Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point: Assessment Report 65
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point: Assessment Report 65
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point: Assessment Report 65
Table of Contents
Glossary......................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................9
1
1.2
Regulatory Framework..............................................................................20
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.3
2.3.1
Dredging.......................................................................................29
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
3
Physical ......................................................................................................38
3.2
Biological....................................................................................................39
3.3
Socio-economic .........................................................................................40
3.4
Cultural/Historical......................................................................................40
Introduction................................................................................................42
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
4.6
Biodiversity impacts..................................................................................58
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
Barramundi ..................................................................................66
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
Noise.............................................................................................74
4.7.5
Air emissions...............................................................................75
4.7.6
4.8
Cultural impacts.........................................................................................80
4.9
4.9.1
4.9.2
4.9.3
Cost of living................................................................................84
4.9.4
Employment.................................................................................85
4.9.5
Health ...........................................................................................85
4.9.6
4.9.7
Tourism ........................................................................................86
4.9.8
Visual Amenity.............................................................................87
4.10
4.10.1
4.10.2
Water supply................................................................................88
4.11
4.12
Decommissioning .......................................................................90
4.13
Conclusion .........................................................................................................95
References: ........................................................................................................96
Appendix 1................................................................................................................97
Glossary
AAPA
AFANT
AHD
AIMS
aMDEA
activated methyldiethanolamine
AMSTECI
ANZECC
CEMP
CH4
Methane
CO2
Carbon dioxide
CPF
CSD
Cutter-suction dredge
DCC
DCM
DHAC
DoR
DPC
DPI
draft EIS
EA Act
EAAP
ECNT
Environment Centre NT
EIA
EIS
EH Division
EMP
EPA
EPL
EPBC Act
ESD
FEED
FIFO
Fly-in, fly-out
FPSO
GHG
Greenhouse gas
GSP
HIA
HSE
H2S
Hydrogen sulphide
JPDA
LAT
LDC
LNG
LPG
MEG
Monoethylene Glycol
MOF
NES
NLC
NOx
Oxides of Nitrogen
N2O
Nitrous Oxide
NRETAS
NT
Northern Territory
NOI
Notice of Intent
OEMP
OSCP
QRA
Responsible Minister
NT Minister for Lands and Planning
RO
Reverse osmosis
SEL
SEWPaC
SIMP
SOx
Oxides of Sulfur
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
Supplement
the Minister
the Project
the proponent
TPWC Act
TSHD
WMPC Act
WWF
Percent
/d
Per day
/h
Per hour
/L
Per litre
dB re 1 Pa
dB(A)
Decibels (A-weighted)
Degrees Celsius
MMbbl
Million barrels
ms
Millisecond
ha
Hectare
kg
Kilogram
km
Kilometre
km2
Square kilometre
Litre
Microsecond
Metre
Cubic metre
m3/h
Million
3
Mm
mg
Milligram
ML
Mega litres
mm
Millimetre
MPa
Mega Pascals
Mt
Mega tonne
Metric tonne
Definitions
CO2-equivalent: A unit of greenhouse gas emissions calculated by multiplying the
actual mass of emissions by the appropriate Global Warming
Potential. This enables emissions of different gases to be added
together and compared with CO2.
dB(A): decibels, A-weighted scale; unit used for most measurements of
environmental noise; the scale is based upon typical responses of the human
ear to sounds of different frequencies.
PM10: The fraction of dust with a particle size of 10 m or less; a health indicator for
the fine particles of respirable dust capable of being inhaled into the lungs.
Executive Summary
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the process of defining those elements of
the environment that may be affected by a development proposal and analysing the
risks associated with the potential impacts that have been identified. This
Assessment Report (the Report) assesses the environmental impact of the Ichthys
Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point (the Project).
The EIA process effectively allocates risk between the proponent, the government
and the community. Some risks associated with this project will be temporary, for
example some construction risks and some of the risks associated with sediment
from dredging. Some impacts will be permanent, for example the visual impact and
changes to the sea floor due to dredging. Some impacts, for example greenhouse
gas emissions will be ongoing. Complex impacts, for example, the precise nature of
the impacts from dredging are not predictable and so will need to be carefully
monitored and adaptively managed. A series of treatments for some of the more
complex risks are described below in this summary. Initially 17 management plans
are recommended to ensure that risks are minimised. These treatments will ensure
that the proponent will be able to minimise impacts, that Government will be able to
monitor and control uncertainties and the public will be informed of the Project as it
develops.
INPEX Browse Ltd (INPEX) proposes to develop the Ichthys Field in the Browse
Basin off the north-west coast of Australia to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG),
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and condensate.
The proposal includes the
installation and operation of offshore extraction and processing facilities in the
Ichthys Field, an onshore liquefaction (LNG) and fractionation (LPG) facility at
Blaydin Point, Darwin, and a 935km pipeline to transport the gas from the offshore
facilities to the onshore facilities.
The Project has been assessed jointly by the Northern Territory Government under
the Environmental Assessment Act 1982 and the Australian Government under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Northern
Territory Government was responsible for assessing the nearshore and onshore
aspects of the proposal. Some assessment overlap with matters of national
environmental significance occurred where species were listed under both NT and
Commonwealth legislation. The Northern Territory Government led the assessment
on these matters.
This Report forms the basis of advice to the Minister for Natural Resources,
Environment and Heritage on the environmental issues associated with the project.
The Minister is required to make comment and/or recommendations with regard to
the proposal to the Minister for Lands and Planning (the responsible Minister) in the
first instance.
The Report is based on a review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft
EIS), Supplement to the draft EIS (Supplement), and comments from the public and
Northern Territory Government agencies on the draft EIS. Government guidelines
and Government and public responses to the EIS have been rigorous and the
Supplement responded accordingly. There is still a lack of data to fully assess all
impacts so a comprehensive environmental management program, comprising a
series of management plans and targeted projects, will need to be implemented to
monitor and minimise impacts.
The following plans will be important in mitigating risks associated with the project:
This Project has garnered the greatest number of public submissions of any project
assessment in the NT. Comments received were not just about Project specifics but
more broadly demonstrated the complex tensions between peoples aspirations for
Darwin Harbour and the region, and the very considerable economic opportunity
offered by such a development.
Recommendations arising from this assessment address methods to identify,
mitigate and offset environmental impacts as far as possible.
Major Issues
This Project assessment has considered a wide range of factors and community
interests in analysing the potential impacts associated with such a large and complex
development. The major issues associated with the Project, and measures identified
to address them, are:
The levels of uncertainty that exist in predicting the extent and nature of potential
impacts due to the need for data specific to Darwin Harbour. There is significant
uncertainty associated with the effects of Project activities in the nearshore
environment such as dredging, dredge spoil disposal and blasting. Further
modelling, collection of baseline information and intensive monitoring by the
proponent is required to determine the significance of, and appropriate responses
to, key impacts. This will be expressed through a dredging plan and other
monitoring and management activities which need to be approved by
Government.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
10
The potential for dredging and dredge spoil disposal to significantly impact the
ecological communities of the nearshore environment in Darwin Harbour and the
regional coastline. The majority of impacts from these activities are likely to be
temporary and some degree of recovery in affected ecosystems is expected. The
extent and timing of recovery is, however, uncertain. There will also be
permanent changes to the Harbour within and directly adjacent to the dredged
footprint. The proponent is required to monitor the activities and implement
adaptive management actions to ensure impacts remain within predicted,
acceptable levels through a dredging plan to be approved by Government, and
other management plans and monitoring and research activities.
The significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Project operations. The
Proponent has committed to a number of technical abatement options to reduce
GHG emissions. Emissions will, however, be significant from a Northern Territory
and national perspective. Large scale GHG reductions could potentially be
achieved through geosequestration or offsets. GHG emissions will be regulated
by licence under the NT Waste Management and Pollution Control Act until
appropriate national regulation to reduce GHG emissions is in place. Regulation
will be informed by a Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, which is expected to
prominently feature commitments to GHG offsets.
The risk of negative social impacts such as the extra load on health and police
services, the cost of living, and housing affordability. A social impact
management plan developed by the proponent in collaboration with Government
is considered the appropriate mechanism to manage these risks and to ensure
that the benefits of the Project are maximised.
Conclusions
The environmental impacts of the project can be managed by delivering the
commitments made in the EIS and the Supplement and by rigorously applying the
recommendations and management plans and strategies described in this
assessment.
Although the likely impacts of the Project have been identified and are relatively well
understood, there remains a high level of uncertainty in terms of the precise nature
and extent of impacts and changes, particularly to the ecology of Darwin Harbour and
the region. This uncertainty is largely due to the gaps in data informing the
environmental impact assessment process. Consequently, the proponent,
government and community will be reliant on intensive, post-assessment monitoring
to determine the significance of, and appropriate responses to, key impacts. These
monitoring requirements are captured in the commitments made by the proponent
and recommendations of this Report.
The less predictable impacts such as the modification of habitats and cumulative
effects on significant species in the Harbour will need to be managed to an
acceptable level. The proponent should demonstrate that it can achieve this by fully
implementing its management program with effective monitoring and appropriate
adaptive management tools. These programs will need to be rigorous and based on
sound, scientific information, and form the basis for relevant regulatory approvals.
Given the high profile of this Project, it is essential that the community are kept
informed of ongoing monitoring programs and the implementation of required
management actions.
This Report identifies areas where, despite efforts to mitigate impact, residual
environmental detriment is anticipated, such as the loss of monsoon vine forest and
the cumulative effects of the Project on significant marine biota in Darwin Harbour.
The proponent will be expected to implement appropriate offsets to reduce this
residual detriment or improve protection for relevant environmental aspects
elsewhere.
Based on its review of the EIS and the proponents response to submissions from
relevant Northern Territory Government agencies, affected stakeholders and the
public, and an understanding of the economic benefits of the project, the
Environment and Heritage Division considers that the project can be managed within
the bounds of acceptable environmental impacts, provided that the environmental
commitments, safeguards and recommendations detailed in the EIS, this
Assessment Report and in the final management plans are implemented and
managed under the environmental management program for the project and are
subject to regular reporting and compliance auditing.
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The proponent shall ensure that the proposal is implemented in accordance
with the environmental commitments and safeguards:
Identified in the Ichthys Gas Field Development Projects Environmental
Impact Statement (draft EIS and Supplement); and
Recommended in this Assessment Report.
All safeguards and mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Impact
Statement are considered commitments by INPEX Browse Ltd and its joint
venture partners.
Recommendation 2
The proponent shall advise the Minister of any changes to the proposal in
accordance with clause 14A of the Environmental Assessment Administrative
Procedures, for determination of whether or not further assessment is
required.
Recommendation 3
Further hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling on a refined dredging
proposal is required in consultation with the dredging contractor.
Recommendation 4
Prior to the commencement of dredging, INPEX should conduct particle tracer
studies based on the expected dredge spoil characteristics to validate the
modelling predictions for fate of dredged sediments during dredging in the
Harbour and offshore spoil disposal.
The studies should account for variations in tidal cycles.
Recommendation 5
The dredging and dredge spoil disposal management plan is to be informed by
the hydrodynamic modelling and sediment transport modelling, and particle
tracer studies. The plan should include monitoring of sedimentation and water
quality and appropriate ecological indicators. Contingencies to manage
dredging in the event that there is a significant departure from predicted
impacts need to be specified in the plan. The plan should be developed in
consultation with an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24).
Long term monitoring of the spoil ground to determine the dispersion and fate
of this spoil over an appropriate timeframe should be included in the
management plan.
Recommendation 6
An ecological monitoring program must be developed in consultation with
NRETAS and an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) to
detect impacts on significant biological communities associated with dredging
and dredge spoil disposal.
Recommendation 7
A reactive monitoring program must be developed in consultation with
NRETAS and an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) to
respond to dredging and spoil disposal impacts on significant communities.
The program should include:
Monitoring of appropriate coral species;
Monitoring of sediment plume impacts on existing sea grass communities
in the Harbour;
Water quality parameters that account for spatial variability of turbidity,
typical for the macrotidal environment of the Harbour;
Continuation of INPEXs current water quality program to improve the
association between logger turbidity and sample sediment concentrations;
Determination of appropriate trigger values of turbidity and sediment
concentration for biodiversity protection;
Monitoring of sedimentation rate; and
Appropriate contingency measures where impact is detected.
Recommendation 8
If INPEX must implement the drill and blast contingency for removing hard
rock, a management plan to protect coastal dolphins, dugongs and turtles
must be developed in consultation with NRETAS and an expert panel (in
accordance with Recommendation 24). The management plan must
demonstrate, through sound scientific studies, the effectiveness of measures
to minimise risks, detect fauna and manage impacts.
Recommendation 9
INPEX will continue to fund and support research into coastal cetaceans in
Darwin Harbour and the wider region to determine the importance of Darwin
Harbour for the regional coastal cetacean population and the potential impacts
of the Project, particularly drill and blast if it is to be used, on these
populations.
Recommendation 10
Relevant EMPs are to be amended to include measures for minimising vessel
interactions / collisions with dolphins, turtles, dugongs and other large marine
fauna. The relevant plans should include:
details on procedures to reduce the risk of vessel strikes on large marine
vertebrates (marine turtles, dugongs and cetaceans) such as speed limits;
requirements for installation of propeller guards on vessels associated with
the Project;
details on procedures for monitoring and reporting of vessel strikes on
large marine vertebrates; and
plans to monitor for stranded, injured or dead large marine vertebrates.
Recommendation 11
In managing marine turtles during dredging activities, the dredging and dredge
spoil disposal management plan should:
Include details on procedures to manage and monitor entrainment of
marine turtles; and
Include details for monitoring of stranded turtles at the time of dredging
and ensure the involvement of NRETAS Marine Wildwatch.
