it is deeply concerned about whether the 4th LNG plant will be stringently assessed, as it is supposed to be, to protect the environment and public interest. Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors urged the current state government not to make the same mistakes. ‘Thanks to those rushed approvals, environmental harm has occurred. The Condamine river has methane bubbling up through it and the Great Barrier Reef is threatened with World Heritage Area ''In Danger" listing.’ Save the Reef says it is disturbing to note a government spokesperson was reported as stating that the industry was operating ‘with no evidence of significant environmental damage or adverse outcomes’. A public servant who issues an environmental authority that does not meet the criteria of the Environment Protection Act 1994 may be guilty of official misconduct. The Newman government is currently considering the approval of a 4th LNG plant for Arrow which is owned by Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd for Curtis Island in Gladstone Harbour, part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. This is despite the fact that just last year Shell re-affirmed its 10 year commitment to UNESCO not to develop oil and gas facilities in World Heritage Areas. ‘Gladstone’s marine environment is struggling with the massive Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, major flooding and construction of three LNG plants. ‘We think investigation of cumulative impacts on Gladstone Harbour and the regulation of dredging and other construction impacts from the LNG plants is urgently needed. At the moment a 4th LNG plant is not environmentally sustainable.’ Dr Connors said that the group endorsed calls for a CMC inquiry into the approvals process and government regulation of the coal seam gas industry. ‘It is pretty clear that the rushed approvals process did not allow the department to adequately assess all effects and now our world wonder, our tourism icon, the Great Barrier Reef, and the 6 billion dollars it brings in every year is “In Danger”.’ ‘There are many more unanswered questions and concerns that the approvals process was not up to the requirements of existing legislation let alone the demands of a twenty-first world facing declining coral reefs worldwide and burdened by too much atmospheric carbon.’ Contacts: Libby Connors 0429 487 110; Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653 Proposals for LNG processing facilities and associated infrastructure within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area currently under assessment Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Development of a Liquefied Natural Gas http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_ Facility referrals&limit=999999&text_search=2009%2F5007 Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Development of high pressure gas pipeline http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_ referrals&limit=999999&text_search=2009%2F5008 14 February 2013 CEO of Gladstone Ports to depart in August - Too late to save Harbour World Heritage Area During Leo Zussino’s term as CEO of Gladstone Ports Corporation, an environmental disaster unfolded in Gladstone harbour as the World Heritage Area, dugong sanctuary and turtle haven was turned into a massive oil, gas and coal hub. His time at the helm was marked by a UNESCO mission visit, following that organisation’s expression of extreme concern about the LNG developments in Gladstone harbour. The mission called for an independent scientific inquiry into Gladstone Harbour, including a review of its management, after meeting with governments, environment, fishing and community groups, and Mr Leo Zussino, to discuss the harbour. His term was marked by hostility towards the harbour’s environmental values, according to environment group Save the Reef. ‘Mr Zussino used his position to call for Gladstone harbour to be removed from the World Heritage listing and wrote to all MPs in Australia to promote this idea,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Andrew Jeremijenko said. ‘He was blind to the harbour’s important environmental values and this undoubtedly contributed to his downfall.’ The Gladstone Ports Corporation board ‘‘chose not to renew’’ chief executive officer Leo Zussino's contract, which expires at the end of August for a multitude of reasons. Mr Zussino was a long time Labor Party supporter and was lucky to survive the port's administrative and managerial revamp in June last year, when Ian Brusasco was sacked. With ongoing environmental problems and the change of political parties he was lucky to finish his contract. In June while he is still at the helm, the Gladstone Inquiry will release its findings and UNESCO will determine if the Great Barrier Reef including Gladstone Harbour will be placed on the World Heritage Area "In Danger" list. His departure will not save the Great Barrier Reef or Gladstone Harbour from the damage already done. Save the Reef says that his successor should learn from his mistakes and not view this marine environment solely as an industrial estate. ‘Mr Zussino may well see Gladstone Harbour removed from World Heritage Listing. It will then be his fate to be remembered as one of this country’s environmental vandals, one who helped destroy $6 billion dollars of revenue, a tourism icon and the world wonder that was the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.’ Contacts: Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653; Dr Libby Connors 0429 487 110 Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gladstone-ports-chief-to-step-down- 20130214-2efbw.html#ixzz2KraIng64 Resource consultants acting like high paid super models’ By John Mikkelsen AN ENVIRONMENTAL medicine specialist has compared consultants working on major resource developments with “supermodels who won’t get out of bed for less than $5000 a day”. The claim was made by Save the Reef spokesman Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an occupational physician who once worked as chief medical officer for Woodside Petroleum in WA. He has also provided “Telemedicine advice” to major coal seam gas and Curtis Island LNG proponents, QGC and Origin over the past three years. His scathing assessment of the resources consultancy industry followed the release of a report last week by the Federal Government’s Independent Scientific Expert Committee. This raised a number of issues over Arrow Energy’s Surat Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement, including underground water and threatened species. Dr Jeremijenko told the Telegraph, “This demonstrates how broken the EIS process has become. “In my view environmental consultants are becoming more like supermodels than protectors of the environment. “They won't get out of bed for less than $5000 a day. They go and take a few pictures and sell the product (namely the resource company CSG project). “If you have the patience to read their ‘glossy’, it is shallow. It doesn’t address issues like cumulative impacts. They are paid by the resource companies and they do their bidding. “Very few projects get knocked back and they don’t get sued by the Queensland Government if they say, ‘ It will all be ok’ but are proved wrong … All you have to do is look at the Dee River or at Ensham to realize these consultants get it wrong” . Dr Jeremijenko said the expert committee was set up at the instigation of Federal Independent MP Tony Windsor, who had been dissatisfied with government scrutiny of new coal and coal seam gas projects. “The committee has found that the Environmental Impact Statement for Arrow Energy does not adequately address potential impacts to matters of national environmental significance. “It considered the EIS modelling inadequate as it does not assess cumulative impacts and they found the project has the potential to significantly impact on aquifer integrity in the region,” Dr Jeremijenko said. “Mr Windsor and fellow independent Rob Oakeshott have successfully lobbied for a "Water Trigger’ to be included in the EPBC act. The resource companies continue to lobby against it. They know they are having cumulative impacts on the water…. You can't drink coal or gas," Dr Jeremijenko said. Save the Reef believed the expert committee had highlighted problems with the whole EIS process. Environmental consultants had lost their independence and had become “the voice boxes for industry”. “The current system rewards environmental consultants with repeat work if they write what the resource companies want…. “The government then approves projects without adequate review of these ‘independent’ EIS. If later there is an environmental disaster the environmental consultants know there is little chance they will be held responsible…. Dr Jeremijenko said the EIS for Arrow’s gasfield project was unfortunately one of many found to be flawed. “In my view, Environmental Impact Statements are no longer worth the paper they are written on,” he said. “The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area may be put on UNESCO’s ‘In Danger List’ on June 1 partly because environmental consultants for the LNG plants and Western Basin Dredging and Disposal project said that environmental impacts could be managed and would be small to negligible. “The consultants had stated in one EIS for a Curtis Island LNG plant, that Gladstone Harbour was an area of low sensitivity despite a table stating that World Heritage Areas should be classified as high sensitivity. Gladstone Harbour is a turtle haven and dugong sanctuary.,” Dr Jeremijenko said. His claims follow a CMC probe into recent allegations that the former Bligh government had pressured senior public servants into rushed approval of earlier EIS reports by other major coal seam gas companies constructing pipelines and LNG export terminals on Curtis Island.