James Price Point Science Assessment Report Updated Supplementary submission on the WA government’s Browse LNG Strategic Assessment for a proposed gas processing hub at James Price Point, Kimberley WA The Wilderness Society & Environs Kimberley & Conservation Council of WA May 2012 Submission to the WA EPA and Commonwealth Department of Environment (SEWPaC) Printed on Evolve 100% post-consumer recycled paper Supplementary submission – Browse LNG Strategic Assessment Introduction This supplementary submission, presented almost one year after our original joint-ENGO submission on the Browse LNG (BLNG) gas hub ‘strategic assessment report’, highlights significant new and ongoing concerns over the adequacy and reliability of the process. The proponent, the WA Department of State Development (DSD), has manifestly failed to provide the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the Department of Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPaC), and respective State and Commonwealth Ministers, with a sound basis for decisions on development options for the Browse gas field. What started out as a strategic assessment process intended to optimise environmental, social and economic outcomes from development of the Browse gas field has turned into a process to defend a political decision to locate a massive, but inadequately defined, LNG hub at James Price Point (JPP) on the pristine Kimberley coast. The Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) produced by the proponent is incomplete, inaccurate and fails to adequately address key environmental, social and economic issues, including cumulative impacts. Instead, it presents grossly inadequate studies and unsubstantiated conclusions as the basis for project approval. Having pre-empted the assessment of other options – options preferred by several of the Browse LNG joint venture partners (JVPs), the proponent does not adequately describe the proposal at James Price Point. Despite the requirements of the SAR Agreement and Terms of Reference 1, DSD’s documentation fails to set out in sufficient detail its plans in relation to, amongst other things, groundwater use and desalination; breakwater design and construction; dredging (incl. cumulative impacts), and greenhouse gas mitigation. Studies and information relied on by the proponent but clearly inadequate (lack of time and data, poor design, etc) include those relating to cetaceans (whales and dolphins), sawfish, turtles, dugongs, birds, monsoon vine thickets, bilbies, dredging, coastal processes modelling, marine wastewater discharge, hydrogeology and hydrology, and social and economic impacts. The dinosaur trackways work done by DSD was shown to be grossly inadequate, requiring the EPA to demand a further assessment, which has not yet been released. Community science initiatives have exposed major flaws in the multi-million dollar consultants studies relied on by DSD, including in the areas of dinosaur trackways, turtles, monsoon vine thickets, cetaceans and bilbies. Fundamentally, DSD and the SAR have failed to adequately acknowledge or factor in the global significance of the Kimberley marine and coastal environment as one of the most pristine (least impacted) left on Earth outside the polar regions (see Fig. 1). Several of the Browse JVPs have made it clear that they do not want to be constrained to the costly and risky ‘greenfields’ Kimberley option. Industry analysts state that it would be $10 billion cheaper to pipe the gas south ( Appendix 5 ). Narrow and misplaced motivations must not be allowed to prioritise James Price Point over other less environmentally destructive, less socially divisive and less economically risky options. Fig 1: Global map of cumulative human impact across 20 ocean ecosystem types showing northern Australia as ‘Very low impact’. 2 1 Australian and Western Australian Governments (2008). Strategic Assessment Agreement - Relating to the assessment of the impacts of actions under the Plan for the Browse Basin Common User Liquefied Natural Gas Hub Precinct. Canberra. 2 Halpern, BS, et al (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems . Science 319:948. DOI: 0.1126/science.1149345. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-1 1. Failure to implement agreed scientific peer review process A number of leading scientists have commented (in their submission or in personal communications) on the poor science and lack of peer review in the SAR. Despite the proponent, the WA Department of State Development, agreeing that a comprehensive scientific peer review process was required, it has failed to create such a review body or process. The Strategic Assessment Peer Review Process was recommended in the Browse LNG Precinct Scope of the Strategic Assessment: “Given the significant environment and the scale and complexity of the proposal, there is required a high level of confidence of the technical work underpinning the Strategic Assessment. As such there is an intention to undertake ongoing reviews of the strategic assessment process and of all deliverables and outputs. Arrangements for Peer review, including the establishment of a Peer Review Panel consisting of members from government and non-government sectors are to be advised.” 3 Regardless of the timing, a credible peer review process must now be established to review all the studies and information provided by DSD and Woodside. Recent independent reports on dinosaur trackways, dredging, bilbies, dolphins, turtles and social impacts have thrown serious doubt on the adequacy of the studies provided by DSD and Woodside. Unless and until the agreed peer review panel is established, Ministers and the public can have no confidence in the accuracy or adequacy of the material presented by the proponent. 2. Legal doubt over project location & description The recent WA Supreme Court decision to declare null and void the government’s compulsory land acquisition notices has served to further highlight the legally questionable nature of this industrial precinct and its impact assessment. 4 Given that the proponent has not clearly and lawfully defined the project area, it is doubtful how the EPA can carry out an assessment. Even small changes in the location of any of the dozens of components that make up this precinct could result in serious, material changes to the project’s impacts, e.g. in relation to dinosaur trackways, Aboriginal sites or threatened monsoon vine thicket communities. The compulsory land acquisition process has now recommenced with revised BLNG project boundaries. The SAR will need to reassess the likely impacts in view of these revised boundaries. 3. Conflicts of interest: Environmental consultants One of the key environmental consultants for the SAR and the proposed access highway to James Price Point (JPP), AECOM Pty Ltd, has been identified by Main Roads WA as ‘preferred project partner’ for the construction of the $100m highway to JPP. 5 The EPA and Commonwealth relied on environmental studies by AECOM, such as AECOM’s ‘targeted survey’ for bilbies, 6 for their respective decisions not to formally assess the road proposal. As a result, AECOM now stands to earn millions of dollars of public money from building a road that studies it authored helped ensure would not be subject to rigorous environmental impact assessment. AECOM also provided one of the two reports on the significance of dinosaur trackways at James Price Point that DSD has used to try to discredit the importance of the trackways. 7 Several of the other industry-preferred consultants used by DSD and Woodside give rise to similar concerns as to rigour and impartiality. Without an independent scientific peer review process the public can have no confidence in the reliability of consultant’s studies relied on by DSD in the SAR documentation. 4. Failure to properly consider regional and international marine migratory route and habitat The Dampier Peninsula coast is a key migratory pathway and habitat for whales 8, dolphins 9, turtles 10 , dugongs 11 and sawfish 12 . The importance of this coast as a migratory habitat for multiple and diverse marine species, and the 3 Department of State Development (DSD) (2010) Browse Liquefied Natural Gas Precinct – Strategic Assessment Report (Draft for Public Comment) – Appendix A-2 Scope of the Strategic Assessment . Government of Western Australia, Perth. 4 http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2011WASC0335/$FILE/2011WASC0335.pdf 5 http://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/RuralProjects/Pages/browse_LNG.aspx#environmental 6 AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (2011) Browse LNG precinct access road – targeted fauna survey: Greater Bilby . Main Roads WA 7 AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (2010) Preliminary report on the Palaeontology including dinosaur footprints of the Broome sandstone in the James Price Point area, WA. Department of State Development. Supplementary Report: Browse LNG Strategic Assessment April 2012 Page-2 cumulative threats posed by industrialisation, are not adequately addressed by the proponent in the SAR or subsequently. 4.1 Dolphins disregarded by SAR The presence of dolphins has been almost completely overlooked in the SAR. The SAR has incorrectly dismissed all of the Kimberley coast’s species of dolphin as one species and has failed to conduct targeted studies to determine the presence of, and likely impact to, each of the various dolphin species. Independent scientists have been highly critical of the SAR in its failure to recognise different species of dolphins.