Recommendation 12
An appropriate offset is necessary to compensate for the residual detriment
posed by Project activities to the ecological communities and marine fauna
within Darwin Harbour. The scale of offset should be commensurate with the
scale of residual detriment. If blasting is required, the offset must be increased
to compensate.
Recommendation 13
A monitoring program must be developed in consultation with NRETAS and an
expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) for sedimentation in
mangrove communities of Darwin Harbour. The program should be informed
by the sediment transport modelling and particle tracer studies and be
included in the dredging and dredge spoil disposal management plan.
Recommendation 14
An offset for loss of monsoon vine forest on Blaydin Point is recommended. All
activities associated with offsetting the residual detriment of clearing monsoon
vine forests should:
be in perpetuity; and
include a management plan that demonstrates environmental benefits.
Recommendation 15
Appropriate controls to mitigate risks from hydrotesting waste water must be
included in the Liquid Discharges, Surface Water Runoff and Drainage
Management Plan for Government approval. In preparing the plan, INPEX
should also:
Investigate options for land-based disposal where practicable; and
Select chemical additives that have the lowest practicable risk to the marine
environment.
Recommendation 16
An air monitoring program is required for the life of the Project. The program
will be developed as a requirement of the Environment Protection Licence
under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
The following point-source emissions testing should be conducted for the
program:
Quarterly monitoring for the first year of operation and annual thereafter for
NOx (plus temperature, flow, O2, moisture) at each stack servicing the
compressor turbines, power turbines, and hot oil heaters; and
Quarterly monitoring for the first year of operation and annual thereafter for
SO2 (plus temperature, flow, O2, moisture) at each stack servicing the acid
gas incinerators.
Recommendation 17
That INPEX submit to the Northern Territory Government a Greenhouse Gas
Management Plan covering onshore GHG emissions prior to commissioning of
the onshore gas processing plant. The GHG Management Plan should be
submitted within a timeframe that enables its consideration in the issue of an
Environment Protection Licence under the Waste Management and Pollution
Control Act.
Recommendation 18
That the Greenhouse Gas Management Plan include, but not necessarily be
limited to, the following:
An updated greenhouse gas inventory for the proposal;
Measures adopted to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions;
Demonstration of the adoption of current best practice in the design and
operations of the onshore gas processing plant in terms of GHG emissions
by benchmarking technology against other national and overseas facilities;
Commitments to periodic review and, where practicable, continuous
improvement in technology and operational process to further mitigate
GHG emissions per tonne of LNG produced;
A report on the status of investigations into geosequestration; and
Recommendation 24
An expert panel should be formed to provide objective and expert support in
the development of appropriate management plans and monitoring programs
for dredging and dredge spoil disposal, and for blasting if required, as
recommended in this Report. The final form of the expert panel will be
determined in agreement between Government and the proponent.
that these risks can be satisfactorily managed within acceptable levels e.g.
impacts would not result in long term environmental detriment; and
This assessment considers that risks can be more reliably evaluated where there is a
substantial baseline of relevant information. Where this information is limited or not
available, risk assessment is inevitably constrained and far less precise, and it is
appropriate to use the precautionary principle in the evaluation of possible impacts. If
potential impacts are understood with a reasonable level of certainty, monitoring
programs can be better informed to detect impacts, and management measures can
be more effectively targeted to address those impacts.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
19
The Australian Government was responsible for all aspects of the offshore
proposal including the majority of the pipeline route, as well as the matters of
National Environmental Significance (NES) within the nearshore and onshore
portions of the project; and
The Northern Territory Government was responsible for assessing the nearshore
and onshore aspects of the proposal. Some assessment overlap with NES
matters occurred where species were listed under both NT and Commonwealth
legislation. The NT Government led the assessment on these matters.
This Report forms the basis of advice to the Minister on the environmental issues
associated with the project and informs the decision as to whether or not the project
should proceed. The Minister is required to make comment and/or recommendations
with regard to the proposal to the Minister for Lands and Planning (the responsible
Minister) in the first instance.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
20
Biodiversity impacts;
Noise;
Risk;
Value to NT society;
Site rehabilitation;
Resource use;
Sedimentation;
Sustainability;
Offsets;
Impacts on tourism.
The NT Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has defined six principles of ESD for
the Northern Territory (NT EPA 2010). In addition to the four national principles (to
which the NT is already a signatory) the EPA recommended the principles of
integration as well as public participation. The NT Government is considering the
EPAs recommendations.
The principles of ESD as defined in the National Strategy are:
ESD Principle
Definition
Precautionary principle
In response to the draft EIS, some submissions raised issues relating to the
application of ESD principles specifically the precautionary principle (where data
collection was perceived to be lacking), and the principle of biodiversity conservation
(in respect to vegetation removal and potential impacts to marine biodiversity).
The EPBC Act requires that in considering economic and social matters, the Minister
must take into account the principles of ESD. The Supplement states that INPEX
recognises that it has a responsibility to support these principles and that it has a
duty of care both to the natural environment and to the communities in which it
operates.
INPEX has included in the Supplement a discussion of the Projects consistency with
goals and principles of ESD (Section 4.12, page 156). It refers to examples of where
the principles of ESD have guided INPEXs project planning (to minimise
disturbance), its approach to information and data collection (drawing upon the
precautionary principle), and INPEXs public participation and consultation in
developing the Project.
To achieve the objective of ESD, the Project needs to continually be informed and
guided by the ESD principles. Accordingly, the assessment of this proposal, its
potential impacts (positive and negative) and the management measures used to
enhance positive and reduce negative impacts will be undertaken in the context of
ESD principles.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
23
2 The Proposal
2.1 The Proponent
INPEXs parent company INPEX CORPORATION has been involved in the
development of oil and gas resources for more than four decades and has been
steadily increasing its exploration and development activities in many countries
around the world. It is, for example, currently taking part in a number of projects in
Australian waters. These include the Van Gogh and Ravensworth oil extraction
projects in the southern part of the North West Shelf in Western Australia, and, until it
ceased production in October 2009, the nearby Griffin Fields oil and gas project.
INPEX is also a partner in the BayuUndan oil and gas project in the Timor Sea Joint
Petroleum Development Area (JPDA).
In early 1998, INPEX CORPORATION (as Indonesia Petroleum, Ltd.) bid for a
petroleum exploration permit for permit area WA-285-P in the northern Browse Basin
about 200km off Western Australias Kimberley coast, at the western edge of the
Timor Sea. This petroleum exploration permit was awarded to INPEX
CORPORATION on 19 August 1998. The subsidiary company INPEX Browse, Ltd.
was established immediately after the grant of the permit and became the permit
holder, 100% equity holder and Operator.
The companys drilling program from March 2000 to February 2001 in the
north-western portion of the permit area resulted in a significant gas and condensate
discovery in the Ichthys Field. Shortly afterwards INPEX commenced the Ichthys Gas
Field Development Project.
In August 2004 the original permit expired and a new permit, WA-285-P R1, was
issued for a reduced area.
In 2006 INPEX transferred a 24% participating interest in the Project to Total E&P
Australia (Total). Total has had a long-standing partnership with INPEX elsewhere in
the world and also has experience with LNG and LPG projects in other countries.
In September 2009 Retention Lease WA-37-R was awarded to INPEX as the
Operator of the Ichthys Field. The area covered by the lease is approximately
912km2.
Roads, utilities and other infrastructure (workshops, office, control room, storage,
etc).
Liquids (condensate and LPGs) would be separated and processed, and gas treated
and liquefied. All products would then be stored for later export via an offloading jetty.
Design life of the processing plant would be nominally 40 years with an LNG
processing capacity of approximately 8 Mt/annum.
It is expected that 2-3 tankers of LNG and 1-2 tankers of LPG would be exported
each week, and one condensate ship every month.
Construction activities would include:
Dredging for a navigation channel, ship-turning basin and the pipeline approach.
An estimated 16 million m3 of material could be dredged and would need to be
disposed of in a suitable spoil ground;
Increased shipping movements including heavy-lift vessels and barges, pipelaying vessels and pipe transport barges, cargo ships and dredging vessels. The
MOF would be used for heavy-lift vessels and the East Arm Wharf would be used
for general cargo;
The import and storage of some earth and rock material to complete earth works.
Borrow material may be sourced from a location on Middle Arm Peninsula.
Concrete batching would also take place on site;
The use of public utilities such as water and electricity for construction and
operation;
Workforce in the order of 2000 to 3000, primarily fly-in fly-out (FIFO) with local
content where possible, housed in a construction camp external to the Blaydin
Point site, and possibly in residences around Darwin and Palmerston where
available.
Construction and operation of the proposed LNG facility in Darwin would produce the
following waste streams and emissions:
Dredge spoil from the initial dredging campaign and maintenance dredging
operations;
Hydrotest and treated process waste water discharge into the nearshore
environment.
The subsea infrastructure will be tied back to a floating CPF by a series of flexible
risers, flowlines and umbilicals. The CPF in turn will be connected to a FPSO facility
by a transfer system consisting of flexible risers and flowlines as well as by a
communications umbilical. Both the CPF and FPSO will be moored in position for the
expected 40-year life of the Project.
These facilities will provide the following services:
The CPF will be used for gasliquid separation; gas dehydration; gas export;
future inlet compression; and export of a co-mingled stream of condensate,
monoethylene glycol (MEG) and water to the FPSO (the MEG is used to prevent
the formation of hydrates, primarily between methane and water); and
The FPSO will be used for condensate dewatering and stabilisation, condensate
storage and export, MEG regeneration, and produced-water treatment.
The offshore components also include approximately 900km of gas export pipeline
which will connect the offshore infrastructure with the onshore gas facility.
The offshore components of the Ichthys proposal are outside the scope of the
Northern Territory assessment process and will be assessed by the Australian
Government.
an approximately 27km length of the subsea gas export pipeline from the mouth
of Darwin Harbour parallel to the existing BayuUndan Gas Pipeline to the
western side of Middle Arm Peninsula (Figure 1);
a pipeline shore crossing on the western side of Middle Arm Peninsula south of
the Darwin LNG pipeline crossing;
a materials offloading facility on Blaydin Point at the mouth of the Elizabeth River
for receiving prefabricated gas-processing modules and some construction
materials;
a product loading jetty on the north-western end of Blaydin Point with one berth
for LNG export and one for LPG and condensate export;
a shipping channel, approach area, turning basin and berthing area for the
product tankers; and
a dredge spoil disposal ground outside Darwin Harbour, 12km north-west of Lee
Point.
Further detail on the nearshore infrastructure for the Project is contained in Chapter
4, Sections 4.3 (gas export pipeline) and 4.4 of the draft EIS.
a 6 km long onshore pipeline corridor from the shore crossing area to the Blaydin
Point gas processing plant site (Figure 2);
gas treatment facilities (for acid gas removal, dehydration, and mercury removal);
storage tanks (two tanks for LNG; two large and one small tank for condensate;
and one tank each for propane and butane) and LNG and LPG recovery units for
boil-off gas;
to extend the existing safe shipping access from the vicinity of East Arm Wharf to
the proposed product loading jetty at Blaydin Point;
to provide a turning basin large enough to permit the safe manoeuvring of ships
that are more than 350m in length overall;
to provide a safe approach and departure area to and from the product loading
jetty;
to provide two berthing pockets at the product loading jetty to accommodate two
product export tankers;
The dredging program would be carried out by a dredging contractor engaged after
conclusion of the environmental assessment process. Only a limited number of
specialised dredging companies with the capacity to undertake the scale of dredging
required for the Project are available worldwide. Therefore, until the dredging
contractor has been engaged, INPEX have provided conceptual dredging methods
and the dredging program will only be finalised once the contractor has been
appointed.
Preliminary estimates outlined in the draft EIS indicated a total of 16.9Mm3 of
material would be generated during the dredging program. Estimated volumes from
various components originally included:
15.1Mm3 from the shipping channel, turning basin and berthing area (Figure 3);
0.6Mm3 from the subsea section of the gas export pipeline from the mouth of
Darwin Harbour to Middle Arm Peninsula.
This has been reduced by 1Mm3 due to reduced under-keel clearance requirements
with the revised total now around 16Mm3. The dredged spoil would be transported to
the offshore spoil disposal ground outside Darwin Harbour (Figure 4). A number of
dredging vessels are required and these would operate for 24 hours a day and
7 days a week during specified periods.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
29
The draft EIS stated that drilling and blasting would also be necessary to fracture
hard rock intrusions existing within the dredge footprint, which were initially
considered immovable by conventional dredging methods. As discussed later, a drill
and blast program may no longer be required.
Walker Shoal, which lies at the entrance to the proposed shipping channel, is the
most significant of the hard rock intrusions. As the top of the Shoal rises to 4.2m
below lowest astronomical tide (LAT), INPEXs base case is to remove the Shoal to
allow for safe navigation. INPEX explored options to realign the shipping channel in
order to avoid the Shoal, but claim that the constraints posed by the heritage-listed
wreck of the coal hulk Kelat, the hazards posed to shipping navigation in the future
and the proximity of the East Arm Wharf facilities prevent any realignment.
The conceptual dredging program would require the following vessel types:
hopper barges.
Further detail is provided in Section 4.4.4 of the draft EIS. Alternative shipping
channel alignments to avoid removal of Walker Shoal are discussed in Section 4.10.1
of the Supplement. Key potential impacts as a consequence of the dredging and
removal of the Shoal include sedimentation and turbidity effects to flora and fauna,
including threatened and data deficient species, habitats and ecosystems;
degradation of water quality; restrictions to recreational activities in the Harbour;
increased underwater ambient noise levels and blast impacts on marine fauna;
diminished visual amenity of the Harbour; increased marine traffic; and disturbance
to maritime heritage.
The impacts of dredging and the removal of Walker Shoal are discussed further in
Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of this Report.
of granular fill compacted in layers sourced from the site or from a local quarry, or by
a combination of these two, together with the installation of rock armouring along the
causeway for support and protection from wave action. Since the draft EIS was
published, the MOF design has been refined and now includes a finger wharf and
mooring dolphins added to the end of the loading berth to improve accessibility for
the period when modules and associated materials are being offloaded.
Nearshore pipeline
The pipeline route through Darwin Harbour will be excavated using a backhoe
dredger. The trench will be relatively shallow (to a depth of 3m) and will form a gutter
that will provide stability to the pipeline.
The pipeline inside the Harbour will likely require partial burial and rock-armouring to
minimise any risk of damage.
Rock-armouring will be put in place over the top of the pipeline once it has been
constructed on the seabed. Approximately 850 000t of rock, which will likely be
sourced from existing quarries, will be transported by road to East Arm Wharf where
specialised rock-dumping vessels will take it offshore for dumping directly over the
pipeline.
The construction techniques considered for the pipeline shore crossing included
open-trench excavation, micro-tunnelling and horizontal directional drilling. These
techniques are all described in more detail in Section 4.3.2 of the draft EIS.
The key potential impacts associated with construction of nearshore infrastructure
include: direct and indirect affects on habitat from increased turbidity and
sedimentation; loss of habitat; potential acid sulphate sediments; disturbance of
maritime heritage; waste generation and spills; restrictions to recreational use of the
Harbour; underwater noise from piling; and increased marine traffic.
Figure 1: Gas export pipeline route through Darwin Harbour to Blaydin Point (draft EIS)
34
Figure 3: Short jetty concept and indicative dredged shipping channel (Supplement)
3 Regional Setting
3.1 Physical
Darwin Harbour is a large ria system about 500km2 in extent. The Harbour is fed by
three main arms arising from its catchmentEast Arm, West Arm and Middle Arm
that merge into a single unit, along with the smaller Woods Inlet, before joining the
open sea. Large freshwater inflows to the Harbour occur from January to April during
the Wet season.
The nearshore portion of the pipeline route, some 27km long, extends from the
mouth of Darwin Harbour to the low-water mark at the pipeline shore crossing south
of Wickham Point on the western shore of Middle Arm Peninsula (Figure 1). The
proposed pipeline route for the Project runs adjacent and parallel to the existing
BayuUndan Gas Pipeline. Seabed features near the pipeline route include Kurumba
Shoal, Plater Rock and Weed Reef to the west of the alignment. Channel Island is
located in Middle Arm, around 1.5km south-west of the proposed pipeline shore
crossing.
The nearshore development area also includes the marine environment below the
low-water mark around Blaydin Point. This area is located on the southern bank of
East Arm, at the mouth of the Elizabeth River. Subsea features of this area include
South Shell Island, Old Man Rock and Walker Shoal, which is proposed to be
removed. Immediately to the west of Blaydin Point on Middle Arm Peninsula are two
narrow tidal creeks known as Lightning Creek and Cossack Creek (Catalina Creeks).
An offshore site 1520km north of the mouth of Darwin Harbour is also considered to
be part of the nearshore development area as INPEX proposes to use this site as a
disposal area for material dredged from Darwin Harbour (Figure 4). Surveys of this
area recorded a flat featureless seabed of siltsand, at water depths of 1520m.
The coastline of the outer section of the Harbour is comprised mainly of sandy
beaches and rocky foreshores. Within the Harbour, shores are characterised by
extensive intertidal mud flats and mangroves. Corals exist in several areas within the
Harbour.
The main channel of the Port of Darwin is around 1525m deep. The channel favours
the eastern side of the Harbour, with broader, shallower areas occurring on the
western side. The channel continues into East Arm, towards Blaydin Point, at water
depths of more than 10m below LAT; the bathymetry in this area has been modified
by dredging for the development of East Arm Wharf.
Mean sea level is approximately 4.0m above LAT. Spring tides can produce tidal
ranges of up to 7.5m, while the neap-tide range can be as low as 1.4m. Tidal
excursions and flows are large and produce strong currents. Sediments of the
seabed vary from fine muds to coarse sands, shell grit and coral rubble. Hard rock
outcrops are also present.
Many wrecks are found within Darwin Harbour. These include ships and aircraft from
World War II, wrecks from cyclones and deliberately scuttled boats for use as fishing
and diving sites.
The onshore development area is proposed for Blaydin Point on the northern side of
Middle Arm Peninsula above the low-water mark (Figure 2). Blaydin Point is a
low-lying peninsula, which juts out into East Arm. At its highest, the peninsula rises to
approximately +10m Australian Height Datum (AHD). Blaydin Point is separated from
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
38
the mainland by a salt flat, across which a low causeway has been constructed by
INPEX to provide access to Blaydin Point during spring-tide periods. This salt flat is
sub-aerially exposed, except during spring tides when it becomes inundated to a
depth of approximately 1m for periods of up to an hour. Blaydin Point is currently
undeveloped. The onshore development area also extends on to the main area of
Middle Arm Peninsula and includes the proposed onshore pipeline corridor leading
from the western shore of the peninsula across country to Blaydin Point.
Middle Arm Peninsula is currently traversed by a road and services corridor leading
to the Darwin LNG plant at Wickham Point as well as to a power station and an
aquaculture centre on Channel Island.
3.2 Biological
Darwin Harbour has a diverse assemblage of species typical of the Indo-west Pacific
Biogeographical province. Protected species in the Harbour include turtles, seasnakes, sea horses, dugongs and several species of coastal dolphin, including the
snub-fin dolphin. These species are all listed under the Australian Government EPBC
Act and some under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (TPWC Act).
Coral communities occur where the substrate is rocky in the lower intertidal and
shallow subtidal zones and hydrodynamic conditions permit. The intertidal platform
between Channel Island and the mainland is listed on the Register of the National
Estate and has been declared a Heritage Place under the NT Heritage Conservation
Act 1991. This declaration was based on the presence of an unusually diverse coral
community.
Other intertidal communities include rocky shores and pavements, sand beaches and
sand and mud flats.
Other areas of conservation significance include the Charles Darwin National Park,
Casuarina Coastal Reserve, East Point Aquatic Life Reserve and Doctors Gully
Aquatic Life Reserve.
Blaydin Point is considered to be part of the Darwin Coastal Bioregion. The flora of
the Blaydin Point island is dominated by woodland and monsoon vine forest with
fringing patches of mixed species low woodland and Melaleuca forest. The woodland
community mostly consists of Eucalyptus miniata (Darwin woollybutt) and E.
tetrodonta (Darwin stringybark) with mixed mid-storey including Cycas armstrongii,
which is listed as vulnerable under the TPWC Act.
Blaydin Point is fringed by an extensive mangrove community, typical of the majority
of the shoreline of Darwin Harbour.
A total of 148 vertebrate species were recorded in the fauna survey conducted on
Blaydin Point, including nine species of mammal (of which four were bats), 106 birds,
22 reptiles and 11 frogs. None of the animal species recorded in field surveys of the
onshore development area are listed as threatened under the TPWC Act or EPBC
Act. Publicly available databases suggest, however, that there are a number of
threatened animal species that could potentially occur in and around the onshore
development area. These are: northern quoll, water mouse, red goshawk, partridge
pigeon, red-tailed black-cockatoo, gouldian finch and floodplain monitor. Most of
these are unlikely to occur at the Blaydin Point site.
The Project would result in clearing of approximately 133ha of Eucalyptus woodland,
61ha of monsoon vine forest, 73ha of melaleuca communities, and 95ha of
mangroves and high-intertidal communities.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
39
3.3 Socio-economic
The total population in the NT in 2006 was estimated to be about 192 898 with
106 000 of those people living in the Darwin region. The nearest community to
Blaydin Point is Palmerston, with a population in 2006 of about 25 000. In 2006,
approximately 5% of the NT Aboriginal population lived in the Darwin region and this
has been increasing. Based on 2004 population estimates, by 2021 the Northern
Territorys population is expected to grow to between 215 300 and 279 200 people
with the greater part of this growth likely to occur in the Darwin region. The age
structure of Darwins population is much younger than that of the general Australian
population.
At present, there is limited heavy industry in the Darwin region. The Darwin LNG
facility operated by ConocoPhilips is adjacent to the Blaydin Point site at Wickham
Point. Other major industry occupies land in the region of East Arm Port, which has
become a major point of export for access by the resource sector to Asia. Other
important industries in the Northern Territory are commercial fishing, tourism, the
pastoral industry, mining and defence.
Darwin Harbour is widely used for a variety of activities. Commercial fishing effort is
low in the Harbour whereas recreational fishing is a well established activity,
concentrating on mud crabs, barramundi and a wide variety of reef fish. Aquaculture
activities focus on prawns and pearl oysters. Scuba diving and boating are other
important recreational activities that occur in the Harbour.
Blaydin Point itself is undeveloped and has been used for limited recreation
purposes.
3.4 Cultural/Historical
Middle Arm Peninsula is within the traditional country of the Larrakia people.
According to INPEXs draft EIS, the majority of the archaeological sites and objects
recorded in the area are associated with past Aboriginal use of marine resources and
contain shells either as a midden (mound of debris) or a scatter. Other sites also
have stone artefacts present on the surface. Most sites are located within 300m of
the shoreline.
Eight sites and one isolated artefact are located close to, or within, the boundary of
the onshore development area. These sites are protected under the NT Heritage
Conservation Act.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) identified six sacred sites in the
vicinity of the nearshore development area. Sacred sites are surrounded by
restricted works areas in which, under the provisions of the Northern Territory
Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act (NT), no land or maritime development works of any kind
are allowed.
Three non-Aboriginal historical sites were identified within the onshore development
area. These sites are associated with World War II structures and artefacts but of
which very little remains.
Six Catalina flying-boat wrecks are located in the vicinity of the nearshore and
onshore development areas. A number of World War II shipwrecks sunk in Japanese
air raids are located near the pipeline corridor through Darwin Harbour. The SS
Ellengowan, which is the oldest known shipwreck in Darwin Harbour and is one of
the earliest examples of shipping associated with European settlement in the area, is
located south of the proposed pipeline shore crossing for the onshore processing
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
40
plant. The wreck of the coal barge Kelat, built in 1881, is located near the entrance to
INPEXs proposed shipping channel. It was damaged during the Japanese air raid on
Darwin in 1942 and sank five days later. These are protected under the Heritage
Conservation Act and / or the Historic Shipwrecks Act
41
Adequacy of information on the range and extent of potential impacts and the
risks of those impacts occurring within the Project context; and
Conclusions and recommendations are then based on comments from the review of
the draft EIS by relevant government agencies and the public, and responses from
the proponent to those comments in the Supplement.
In this Report, the recommendations (in bold) are preceded by text that identifies
concerns, suggestions and undertakings associated with the project. For this reason,
the recommendations should not be considered in isolation.
As minor and insubstantial changes are expected in the design and specifications of
the proposal following the conclusion of the EIS process, it will be necessary for
approval mechanisms to accommodate subsequent changes to the environmental
safeguards described in the EIS and the recommendations in this Report. If the
proponent can demonstrate that such changes are not likely to significantly increase
the risks of an impact on the environment, an adequate level of environmental
protection may still be achieved by modifying the conditions attached to relevant
statutory approvals governing this project. Otherwise, further environmental
assessment may be required.
Therefore, subject to decisions that authorise / permit the project to proceed, the
primary recommendations of this assessment are:
Recommendation 1
The proponent shall ensure that the proposal is implemented in accordance
with the environmental commitments and safeguards:
42
43
This scan identified Middle Arm, specifically Blaydin Point as the only available site,
due to technical and other constraints for other possible locations, to attract further
LNG development to the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Government, aware that INPEX was reviewing its site
selection for the Ichthys LNG onshore development, took the opportunity to offer
Blaydin Point as an alternative site.
INPEX undertook a preliminary assessment of the site and determined that it was
technically feasible. Subsequently, INPEX determined that it would proceed with
Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) and environmental assessment on the
Blaydin Point site.
Accommodation Village
The draft EIS estimates a construction workforce of between 2000 and 3000 at the
peak of the five- to six-year construction period. INPEX proposes to construct a
dedicated accommodation village to house most of the workforce. Normal operations
and periodic maintenance accommodation for personnel will also be required during
the operations phase. An accommodation strategy is being developed to identify and
investigate accommodation requirements and options during the operations phase
(See Section 4.9.2 of this Report). In addition, INPEX indicate that part of the
accommodation village may be needed during the operations phase to support
accommodation requirements during maintenance shutdowns when personnel
requirements increase.
A number of potential locations for the accommodation village were presented to
INPEX by both the private sector and Government. The preferred location was
chosen from a short list of sites with consideration of stakeholder input and the
criteria listed below:
The location should have access to and be in close proximity to domestic utilities
such as power, water and sewerage.
INPEX made a decision to seek approvals for the accommodation village separately
from the environmental assessment process for this Project claiming that the village
would have to be completed and available prior to the start of construction of the
onshore component of the Project.
INPEX initially applied for a lease over Crown land on parcels 2819, Part Lot 2818
and Part Lot 273 in the Hundred of Bagot, along Howard Springs Road, for the
accommodation village. Issues were raised by the community and Government
during the lease application process under the Planning Act and INPEX responded to
some Government concerns. INPEX then gained approval to undertake surveys and
geotechnical investigations on the site.
Although the accommodation village itself is being assessed separately, discussion
of the social impacts associated with the operation of the village and the workforce
for the Project was included in the draft EIS (Chapter 10). The social issues which
INPEX aimed to address included increased pressure on local infrastructure,
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
44
increased traffic, and social interactions between the local community and the new
workforce.
Social issues associated with the Project are discussed later in this Report (Section
4.9) and will require further analysis by Government during assessment of the
accommodation village.
INPEX is yet to lodge a Development Application under the Planning Act for
construction of the village. The application would be considered as a notification
under the EA Act. The significance of environmental factors such as the impacts of
clearing native vegetation, sediment management on the site, water supply and
sewage would be considered to determine the level of assessment. The Minister
would also need to consider social, cultural and economic matters in making a
determination.
Marine Supply Base and Rock Load-out Facility
As INPEX has yet to decide on the location of the mainland supply base, it has not
been described in detail in the draft EIS. Existing facilities are being investigated but
a new mainland supply base may be required which would be subject to a separate
environmental assessment process. Locations being investigated include Darwin,
Broome, Point Torment near Derby, and Derby. The mainland supply-base location
will be determined during the detailed-design phase of the Project. The NT
Government proposes to construct a marine supply base and rock load-out facility at
East Arm Wharf as part of the East Arm Expansion Project. The proposal is
undergoing separate environmental assessment at the EIS level under the bilateral
agreement between the Australian and NT Governments.
Source of fill and rock armour
INPEX will require approximately 150 000m3 of fill for the Blaydin Point site after
available sources have been used. Approximately 850 000t of rock will be required to
armour the submerged section of the gas export pipeline through the Harbour. Most
of this material is expected to be available from existing quarries.
Assessment of material sources not already approved will be undertaken through
processes outside of this assessment.
45
A number of submissions requested that INPEX revisit the long jetty concept for the
product loading jetty to reduce dredging volumes.
The location of Blaydin Point in Darwin Harbour provides limited alternatives for
approach by ships. Unlike Wickham Point and East Arm Port, which have adjacent
naturally-deep channels, the approach to Blaydin Point is relatively shallow and
constricted. There are significant submerged World War II heritage features scattered
around the approach and the Point is bounded by the Elizabeth River and two tidal
creeks (Lightning and Cossack Creeks), which are considered important areas for
some recreational fishers. These are some of the tensions that contribute to the
complexity in determining the location of the product loading jetty for the Project, both
for the proponent and the Government decision maker.
INPEX consulted with key stakeholders and identified the following design influences:
ensuring the protection of World War II Catalina flying boat wrecks located north
west of Blaydin Point;
INPEX also considered its own safety and technical requirements in making a
decision.
INPEX developed a decision-support process to assist in determining which of the
concepts should be selected as the preferred jetty option. The EIS indicates that this
process integrated principles of sustainable development into the decision making
and clarified the objectives, drivers and priority considerations for selecting the most
appropriate jetty design. INPEX claimed that for the evaluation, economic weightings
were set to zero so that the decision support process was not influenced by costs
associated with the alternative jetty concepts. A description of the decision-support
process can be found in the Supplement, Section 4.10.2.
INPEXs process acknowledges that outcomes for the ecology and short term
amenity of the Harbour would be better if the long-jetty concept were adopted. This is
due to the considerable reduction in the volumes of sediment that would require
dredging; early estimates put this at less than half the volume of spoil that would be
dredged from the short-jetty concept.
However, INPEXs decision process identified that the health, safety and security,
socio-political, Project risk and technical viability categories all scored better for the
short-jetty concept.
The Supplement outlines the key advantages of the short jetty concept as follows:
a reduction in the risk of recreational vessels travelling into the jetty safety
exclusion zones and taking potentially unsafe short cuts under the jetty trestle;
a reduction in safety risks from the Projects product loading jetty because of the
increased separation distances for vessels berthing at East Arm Wharf;
the elimination of the need for jetty piledriving and jetty construction works in
close proximity to the World War II Catalina flying boat wrecks and its associated
risks;
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
46
a reduction in leak paths for products (LNG, LPGs and condensate) from the jetty
loading lines;
INPEX claim that the short-term environmental and social disadvantages caused by
an increased dredge volume with the short jetty are mitigated by improved safety
outcomes, a reduction in long-term visual amenity impact, and a reduction in the
extent of the area excluded by safety requirements for recreational users in East
Arm.
The latter point was one of contention, particularly for the Amateur Fishermans
Association of the NT (AFANT), as the draft EIS did not provide assurance that
access to the Catalina Creeks would be guaranteed with the short jetty, despite
access being one of INPEXs key social factors in determining the selection of this
option. Some draft EIS respondents viewed the exclusion of recreational anglers
from the Catalina Creeks as a positive arguing that they could become Marine
Protected Areas, Conservation Reserves and nurseries for the fish and crabs of
Darwin Harbour.
However, INPEXs preliminary quantitative risk analysis (QRA) indicates that public
access to recreational fishing areas in the Catalina Creeks can be maintained with
safety exclusion zones likely to apply to the eastern fingers of Lightning Creek.
Access is still subject to the results of the final QRA to be completed in the
detailed-design phase and the demonstration to, and acceptance by, the Northern
Territory safety regulator, NT WorkSafe, that safety risks to the public engaged in
recreational activities in this area are as low as reasonably practicable.
Selection of either jetty option will result in impacts, both direct and indirect. The most
significant impacts from the preferred short-jetty option are predicted to occur as a
result of the substantially increased dredge volumes. The concern for decisionmakers is whether the risks of impact to Darwin Harbour from dredging can be
managed to acceptable levels. Analysis of these risks has been undertaken in the
relevant sections of this Report and includes the management measures proposed
by INPEX to mitigate these risks. Section 4.5 of this Report discusses the modelling
predictions, habitat mapping and analysis of impacts to significant habitats that has
been undertaken by the proponent to determine the ecological risks of dredging for
the Project.
47
proposed and it was apparent that mutual benefits to INPEX and Government were
possible and were keenly anticipated. However, a number of barriers arose. INPEX
continued to undertake geotechnical investigations and studies on the dredge
material and found that the consolidated phyllite material below the soft sediments
was easily macerated into fine, unconsolidated material when mechanically
disturbed. Dredging methods that might be used to maintain material integrity, such
as backhoe dredging, were not practical to transfer consolidated spoil for land-based
disposal. Added to this was the inability for the Port to accept unconsolidated
sediments due to the engineering challenges presented in reclaiming this material for
hardstand use in the medium term. Additionally, it became apparent that Government
would not be ready to take any material that became available due to the timing of
planning and approval processes.
In order to identify a suitable location for offshore dredge spoil disposal, INPEX
consulted with NRETAS, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the
Darwin Port Corporation (DPC), AFANT and local shipping companies. The draft EIS
states some of the key concerns raised through consultations included the following:
the possibility of creating navigation hazards for vessels entering and leaving
Darwin Harbour;
the possibility of sediment remobilising back into Darwin Harbour or into the
DPC-proposed Charles Point Patches navigation channel and thus interfering
with safe navigation;
the possibility of disturbing significant maritime heritage sites such as the wreck
of the Booya; and
In addition, the shortest possible distance to the spoil disposal ground was preferred,
to minimise vessel travel times and to avoid extending the overall duration of the
dredging program in Darwin Harbour.
Issues identified with the proponents predictive modelling and habitat mapping and
recommendations for this component of the Project are discussed in Section 4.5 of
this Report.
48
Walker Shoal in its natural state is a potential navigational safety hazard and an
impediment to future expansion of the East Arm Wharf facility. INPEX considers that
the Shoal would not allow safe transit for the Project's product tankers, regardless of
tidal height. Groundings on the Shoal would also be possible for the majority of larger
vessels transiting to and from East Arm Wharf should they accidentally pass over this
hazard. One possible consequence of vessel grounding on Walker Shoal would be
loss of containment of fuel oil or product, which could have a significant adverse
environmental impact on Darwin Harbour.
INPEX proposes to fracture and remove this shoal to facilitate safe navigation to the
product loading jetty. INPEX presented the worst-case scenario for the fracturing of
Walker Shoal in the draft EIS. The original proposal required that all hard rock in the
Shoal (60 000m3) would need to be fractured by drill and blast methods involving the
use of 300kg charges three times each day for 57 weeks. The blasting program was
based on assumptions derived from preliminary geotechnical data and, at the time,
the apparent absence of alternative techniques that were suited to the task of
removing the very hard rock forming the Shoal.
INPEXs proposal to drill and blast Walker Shoal was not viewed favourably by a
large number of respondents to the draft EIS. Questions were asked about
alternatives to avoid the need for removal of Walker Shoal and there were many
comments about the impacts to fauna in the Harbour, in particular, marine mammals
and turtles.
As a result of respondents concerns about the need to remove the Shoal, INPEX
explored alternative shipping channel options in the Supplement to avoid the Shoal,
including:
Option 1 - Swinging the shipping channel 200m to the south of the Shoal;
A full explanation of the options is given in the Supplement (Section 4.10.1, page
146).
Option 0 was discounted immediately by INPEX as the product tankers would breach
the safety requirement of a 500m exclusion zone around LNG tankers by coming too
close to vessels moored at East Arm Wharf.
Table 1 illustrates the factors that informed INPEXs decision on a preferred option
and the current base case for removing Walker Shoal.
Table 1: Comparison of shipping channel alignment alternatives to avoid Walker Shoal
Factors
Base case
Additional
dredge volume
Volume of hard
rock
60 000m3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
0.5 1Mm3
3 4Mm3
5 6Mm3
60 000m3
40 000m3
Unknown, hard
rock assumed
Table 1 illustrates the apparent additional dredge spoil volumes associated with more
southerly realignments of the shipping channel from Walker Shoal. INPEX argued
that the potential ecological benefits of preserving Walker Shoal would be countered
by the significant increases in dredge spoil from channel realignment. However, an
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
49
The Supplement places the removal of Walker Shoal into context in terms of loss of
habitat from the Harbour. Removal of Walker Shoal would result in a predicted loss of
0.07% of hard substrate (at equivalent depth). Surveys of other hard substrate areas
in the Harbour indicated that the ecological communities on Walker Shoal are not
unique and that there are three other shoals in the area with similar ecological
function that will not be disturbed. Further information on habitat mapping for the
Project, which was used to define the extent of habitat loss and indirect impacts of
dredging on habitats and key biological communities, is contained in Section 4.5.2 of
this Report.
NRETAS questioned the assessment of the potential alteration of hydrodynamics
and tidal energy from the removal of Walker Shoal. There were concerns that the
potential for altered bathymetry and the resulting change of deposition sites in East
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
50
Arm were not properly considered. INPEX stated that the alterations to the
bathymetry of East Arm for the Project predicted through the nearshore
geomorphological modelling, which included consideration of the removal of Walker
Shoal, would result in only small decreases in the flushing rate at some locations, but
no significant alteration to the flushing capacity of East Arm and Elizabeth River as a
whole. INPEX conducted a more detailed review of the model under the no Walker
Shoal condition, which supported the original predictions (Supplement, Section
5.2.2.11, page 321).
In considering the complex range of competing issues associated with navigation to
Blaydin Point, in particular the hazard that Walker Shoal presents to shipping, and
INPEXs decision to use drill and blast only as a fall-back, there is no longer a strong
case to realign the channel and preserve the Shoal. The permanent loss of a
relatively small area of Darwin Harbour habitat appears to be justified when weighed
up against the ongoing risk of a grounding event resulting in the potential loss of
containment of LNG or LPG in the Harbour.
Management of the activity by the proponent to ensure impacts are within acceptable
levels is essential. INPEX has committed to management measures to reduce the
risk of environmental harm to as low as reasonably practicable within a dredging and
dredge spoil disposal management plan. Provisional plans were provided in the draft
EIS and further development of these plans will occur in consultation with regulatory
authorities. If blasting is required, INPEX has committed to develop a final blasting
management plan that would include best-practice methods for management of
blasting impacts. However, there are considerable concerns that remain with a
blasting program, including the potential impacts of underwater noise. Underwater
noise issues associated with blasting are discussed further in Section 4.6.1.
The risks associated with dredging and their management are considered in Sections
4.5.4 and 4.6.2 of this Report.
51
Early in the project assessment, INPEX used a 3-dimensional model. The algorithms
in the model were complex requiring modelling to be conducted over a lengthy
timeframe. The outputs of the initial business case dredging campaign modelled
showed significant impact on the Harbour environment as the business case was
essentially a worse-case scenario. Factors such as the overflow of turbid water from
the trailer suction hopper dredge contributed to significant sediment inputs to the
Harbour. INPEX determined that further modelling runs would be needed to predict
the impacts of more environmentally-responsible scenarios. To ensure that the
public could consider an improved dredging concept within the EIS timeframe,
NRETAS agreed that INPEX could use a 2-dimensional model, based on the
assumption that the Darwin Harbour water is well-mixed.
The proponent relied heavily on assumptions to draw conclusions about the potential
impacts of dredging and spoil disposal due to the lack of measured data. It is
acknowledged that this is customary practice as detailed facts about all aspects of a
complex environment can never be fully known. Throughout the assessment
process, INPEX asserted that all assumptions used in the predictive modelling were
either appropriate, as determined through peer-reviewed literature or measured data,
or were deliberately conservative to provide a buffer against inherent uncertainty.
However, some of the assumptions made in predicting impacts were not clearly
evident in the draft EIS making it difficult to assess their conservatism or otherwise.
NRETAS and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) contracted a number of consultants
to review the modelling. Both the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and
WorleyParsons questioned assumptions made by the proponent, particularly within
the sediment transport modelling.
INPEX has since provided more details of the conservative assumptions as claimed
(Supplement, Section 4.1.3.2, Table 4-5, page 47) and on the advice of
WorleyParsons conducted sensitivity analyses on the sediment transport model to
test the effects on some assumptions by varying the assumed values. The
assumptions claimed to be conservative include:
loss rates from various types of plant such as the trailer suction hopper dredge
draghead; cutter suction dredge cutter head and spoil placement; backhoe
dredge; and barge dumping;
values assumed for spoil deposition and re-suspension at the spoil ground;
coarse grain size for offshore disposal represented by fine sand, therefore
assuming enhanced sediment re-suspension in offshore areas.
INPEX also claims to have established conservative impact thresholds for habitats in
the development of indicative zones for predicting the extent of impacts. This will be
discussed further in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of this Report.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
52
INPEX therefore considers that the outputs of the modelling for suspended sediment,
and sedimentation intensity and distribution, overestimate the potential magnitude of
environmental impacts and is confident that the predictions of potential impacts
encompass the full range of activities and risks that may occur as a consequence of
the proposed dredging activities.
Nevertheless, the proposed dredging campaign is significant in scale and duration.
As will be discussed, there remain a number of concerns not least of which is the
uncertainty of relying on modelling predictions to determine the likely areas impacted
by such a large dredging proposal.
The dredging tender released by INPEX specified that the method of dredging
selected by the successful contractor should not result in any significant change to
the predicted levels of impact described within the draft EIS.
INPEX has committed to further sediment dispersion modelling once the dredging
and spoil disposal design is finalised. Following this modelling, it is considered
prudent that INPEX conduct particle tracer studies to provide physical validation of
the predictions in respect of the fate of simulated dredge material. This should be
conducted for both dredging activities in the Harbour and for off shore spoil disposal.
Modelling and tracer studies need to inform the final dredging and dredge spoil
disposal management plan, which will require approval by Government.
Further, if changes to the proposed dredging occur that result in changes to the
predicted environmental significance of the proposal, then INPEX is required to
submit a variation under clause 14A of the EAAP for reassessment under the EA Act,
in accordance with Recommendation 2 of this Report.
Recommendation 3
Further hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling on a refined dredging
proposal is required in consultation with the dredging contractor.
Recommendation 4
Prior to the commencement of dredging, INPEX should conduct particle tracer
studies based on the expected dredge spoil characteristics to validate the
modelling predictions for fate of dredged sediments during dredging in the
Harbour and offshore spoil disposal.
The studies should account for variations in tidal cycles.
Recommendation 5
The dredging and dredge spoil disposal management plan is to be informed by
the hydrodynamic modelling and sediment transport modelling, and particle
tracer studies. The plan should include monitoring of sedimentation and water
quality and appropriate ecological indicators. Contingencies to manage
dredging in the event that there is a significant departure from predicted
impacts need to be specified in the plan. The plan should be developed in
consultation with an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24).
Long term monitoring of the spoil ground to determine the dispersion and fate
of this spoil over an appropriate timeframe should be included in the
management plan.
53
use existing knowledge and compiled data sets to develop models to predict the
distribution of habitat classes in the zones of impact and influence for dredging
and spoil disposal; and
54
55
survival (e.g. coral, algae and seagrass dominated habitats) and the turbidity dataset
is very limited, particularly in light of the high spatial variability of turbidity in the
Harbour.
Consequently, the risk analysis of potential impacts from dredging and dredge spoil
disposal relies heavily on modelled data and INPEXs risk assessment, which INPEX
draws on to prioritise impacts and determine monitoring requirements.
Considering the scale of dredging operations and its potential for impact this
approach on its own does not provide certainty to decision makers that the dredging
can be undertaken and managed in a way to ensure impacts will be acceptable. In
developing ecological monitoring programs for the dredging campaign, INPEX will
need to continue to collect water quality data to establish baseline conditions. The
monitoring programs need to be robust, site-specific and have measurable,
attainable and realistic objectives. To achieve this, the baseline data set must be
robust enough to develop effective adaptive-management measures.
INPEX must be able to establish that the extent of impact from dredging and spoil
disposal is within the range predicted by the modelling and impacts to significant
habitats/species are within acceptable levels. Monitoring should also determine the
recovery of disturbed habitats within zones of moderate impact and influence.
The detail of the environment monitoring programs for the receiving environment will
be developed in consultation with regulatory authorities prior to the commencement
of construction activities within a Government approval as part of INPEXs
Environmental Management Program, in accordance with Recommendation 23 in
Section 4.13 of this Report.
Recommendation 6
An ecological monitoring program must be developed in consultation with
NRETAS and an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) to
detect impacts on significant biological communities associated with dredging
and dredge spoil disposal.
56
erosion processes are gradual. Sustained dredging and spoil disposal adjacent to
these areas may alter these conditions.
The draft EIS did not provide adequate description and assessment of coral and sea
grass communities in Darwin Harbour or data describing the essential environmental
characteristics required to support these significant marine habitats. INPEX
concluded that potential impacts from dredging to significant habitats were likely to
be minor and monitoring and management actions to mitigate impacts were limited
or not proposed in the EIS. It is considered that INPEX has overstated the capacity
for corals and sea grass communities to recover from impacts caused by dredging in
view of the limited supporting data.
INPEX has provided an outline of some relevant environmental monitoring programs
and has committed to developing the detail in consultation with regulatory authorities
prior to the commencement of construction activities. It is only with robust reactive
monitoring programs and appropriate adaptive management measures that
Government and the community will have the assurance that INPEXs claims of
minimal impact can be supported.
Recommendation 7
A reactive monitoring program must be developed in consultation with
NRETAS and an expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) to
respond to dredging and spoil disposal impacts on significant communities.
The program should include:
57
58
to the original proposal with respect to charge sizes and blasting frequency. The
explosive blast pressure wave from a 50kg charge is predicted to have an extremely
high peak pressure of about 270db re 1 Pa at the source with very rapid rise time
(<1ms). The peak pressure level received from a single blast pulse expected to
cause tissue damage is 230dB re 1 Pa. The sound exposure level (SEL) calculated
for six 50kg charges on 25ms delays is 212dB re 1 Pa2.s; the SEL criteria for injury
from blast exposure is 198dB re 1 Pa2.s. This would suggest that if blasting was
undertaken, the risks to any animals in the vicinity of the blast would be extreme.
INPEX conducted underwater acoustic modelling to predict impacts from noise
generated by pile driving and blasting activities. The modelling predicted sound
pressure levels and SELs at different distances from expected noise sources and
applied a range of frequency weightings, representing hearing ranges for significant
marine fauna, to SEL estimates. The outputs were measured against received noise
criteria adopted by INPEX for marine mammals, turtles and fish from Southall et al
(2007) (as cited in the Supplement). The veracity of these criteria was not able to be
comprehensively verified, but the criteria are generally considered to be the best
available.
INPEX conducted an assessment of pile driving noise based on the assumption that
pile driving would take up to 18 months for construction of the MOF and 8 months for
construction of the jetty using a single piling rig; duration would be shorter if multiple
rigs were used. Pile driving results in repeated noise pulses with a hydraulic impact
hammer applying 60 blows per minute (assumed) and each blow lasting 90ms. The
draft EIS estimated the peak sound pressure level at the pile driving source to be
about 210dB re 1 Pa for a typical piling operation. This exceeds the received level
criteria for all marine animals and the bulk of the source noise falls within the lower to
mid hearing range of the coastal dolphin species. At noise levels of this magnitude,
animals are likely to suffer injury but would have to be very close to the noise source.
Animals would more likely avoid the area of impact during the works if given an
opportunity to move away. Although modelling appears to be conservative and actual
noise received is likely to be less than predicted, pile driving is still considered to be a
significant source of underwater noise in the near shore project environment.
The dredge concept includes a CSD for removal of the more-consolidated material in
the Harbour. The CSD would be used primarily in Phase 6 for approximately six
weeks, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Additionally, a specialised CSD is
proposed to be used in place of drill and blast methods to remove hard rock at
Walker Shoal. The Supplement provides no indicative timeline for the use of the
specialised CSD. The noise source spectrum level has been assumed to be 6dB
above that of a standard CSD as the underwater noise intensity is also not known.
Standard dredgers normally generate low-frequency noise with source levels around
160-170dB re 1 Pa. Source levels from the specialised CSD are therefore not
expected to exceed 180dB re 1 Pa, which is considered to be at the lower end of
the adopted noise criteria. At these levels, direct injury to animals is unlikely but
avoidance of the area by marine mammals is expected.
A drop chisel or hydraulic hammer (hydro-hammer) is proposed to be used on hard
rock in the event that the specialised CSD is unsuccessful. Again, there is no
estimate of duration of this method should it be required. Source noise levels from
this method are pulses derived from hammer blows assumed to have similar
characteristics to pile driving. The maximum source level for the hydro-hammer is
estimated to be about 165dB re 1 Pa at a frequency of 200Hz. This is well below
the underwater noise criteria for marine mammals, turtles and fish designated in the
EIS and the risk of injury is considered to be very unlikely. The noise from the hydroIchthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
59
hammer is of less concern than noise from piling and blasting; however, it will add to
the noise levels in the East Arm area if used.
INPEX has proposed a number of measures to mitigate and manage underwater
noise and blasting impacts on cetaceans, dugongs and marine turtles during Project
construction, including:
Undertaking pile driving and any blasting activities during daylight hours to
maximise visibility for fauna observers. Additionally, blasting would only occur
during benign sea conditions;
Employing a soft start approach when pile driving, which entails gradually
ramping up the activity over five minutes;
Using confined blasting methods, with micro-delays inserted between six, 50kg
charges to reduce peak pressure levels of the total 300kg of explosive detonated
during each blast;
Maintaining watch for animals using trained marine fauna observers within a
500m radius for piledriving and 1000m for blasting;
Observation for at least 30 minutes prior to pile driving and blasting. If any animal
is observed in that period, a 20-minute watch would commence until the animal
was observed to move outside the zone or not seen again within that period. The
30-minute observation period would then begin again and soft start piling or
blasting would not proceed until no animals were observed in this time;
Use of explosive casings to minimise toxic floating debris and retrieval of killed
fish on the surface to minimise harm to scavenging or predatory fauna;
In summary, it would appear from the modelling that the risks of significant direct
impacts to marine fauna from underwater noise as a result of pile driving and
dredging are relatively low and these risks can be managed through the proponents
Environmental Management Program. The Fisheries Division of DoR accepts that
some fish mortality will occur if blasting is required but is accepting of this risk as the
impacts are likely to be short-term. Fish deaths due to blasting will need to be
recorded and reported as a requirement of any permit issued under section 16 of the
Fisheries Act for the blasting activity.
There are still serious concerns, however, for the safety of marine mammals and
turtles if drill and blast is employed. There is limited certainty that the current
management measures proposed for safeguarding these species will be effective. In
particular, the current dependence on marine mammal protection zones and
observers is of concern. The macro-tidal environment of Darwin Harbour creates
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
60
relatively turbid, low-visibility conditions while the low surface profile and cryptic
nature of some dolphin species, and the duration that some marine fauna can remain
submerged, makes them very challenging to detect. INPEXs commitment to using
alternative methods for breaking hard rock is supported but continued investigation of
marine fauna detection techniques such as acoustic monitoring is necessary to
determine a more robust detection method in the event that blasting is required. The
proponent must be able to demonstrate through sound scientific studies that any
mitigative strategies and monitoring techniques used can adequately safeguard
these significant species.
Recommendation 8
If INPEX must implement the drill and blast contingency for removing hard
rock, a management plan to protect coastal dolphins, dugongs and turtles
must be developed in consultation with NRETAS and an expert panel (in
accordance with Recommendation 24). The management plan must
demonstrate, through sound scientific studies, the effectiveness of measures
to minimise risks, detect fauna and manage impacts.
Cumulative Impact
A further risk associated with the Project is the potential indirect impacts to marine
fauna of cumulative increases in Harbour noise.
The cumulative impacts of noise from concurrent sources in the Harbour, including
dredging, piling and blasting, were modelled. However, Appendix S7 of the
Supplement qualified that the inherent uncertainty of underwater noise propagation
and the interaction of multiple noise sources made this extremely complex and a
fraught undertaking. Given the uncertainty associated with data deficiency, there is
considered to be significant risk that cumulatively, these noise levels have the
potential to adversely impact marine fauna over an extended duration, particularly if
blasting is added to the underwater noise environment. A precautionary approach in
protecting these fauna is therefore necessary.
As discussed previously, the key noise-generating activities are likely to provoke
avoidance of the impacted area over a sustained period. It is believed that coastal
dolphins could be particularly susceptible because of their reliance on echolocation.
The three species of dolphin known to occur in Darwin Harbour are present in low
numbers. Detection of population trends in coastal dolphins is difficult because of the
low abundances and studies have confirmed small populations are more prone to
extinction than large, stable populations. Even with unbiased and precise abundance
estimates, population trends in coastal dolphins are likely to be extremely difficult to
detect in short-term studies unless changes in population size are dramatic (greater
than 20% per year). Within this time, there is potential for an undetected, irreversible
population decline. Furthermore, both Indo-Pacific humpback and snubfin dolphins
are likely to exist as meta-populations (small and partially, or completely, isolated
populations). Limited research by NRETAS indicates patterns of residency within the
Darwin Harbour populations. This makes them susceptible to extinction if rates of
dispersal between populations are adversely affected. Without knowledge of the
meta-population structure, the degree of dispersal and hence, an understanding of
how to manage the meta-populations, the future of these species in the Darwin
region is unknown.
The underwater noise environment of East Arm is predicted to become a challenging
environment for marine fauna, particularly the coastal dolphin species, and it is
presumed that these species will be excluded from the Eastern part of Darwin
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
61
operate at a no wash speed when they are between 50m and 150m of a
dolphin;
attempt not to approach cetaceans from an angle of less than 60 into or away
from the direction of travel of the cetacean(s); and
62
The management measures proposed by INPEX are borrowed from the Australian
National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching. They apply to the tourism
industry where observing cetaceans is the objective and their appropriateness in the
context of vessel movements of various sizes specific to this Project in Darwin
Harbour is questioned. While it is acknowledged that the risk of collisions with slower
vessels such as ships is likely to be relatively low, particularly for dolphins, faster
vessels are considered to present significantly higher risk. This is primarily due to the
difficulty in seeing these animals and the consequences of collision. Additionally,
there are no relevant measures proposed for dugongs and turtles.
As discussed in Section 4.6.1 of this Report, it is considered that increased mortality
of some of these species could place their populations in Darwin Harbour at risk of
decline and potentially, extinction. Using INPEXs definitions of consequence, low
numbers of individuals seriously injured or killed locally within the Project
construction period, could have massive or even catastrophic consequences for a
population.
It should also be noted that sea turtles use deeper water refuges, such as dredged
channels, when under threat. This makes them susceptible to large propellers from
slow moving vessels (Scott Whiting pers. comm. 2011) and therefore increases the
likelihood of undetected collision. Coupled with the accumulation of impact risks from
other Project-related and existing sources, this will add further to the stress on
marine fauna in the Harbour.
The current proposed management measures are not considered satisfactory and it
is recommended that smaller, Project-related vessels should be required to moderate
their speeds to lower the risks of collision and have propeller guards fitted to reduce
the impacts of collision. All boat handlers associated with the Project should be
educated to watch for large marine fauna and minimise vessel interactions with these
fauna. Any collisions should be reported. INPEX should consider involving NRETAS
Marine Wildwatch in monitoring for stranded fauna.
These additional measures must be included in the relevant management plans for
approval by Government as part of INPEXs Environmental Management Program in
accordance with Recommendation 23 in Section 4.13 of this Report.
Recommendation 10
Relevant EMPs are to be amended to include measures for minimising vessel
interactions / collisions with dolphins, turtles, dugongs and other large marine
fauna. The relevant plans should include:
INPEX assessed the residual risk to marine turtles from TSHD entrainment as
medium. The Supplement states that the possibility of entrainment is remote;
however, monitoring detected entrainment of a marine turtle within the first 5 days of
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
63
engaging suction of the TSHD only when the draghead is close to the substrate,
not as it is raised or lowered through the water column.
64
impacts may be temporary, perhaps lasting as long as the construction period and
others will continue during the life of the Project. These impacts have been discussed
in the previous sections of this Report.
The risks of impact to ecological communities and marine fauna have been predicted
by INPEX to be medium to low for most Project activities; however, it is considered
in some cases that the information presented has not been adequate to support
these assertions of risk. There is still much uncertainty.
Furthermore, Project activities will not be carried out in isolation; the accumulation of
various impacts during construction and through Project operations is considered to
be significant and the implications of these additive impacts are largely unknown.
When placed in the context of a Harbour that is coming under increasing
development pressure, the residual detriment from the project warrants the
implementation of an appropriate marine offset.
Although INPEXs influence on the Harbour will be considerable, it is recognised that
INPEX is not the sole operator. Government also has a role and there is an
opportunity for the NT Government and INPEX to collaborate in establishing a
suitable offset that is relevant for the permanent changes that will occur to the natural
environment of Darwin Harbour.
Recommendation 12
An appropriate offset is necessary to compensate for the residual detriment
posed by Project activities to the ecological communities and marine fauna
within Darwin Harbour. The scale of offset should be commensurate with the
scale of residual detriment. If blasting is required, the offset must be increased
to compensate.
65
there is the potential for parameters to change in the actual dredging campaign.
There is also inherent uncertainty associated with the model and the possibility of
sedimentation exceeding predicted levels needs to be considered. Furthermore, the
threshold values applied to these habitats by the proponent have been questioned
and will need to be determined through further baseline studies (Section 4.5).
The possible need for shorebird monitoring should be re-assessed when the
dredging campaign is fully defined, further sediment fate modelling and particle tracer
studies are conducted, and appropriate monitoring and adaptive management
measures are being developed for sediment transport issues.
Impacts from Project dredging activities are not considered to present a significant
threat to shorebirds at this stage and will be managed through other mechanisms
within INPEXs Environmental Management Program (see Section 4.13).
The risk of, and potential impacts from, oil spills is discussed in Section 4.7.3 of this
Report.
4.6.5 Barramundi
Increased suspended material and deposition of silt from dredging and spoil dumping
operations may impact on barramundi populations, specifically on breeding and
recruitment. Barramundi is a popular target for recreational fishers and is an
important commercial fisheries resource in the Top End.
The draft EIS reports that suspended sediment concentrations greater than 500mg/L
have an impact on larvae of most species and 100mg/L would affect some species if
exposed for longer than 96 hours. It predicted a suspended sediment concentration
of no greater than 20mg/L in the lower reaches of the Howard River and predicted
this would not impact on the barramundi larvae and recruitment.
Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, a study was undertaken into the
effects of simulated dredge material from Darwin Harbour on eggs and larvae of
barramundi (Supplement, Appendix S5). The study provided additional information
on predicted impacts on the barramundi population and presented data from
experiments that were commissioned to test the survival of barramundi larvae under
different suspended-sediment concentrations. The results of the experiments
predicted minimal impact on barramundi larvae from elevated levels of suspended
solids. The Fisheries Division of DoR is satisfied that the dumping of dredge spoil is
unlikely to impact the spawning and recruitment of barramundi in the Shoal Bay area.
INPEX has committed to operate under an approved dredging and dredge spoil
disposal management plan. The management plan will include water quality
thresholds relevant to barramundi larvae protection. INPEX has also committed to
work with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders to manage actual impacts
during construction through adaptive and proactive practices.
Monitoring measures will be contained within the dredging and dredge spoil disposal
management plan, which will be developed in consultation with regulatory authorities,
including the Fisheries Division of DoR.
66
67
over four years. Generally, sediment deposition of 17 to 35mm per year is expected
in the zones of moderate impact.
As stated in the draft EIS, if mangrove tree deaths result because of sedimentation
from the dredging program, the proponent proposes to rehabilitate the affected areas
after the completion of dredging activities through a combination of natural
recruitment, facilitated natural recruitment and active planting. INPEX has maintained
its initial approach to managing risks of sedimentation to mangroves. This
assessment relies on the adequacy of model predictions and monitoring would be
used to validate the model. Significant uncertainty remains in the model predictions
and to a certain extent this has been acknowledged by INPEX.
To deal with this uncertainty, INPEX has proposed the following:
Monitoring of mangrove health and sediment deposition within Darwin Harbour will
be designed such that actual sedimentation can be compared with predicted
sedimentation rates. It is proposed that such monitoring will be conducted at 3monthly intervals. In the unlikely event that sedimentation rates in mangroves exceed
those predicted, or mangrove health is impacted at lower levels of sedimentation
than assumed in the draft EIS, the monitoring program will detect such changes early
and adaptive management practices can be identified and discussed with NRETAS
to facilitate protection of mangrove communities.
Development of mangrove health and sedimentation monitoring has not progressed
since publication of the draft EIS. Therefore, considerable reliance has been placed
on the post-approval development of environmental management plans.
The loss of mangroves from sedimentation is an acceptable risk at current predicted
levels. The model assumptions and predictions will need to be validated however,
through a combination of particle tracer studies prior to commencement of works,
and monitoring during dredging activities, in accordance with Recommendations 4
and 5 of this Report. A monitoring program should be included as part of the
Environmental Management Program for Government approval in accordance with
Recommendation 23 in in Section 4.13 of this Report.
Recommendation 13
A monitoring program must be developed in consultation with NRETAS and an
expert panel (in accordance with Recommendation 24) for sedimentation in
mangrove communities of Darwin Harbour. The program should be informed
by the sediment transport modelling and particle tracer studies and be
included in the dredging and dredge spoil disposal management plan.
The proponent has identified the potential use of offsets to manage the residual
detriment associated with the loss of monsoon vine forest.
The use of offsets is a rational approach to managing the issue. It is important to note
that the loss of monsoon vine forest will be permanent. The proponent has indicated
that protection of monsoon vine forest could also be incorporated in fire
management programs within the Daly River and Wagait areas, which would
principally be designed for greenhouse gas abatement. The loss of monsoon vine
forest is considered to be an acceptable risk of the Project if there is commitment to
permanent protection of regionally significant monsoon vine forests, particularly in the
Darwin Harbour catchment.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
68
Recommendation 14
An offset for loss of monsoon vine forest on Blaydin Point is recommended.
All activities associated with offsetting the residual detriment of clearing
monsoon vine forests should:
be in perpetuity; and
69
It was suggested in response to the draft EIS that INPEX investigate alternative
options for disposal of hydrotest water rather than discharge to the Harbour. INPEX
indicated that opportunities for irrigation to land at Blaydin Point would be limited;
however, no detailed explanation was provided in the EIS. INPEX needs to provide
further justification that discharge to land is not viable.
Total hydrotest discharges from the onshore facility are predicted to peak at
7200m3/d (7.2ML) when the tanks are being tested but INPEX claims that the
average discharge volumes will be substantially lower than this for the duration of the
six-to-nine-month pre-commissioning period.
INPEX have committed to:
minimising the types and amounts of treatment chemicals that may need to be
added; and
Select chemical additives that have the lowest practicable risk to the
marine environment.
Sewage waste and grey water would be generated throughout the life of the
Project with the volumes fluctuating depending on the number of people on the
site. Approximately 220m3/h of treated sewage will be produced during the
operations phase.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
70
Process waste water from the processing plant will be made up almost
exclusively of water drained from the bottom of condensate tanks and volumes
will fluctuate depending on maintenance activities at the time. If a combined-cycle
system is chosen as the preferred technology for power generation, then
condensed steam loop bleed water will add a continuous stream of 8-13m3/h of
potable water.
When accounting for all waste streams, it is estimated in the draft EIS that minimum
discharge volumes from the outfall would be around18m3/h in the Dry season.
Maximum discharge is expected to be 160m3/h in Wet season peak storm events
with 110m3/h of this the stormwater contribution.
The wastewater would contain a range of contaminants fluctuating according to
contributions from the various liquid waste streams. Key contaminants expected
include nutrients (phosphorus [P] and nitrogen [N]) and faecal coliforms from
sewage; scale and salts from demineralisation; and hydrocarbons from process
waste water and contaminated stormwater. Physical characteristics of the water
would also vary from ambient conditions of the receiving environment. Expected
contaminant characteristics of Project wastewater are provided in Table 2.
71
Parameters
Unit
Water Quality
Objectives for the
Darwin Harbour
Region (Feb
2010)1
pH
7.0-8.5
59
Total nitrogen
(Total N)
g/L
<270
40 000
Total
phosphorus
(Total P)
g/L
<20
10 000
cfu/100mL
Not specified
< 400
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
g/L
<6002
10 000
BOD
mg/L
Not specified
20
Temperature
Not specified
2635 C
Nutrients
INPEX
Estimated
wastewater
characteristics
1. Indicator for Environmental Use: Aquatic Ecosystem Protection and Cultural, Mid Estuary.
2. Adopted from Environmental Quality Objectives in the Netherlands, 1994
year round. All other waste water is irrigated onsite. Darwin LNG operational waste
water volumes were predicted to average 288m3/d,.
INPEXs proposed daily discharge rate is calculated to be approximately 432m3/d.
Irrigable land surface may be a limiting factor for INPEX in undertaking similar landbased disposal to Darwin LNG. Further investigation of land-based disposal is
needed to clearly demonstrate that this is not a viable option for all Project waste
water, in Dry season conditions. INPEX needs to explore further the potential for reuse of treated water in the process, which would potentially reduce reticulated water
demand as well as discharge volumes.
If the discharge from the Harbour outfall is required after all other options are
exhausted, any waste water discharge would be regulated through the Environment
Protection Licence (EPL) under the WMPC Act. Discharges to the Harbour would
be required to meet Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region. Where
these are unable to be met INPEX would be expected to show just cause for seeking
approval for discharge to the Harbour.
All discharges to the Harbour require
monitoring for a period prior to commencement of discharge to establish baseline
data for determining impact of the discharge; validation of mixing zones where
applicable (i.e. where water quality objectives can not be met); monitoring during the
life of the activity; and during remediation of the site on cessation of the activity.
Monitoring would be conditional to any approval or licence which authorises a
discharge to the Harbour and would incorporate biological and chemical parameters.
INPEX should continue to seek and implement waste water reduction, re-use and
treatment within the plant design and for the life of the Project in accordance with
continuous improvement principles.
would be likely; however, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture would be extremely low
and the impacts very localised. Further away from the Harbour, the risk to the NT
coastline is predicted to become negligible. The greater risk of spills comes from
leaks of fuels and condensate at the East Arm Wharf and INPEXs product loading
jetty respectively.
INPEX has an oil spill contingency plan (OSCP) that will be finalised and submitted to
the NT Government for approval under the Disaster Act prior to the commencement
of construction, commissioning and operations.
INPEX, in cooperation with industry partners, is also developing an operational and
scientific monitoring program to ensure that oil spill combat efforts are effective and
that timely and appropriate monitoring of environmental receptors at risk during a
large oil spill is undertaken. This is more applicable to the offshore component of the
proposal, however, there may be linkages with Darwin Harbour monitoring programs
to ensure that baseline knowledge is available in the event of an incident. Relevant
lessons arising from the Montara and the Macondo inquiries will be incorporated into
the proponents oil spill contingency plans and into the proponents selection,
resourcing and positioning of oil spill combat equipment and personnel.
Monitoring plans will de developed as part of the oil spill monitoring and management
procedures. It is expected that any monitoring activities following an oil spill would
include assessment of impacts on marine fauna including mammals, turtles, fish and
shore birds. Long-term monitoring of fish populations following an oil spill would be
required to determine whether the event caused recruitment failure.
The potential for oil spills is correctly identified as a risk in the EIS. The proponent
has detailed the measures it will take to monitor and manage oil spills, including the
development of site specific oil spill response plans. It is noted that the proponent
has access to a significant amount of expertise and equipment in the event of an oil
spill.
4.7.4 Noise
There were a few concerns relating to airborne noise attributed to the Project. These
included shipping noise in the evenings, in relation to the Deckchair Cinema; impacts
on Palmerston; and perceived noise modelling deficiencies.
Underwater noise issues are discussed in Section 4.6.1 of this Report.
INPEX assessed the potential impacts of noise from plant operations, emergency
flaring and pile driving on the community through noise modelling. Shipping noise
was not modelled.
The Deckchair Cinema, although an open-air venue, is situated in a relatively quiet
area on the edge of the Darwin CBD overlooking the Harbour. A concern was raised
that the standards required for background noise in cinemas could be affected by
noise from LNG tankers and the accompanying tugs and no relevant noise
predictions were provided in the draft EIS. INPEX used worse-case, predicted
impacts in Darwin from operating plant noise (in the 2535 dB(A) range) and the
measured ambient noise levels at various locations around Darwin to conclude that
noise levels at the Deckchair Cinema would not be affected by the Blaydin Point
plant or shipping at night. INPEX argued that the cinema would more likely be
affected by natural and other pre-existing sources (e.g. wind or traffic noise) and that
shipping would be conducted similarly to current shipping from the Darwin LNG plant.
The draft EIS indicated that the operating gas plant is not expected to cause ambient
noise levels in Palmerston to rise above around 40 dB(A); however, further modelling
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
74
shows that with upset flaring, noise levels could be 45-55 dB(A) in Palmerston three
or four times per year for short periods if wind speed and wind direction are
unfavourable at these times.
To demonstrate relative levels of noise from recognised sources, INPEX provided
comparative examples of noise levels in the draft EIS. A noise level of 40 dB(A) is
equivalent to quiet radio music, a level of 50 dB(A) is equivalent to low
conversation, and a level of 60 dB(A) is equivalent to normal conversation.
It is accepted that the Project will create some noise and at times the noise levels
might exceed ambient noise levels in some residential areas. The noise is not
expected to be significant.
INPEXs predictive air quality modelling showed that after the addition of the
emissions from the INPEX facilities, ground-level air quality in the Darwin region
would remain well within the criteria prescribed in the Air NEPM at all times for NOx,
photochemical oxidants (as ozone (O3)), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). PM10 could be
expected to exceed the criterion at times, which is allowed for to an extent in the
NEPM due to ambient spikes caused by natural events such as bushfires and dust
storms.
There is a small predicted increase in levels of pollutants resulting from the Project
and generally the risk of significant and wide spread air quality impacts from the
Project is considered to be low. Therefore, an extensive ambient air quality
monitoring program is not warranted. INPEX has committed to ambient air quality
monitoring during the operations phase to validate the assumptions used in the
modelling and demonstrate that ambient concentrations are broadly commensurate
to the levels predicted. INPEX will also consider sampling for particulates during the
Wet season and/or Dry season.
Additionally, an ongoing stack emission monitoring program is considered necessary
to ensure emissions remain within prescribed limits. The air quality monitoring will
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
75
Quarterly monitoring for the first year of operation and annual thereafter
for NOx (plus temperature, flow, O2, moisture) at each stack servicing
the compressor turbines, power turbines, and hot oil heaters; and
Quarterly monitoring for the first year of operation and annual thereafter
for SO2 (plus temperature, flow, O2, moisture) at each stack servicing the
acid gas incinerators.
40 year
Project
life (Mt)
40 year
annual
average, MT
per annum
(Mt/a)
Construction phase
2.0
n.a.
Operational
Phase
Offshore
72
1.8
Onshore
combustion
110
2.8
Reservoir
gas
96
2.4
Onshore
206
5.2
278
7.0
Annual average
as % of
Australian
emissions 2009
Annual average
as % of NT
emissions 2009
30
sub-total
Operational
sub-total
Total
280
1.2
Estimated average annual emission levels are equivalent to 1.2% of Australias GHG
emissions in 2009. Estimated onshore emission levels are equivalent to 30% of the
Northern Territorys GHG emissions in 2009.
The Australian Government has committed to reduce Australias carbon pollution to
25% below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to stabilise levels of GHG in the
atmosphere at 450 parts per million or lower. If global agreement is unable to be
reached on a 450 parts per million target, the Australian Government has committed
to reduce Australias emissions by between 5 and 15% below 2000 levels by 2020.
The Australian Government has also committed to a long-term GHG emissions
reduction target of at least 60% below 2000 levels by 2050.
The Northern Territory Governments Climate Change Policy sets an aspirational
goal of reducing the Northern Territorys emissions by 60% by 2050, compared to
2007 levels.
Average annual GHG emissions from the INPEX project would represent
approximately 3.2% of the Australian Governments long term reduction target for
2050, and 76% of the Northern Territorys aspirational goal for 2050 (refer Table 4).
Target
GHG Emissions
Target
Mt/CO2-e/annum
INPEX 40-year
annual average
operational GHG
emissions Mt/CO2e/annum
INPEX contribution
as a % of Target
National target:
60% below 2000*
levels by 2050
221.88
7.0
3.2%
Northern Territory
goal: 60% below
2007# levels by
2050
6.879
5.2
75.6%
*According to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (May 2011), 2000 levels are
estimated to be 554.7Mt CO2-e.
# According to the State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2009), 2007 levels
are estimated to be 17.197Mt CO2-e.
The INPEX project would generate a significant increase in national and Northern
Territory GHG emissions. The INPEX project would be the largest single industry
emitter of GHG in the Northern Territory.
The draft EIS compares life cycle GHG emissions from the use of LNG and coal for
electricity generation. It states that a primary advantage of the use of LNG as an
energy source is that the quantity of GHGs emitted over the full life cycle is
significantly less than the comparable life cycle emissions from either coal or fuel oil,
as a means of delivering the same amount of energy (draft EIS, page 428). The draft
EIS further states that in a global context, the use of Ichthys LNG to generate
electricity in Asia will therefore likely result in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions
(draft EIS, page 429). The substitution of gas for coal is questioned by a number of
respondents to the draft EIS.
INPEX LNG does have the potential to replace the use of coal, which would result in
a reduction of GHG emissions over the full life cycle. There is no guarantee,
however, that this will be the case. As stated in the Supplement (page 253), the
degree of fuel displacement by Ichthys LNG cannot be known until the LNG is
consumed. The emissions generated in the consuming country are more
appropriately addressed by that sovereign state.
Comparisons in the draft EIS and Supplement reveal that the project would be more
emissions intensive than many other LNG projects around the world. This is largely
due to the high proportion of CO2 naturally present in the Brewster and Plover gas
reservoirs, and the relatively energy-intensive offshore facilities.
The draft EIS outlines a number of technical abatement measures that have been
identified for the project (draft EIS, Section 9.8). These measures represent a
reduction in GHG emissions of 0.39Mt/a and have been included in INPEXs annual
average production estimate of 7Mt/a. In the Supplement, INPEX commits to
additional measures in its base-case design, including a combined cycle power plant
for onshore electricity production and a subsea electrical power-sharing cable
between the offshore infrastructure components. Emission reductions from these
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
78
measures are estimated to be 0.3 0.35Mt/a and 0.1 0.2Mt/a respectively from the
annual average of 7Mt estimated in the draft EIS.
INPEX commits to producing a detailed GHG management plan prior to the
commissioning of the onshore facilities that will include an updated GHG emission
estimate and consolidate measures for technical emissions abatement and offsets.
Benchmarking the technology of the onshore gas processing plant and related
abatement measures detailed in the GHG management plan would inform the
relevant NT approval under the WMPC Act.
Large scale GHG emission reductions beyond technical abatement measures could
potentially be achieved through geosequestration and offsetting GHG emissions from
the project. The draft EIS outlines INPEXs investigations into geosequestration of
reservoir CO2 and states that INPEX may consider its implementation if technically
feasible and commercially viable.
INPEX is investigating reforestation as a GHG offset and has established a
biosequestration assessment project in Western Australia. In the Supplement INPEX
expresses its interest in two savanna fire management projects in the Northern
Territory to achieve GHG emission reductions and biodiversity protection. INPEX
states that it is continuing to examine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of offsets,
with no firm commitments made by INPEX in the draft EIS and Supplement.
Submissions to the draft EIS commented on the scale of GHG offsets, with many
seeking 100% offset of the projects GHG emissions. Given the significance of the
projects GHG emissions, commitments to GHG offsets are expected to feature
prominently in the GHG management plan to be provided by INPEX as additional
measures to reduce the GHG impact of the project.
The Australian Government is pursuing the implementation of a carbon price
mechanism that will start with a fixed price period for three to five years before
transitioning to an emissions trading scheme. The Australian Government is aiming
to commence the carbon price on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate
agreement with a majority in both houses of Parliament and pass legislation in 2011.
The extent of coverage of the LNG sector in the proposed mechanism is uncertain at
this point in time.
The GHG emissions from the onshore component of the Ichthys LNG project will be
regulated by the Northern Territory Government through an EPL under the WMPC
Act. The ongoing application of the Northern Territory regulatory framework will need
to be reviewed should there be progress in establishing a national carbon pricing
mechanism or alternative national regulation of GHG emissions. If, at any time in the
future, the GHG emissions from the Ichthys LNG Project are regulated under national
legislation to reduce GHG emissions, then INPEX may no longer be subject to
Northern Territory regulation of GHG emissions.
INPEX has recognised in the draft EIS that it will be required to report its GHG
emissions to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System.
This assessment concludes that the project will result in a significant increase in NT
and Australian GHG emissions.
Recommendation 17
That INPEX submit to the Northern Territory Government a Greenhouse Gas
Management Plan covering onshore GHG emissions prior to commissioning of
the onshore gas processing plant. The GHG Management Plan should be
submitted within a timeframe that enables its consideration in the issue of an
Environment Protection Licence under the Waste Management and Pollution
Control Act.
Recommendation 18
That the Greenhouse Gas Management Plan include, but not necessarily be
limited to, the following:
The surveys themselves were sufficient in terms of the equipment used, the
areas they covered, their objectives and their calibration to identify sites; and
The scope of work for the consultancy included a review of the potential resource, an
assessment of the survey work (in terms of its context, function and parameters), a
review of the raw data, and a final recommendation as to whether further work was
necessary.
Two consultants were engaged, URS and Cosmos Archaeology. Each consultant
provided a desktop review of the potential maritime heritage resource that could exist
in Darwin Harbour, a critical exercise as it defined the search objective and the risk.
The reports then assessed the suitability of the various remote sensing tools to
detect the potential maritime heritage as defined in the resource.
The URS report concluded that nine shipwrecks remain unlocated and that these
wrecks would have been detected by the sonar methods used, had they been
present. Cosmos Archaeology concluded that the unlocated resource is closer to 39
with up to 25 planes also lost in Darwin Harbour. Further, the Cosmos report
concluded that the potential characteristics of some of these wrecks would limit
detection using sonar, but could possibly be located through appropriately-calibrated
magnetometer surveys. Both magnetometer and sonar methods are considered valid
techniques, with sonar able to detect relatively high-relief anomalies and
magnetometers able to detect very low-relief anomalies with high ferrous (iron)
content.
It is considered that URS did not have sufficient understanding of the potential
heritage resource, particularly the range of site types and the number of wrecks that
might exist, to conclude that the surveys were adequate. A significant limitation of the
URS assessment was the failure to recognise the mass deposition of small pearling
luggers following the cyclone of 1897. These are potentially highly significant, but low
relief, wrecks which need to be carefully considered in relation to this Project.
The Cosmos Archaeology report found that INPEXs remote sensing reports did not
appear to have assessed the data for the potential to locate low-profile, timber-hulled
wrecks. The report also found that a series of anomalies identified in the surveys
had not been properly verified or were new findings based on a review of the raw
data. It noted that non-targeted remote surveys or dive verification were not sufficient
to identify maritime heritage and made three recommendations:
Raw data that had not been provided previously by INPEX should be provided for
further analysis;
The magnetometer survey of Area A (the navigation channel, turning basin and
berthing pocket dredging footprint) should be completed; and
INPEX has not stated whether it will accept or reject the recommendations presented
by either consultant.
The Heritage Branch of NRETAS has an overarching responsibility to act on behalf of
the Northern Territory Government to conserve the unique and diverse cultural
heritage of the Territory, including maritime heritage. This includes, but is not limited
to, identifying places and objects that may warrant protection under the NT Heritage
Conservation Act. The Branch also acts on behalf of the Commonwealth Government
in administering the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act, which applies in Darwin
Harbour. There is an obligation under this Act to notify the Australian Government of
the discovery of any wreck older than 75 years old, which are automatically protected
under the Act.
The Northern Territory GSP is expected to grow by $4095 million annually from
the base case, an increase of about 18%.
While the GSP captures increase in output and production, the changes in private
consumption expenditure in the Territory provides a useful indicator of actual
expenditure in the Territory and the impact on the welfare of Territorians. The
INPEX gas project is estimated to increase real private consumption in the
Territory by $175 million annually from the base case, an increase of 1.6%.
At the peak of construction phase over 2000 jobs would be created and
approximately 300 people would be employed on an ongoing basis in the
operational phase of the proposed project. The proposed project would also
indirectly generate significant employment in the Territory economy.
The INPEX project has the potential to assist the NT to meet a number of identified
targets in the Territory 2030 document.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
82
As set out in the Territory 2030 strategy, consideration of targets across all key
priority areas is necessary and while the project meets targets outlined in Economic
Sustainablity it will have a greater net positive impact if negative impacts are
identified, mitigated and managed effectively.
Impacts to the social fabric of the local and regional community are expected to be
significant and consideration of these issues is required by Territory 2030, which
includes the (Society) targets:
Ensure there is sufficient serviced land to support investment and population growth.
Develop Darwin as one of Australias most affordable cities.
Improve access to accommodation.
A balanced housing market offering good value for money and affordability, ultimately
becoming one of Australias most affordable housing markets, across all market
segments.
While the direct economic benefits and the flow-on impacts to the Northern Territory
and Australia are expected to be substantial over the economic life of the project
there may be negative social aspects that require careful management, such as
maintaining labour availability for existing industries. The degree to which the INPEX
project will impact on these aspects has been assessed to some extent in the EIS,
however it is considered that ongoing review and management of impacts will be
necessary.
Recommendation 20
A Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) is to be developed by INPEX in
collaboration with NT Government. The SIMP must address social issues that
have been raised in the EIS and this assessment report. The SIMP should also
be informed by the outcomes of a Health Impact Assessment undertaken as
part of the accommodation village assessment process.
Specific issues for consideration in the SIMP are discussed further in the sections
below.
The potential influence of the Project on housing affordability has already been
discussed and is one of the factors that will need to be considered by the appointed
sub-committee. The impact of increased demand on services resulting from the
Project (due to increases in population from INPEX workforce) and the associated
impact on cost of living will also need to be considered.
4.9.4 Employment
INPEX and its Ichthys Project joint venture partner Total have donated $3 million
towards the construction of a trade training centre in recognition of the Larrakia
people who are the traditional owners of the land and sea where the proposed
INPEX onshore plant will be located (Blaydin Point). The Larrakia Trade Training
Centre (the Centre) was officially opened in April 2011.
The Centre will provide training and facilitate employment opportunities for youth
from all sectors of the community including Larrakia and other Aboriginal and Torres
Straight Islander peoples.
Approximately 300 students are already enrolled to learn professional skills such as
electrical, automotive mechanics, metal fabrication and plumbing.
Similarly, business opportunities in the pre-construction, construction and the
operational phases for the local industries and businesses have been formalised in
an Industry Participation Plan.
These initiatives are in keeping with the Territory 2030 targets The Territory
continues to grow the size and skills of its workforce to meet the growth target,
increase Indigenous/ non-Indigenous business partnerships and improve
Indigenous employment rates.
4.9.5 Health
The EIS states that the Projects most intense socio-economic impacts are likely to
be associated with the construction phase of nearshore and onshore development
areas, and from a health perspective, it is the proposed accommodation village at
Howard Springs that is of key interest. The construction of a 2000 3000 person
accommodation village equates to the development of an entire new suburb in an
existing rural area with limited infrastructure and services.
As stated earlier in this report, the accommodation village is being assessed under a
separate approvals process. Social and environmental issues expected with this
component of the proposal will therefore be assessed further in subsequent approval
requirements.
To assist in the assessment of the accommodation village the Department of Health
has requested that INPEX conduct an appropriate Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
of the potential adverse effects to health from the proposed accommodation village,
considering a range of potential outcomes for acute and chronic effects as well as the
potential risks to the provision of health services. INPEX has undertaken extensive
consultation, which will have assisted in identifying a range of environmental, social
and health factors.
It is understood that INPEX has committed to undertaking a HIA of the
accommodation village element of its proposal.
INPEX has a role in ensuring that the negative socio-economic impacts of its
temporary workforce are minimised, however, the success of any measures
implemented by the company will be dependent upon management responses and
measures put in place by Government.
Some of the issues to be considered by Government include the availability of health
services, the adequacy of police services during construction, and the adequacy of
existing recreation facilities to cater for construction workers.
There are examples within Australia that can be drawn upon to understand the
potential socio-economic impacts a FIFO or temporary workforce can have on an
existing community. This information can be used to undertake a social impact
analysis and to develop a SIMP in accordance with Recommendation 20 of this
Report. The dual role of both INPEX and the Government in managing social impacts
demands a collaborative approach when developing a SIMP.
4.9.7 Tourism
A number of concerns were raised about issues that are likely to have impact on the
tourism industry:
The potential for the project to impact on the labour market which will place
pressure on the availability of labour for the tourism industry;
Impact on tourism value of the Harbour through reduced visual amenity, marine
pests and impact on marine flora and fauna.
Precommissioning: Peak water demand for this phase would be during the tank
hydro-static testing. During this period of approximately 16 months, water
demand could peak at approximately 7800m3/d, which would be required
24 hours a day, intermittently for a few weeks. INPEX committed to reuse tank
hydrotest water where technically feasible.
INPEX stated that recent advice from the Power and Water Corporation (PWC)
indicated that there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate the water demands
of the Project, however, INPEX are continuing to investigate alternatives to using
PWC water. These include incorporating water efficiency measures into the design of
the onshore gas-processing facility and the preparation of a water conservation
management plan that will form the framework for the identification and capture of
water-efficiency, conservation and management initiatives.
Although INPEX has committed to water conservation, specific strategies such as
ensuring that the onshore plant has a water reuse component on the wastewater
stream have not yet been built into the project design. INPEX has indicated that its
power generation may utilise air-cooling technology. This would considerably reduce
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
88
the water requirements of the plant and is supported, provided that any negative
impacts specific to this technology are considered.
The Territory 2030 Strategic Plan encourages Government, industry and the
community to deliver on the objectives, and meet targets where ever possible.
Efficient use of water is such a target that INPEX and Government will need to work
towards.
Water conservation is becoming increasingly important in the Darwin Region due to
the growing demand on the resource and the need to plan for future water supply.
INPEX must ensure that water conservation measures are built into the plant design
and commit to continuous improvement in minimising its water use.
Recommendation 21
The Blaydin Point gas facility must incorporate best-practice water
conservation measures into the design. The proponent must commit to
continuous improvement in minimising potable water use.
The Safety Case will need to demonstrate that all credible major risks have been
identified, control measures considered and implemented appropriately, and then
provide a system whereby these controls are assessed and finally demonstrated to
be adequate for the risks identified. It specifies the risk prevention measures as well
as strategies for reducing the effects of any major credible accident should one
occur.
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
89
The Safety Case also requires the proponent to address safety issues including:
hazard identification, assessment and control of risks, safety management systems,
induction training and education, emergency planning, reporting of incidents and near
misses, employee responsibilities, community information and security. It is prepared
in consultation with other relevant Government agencies and local councils.
This safety assessment is a separate process and will be undertaken after the
environmental assessment process but prior to the commissioning of the facility and
plant (first gas).
Although there will be relevant information provided by the proponent to the public in
relation to dealing with emergency requirements, other information including the
Safety Case cannot be released by NT Worksafe for public comment due to the
legislative, security and proprietary aspects of this operation.
INPEX has provided within the draft EIS a QRA to analyse the risk of particular
hazards associated with an operating facility.
To improve public confidence, it is considered that greater transparency in this
process is needed. Government could achieve this by providing the community with
Project-specific information about the decision-making that informs the Safety Case
for the Major Hazard Facility Licence.
4.12 Decommissioning
The community expectations of a project, once it is at the end of its life are:
the community will not be subject to the consequence of legacy issues from the
former use of the site; and
This requires the proponent to consider the need to decommission the site in its initial
planning, as well as how a site may be decommissioned and the likely appropriate
beneficial use for the site. It is difficult to determine the requirements for
decommissioning for a site at the start of a long project. This is in part due to new
technologies and processes that may be developed in the intervening period and
changes in community expectations leading to changes in what is considered best
practice. However, consideration must be given to decommissioning early in the
event that the Project does not continue for its full predicted life.
This need to consider decommissioning at the start of the project is acknowledged by
INPEX in its Provisional Decommissioning Management Plan While the
requirements of decommissioning will depend upon the regulations at the end of the
useful life of the Project, consideration of decommissioning feasibility will be
incorporated into the design of each facility.
The primary issue raised by respondents to the draft EIS was the management of
waste arising from the decommissioning process. The Provisional Management Plan
states that detailed waste management documents will be developed and
implemented, as will a series of other management plans to address matters such as
noise, dust and acid sulphate soils.
The decommissioning process outlined in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS corresponds
broadly with the process agreed by the proponent and the Northern Territory
Government on July 18 2008, within the Ichthys LNG Project Development
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
90
The provisional EMPs referred to in the EIS have been structured by the proponent
to provide the core information required to guide the development of construction
EMPs (CEMPs) and operations EMPs (OEMPs).
Provisional Environmental Management Plans (Construction and Operations)
developed for onshore and nearshore activities in the EIS included:
A number of the above plans also apply to EPBC Act matters. The EMPs applicable
to the management of impacts on the Commonwealth marine environment include:
divided into two separate plans, a Piledriving Management Plan and if required, a
Blasting Management Plan.
In addition to the above management plans, Recommendation 20 of this Report
provides for the preparation of a SIMP collaboratively with Government. The SIMP
will need to be included as part of the Environmental Management Program and will
include a HIA.
Proposed monitoring programs are associated with many of the EMPs. These
monitoring plans may be detailed in the management plans or developed as separate
documents linked to the relevant management plans.
Another important consideration for this Project is transparency and accountability in
impact management. Some regulatory instruments provide for public availability of
management plans; others do not. The proximity and importance of this development
to Darwin Harbour and the Darwin regional community increases the importance of
transparency. Therefore, as well as seeking engagement with key stakeholders in the
preparation of these management plans, the proponent is encouraged to make the
final EMPs available to the wider public.
Similarly, the proponent is encouraged to continue to engage and inform the
community as development progresses. It is expected that this would include
reporting of monitoring outcomes and ongoing management actions to minimise
impact.
EMPs are to be provided to Government for approval ahead of the activity for which
the EMP is intended to manage or prior to the commencement of any works. For
the purposes of this Assessment Report, works means any tasks which would
require/cause any physical disturbance to any project area offshore or onshore.
Examples include drilling, clearing vegetation above the ground surface, trenching,
grading, discharging, dredging, etc.
Recommendation 23
All Environment Management Plans for the Ichthys Gas Field Development
Project are to be submitted to Government for approval prior to
commencement of any works for which the plans apply.
In preparing each plan, the proponent will include any additional measures for
environmental protection and monitoring contained in this Assessment Report
and Recommendations. The plans shall be referred to relevant Northern
Territory Government agencies and key stakeholders for review prior to
finalisation. The plans shall form the basis for approvals and licences issued
under relevant legislation.
The proponent should provide public access to final environmental
management plans and a reporting mechanism to inform compliance with the
plans.
A number of key recommendations in this Report include requirements for the
proponent to consult with an expert panel in developing the relevant management
plans. The expert panel would be called upon to provide advice on scope and
appropriate methodologies in management plans for the key issues associated with
the Project. This is important where advice from objective experts is essential in
developing effective monitoring programs and management tools to minimise
impacts. The relevant activities for which impacts are expected to be most significant
and recommendations have been provided include:
Blasting, if required.
The form of the expert panel will need to be determined in agreement with
Government and the proponent. It is expected that the model used in Chevrons
Gorgon Project in Western Australia could be used for this Project.
Recommendation 24
An expert panel should be formed to provide objective and expert support in
the development of appropriate management plans and monitoring programs
for dredging and dredge spoil disposal, and for blasting if required, as
recommended in this Report. The final form of the expert panel will be
determined in agreement between Government and the proponent.
5 Conclusion
The environmental impacts of the project can be managed by delivering the
commitments made in the EIS and the Supplement and by rigorously applying the
recommendations and management plans and strategies described in this
assessment.
Although the likely impacts of the Project have been identified and are relatively well
understood, there remains a high level of uncertainty in terms of the precise nature
and extent of impacts and changes, particularly to the ecology of Darwin Harbour and
the region. This uncertainty is largely due to the gaps in data informing the
environmental impact assessment process. Consequently, the proponent,
government and community will be reliant on intensive, post-assessment monitoring
to determine the significance of, and appropriate responses to, key impacts. These
monitoring requirements are captured in the commitments made by the proponent
and recommendations of this Report.
The less predictable impacts such as the modification of habitats and cumulative
effects on significant species in the Harbour will need to be managed to an
acceptable level. The proponent should demonstrate that it can achieve this by fully
implementing its management program with effective monitoring and appropriate
adaptive management tools. These programs will need to be rigorous and based on
sound, scientific information, and form the basis for relevant regulatory approvals.
Given the high profile of this Project, it is essential that the community are kept
informed of ongoing monitoring programs and the implementation of required
management actions.
This Report identifies areas where, despite efforts to mitigate impact, residual
environmental detriment is anticipated, such as the loss of monsoon vine forest and
the cumulative effects of the Project on significant marine biota in Darwin Harbour.
The proponent will be expected to implement appropriate offsets to reduce this
residual detriment or improve protection for relevant environmental aspects
elsewhere.
Based on its review of the EIS and the proponents response to submissions from
relevant Northern Territory Government agencies, affected stakeholders and the
public, and an understanding of the economic benefits of the project, the
Environment and Heritage Division considers that the project can be managed within
the bounds of acceptable environmental impacts, provided that the environmental
commitments, safeguards and recommendations detailed in the EIS, this
Assessment Report and in the final management plans are implemented and
managed under the environmental management program for the project and are
subject to regular reporting and compliance auditing.
6 References:
Department of the Chief Minister 2009, Territory 2030 Strategic Plan, Northern
Territory Government.
NT EPA (2010) Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Darwin Harbour Region:
Review of Governance Frameworks.
Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr,
C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J.,
Thomas, J.A. and Tyack, P.L. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial
scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33 (4): 411521.
Appendix 1
A summarised list of issues raised from public review of the draft EIS corresponding with the individuals / organisations responsible for raising
those issues. The NRETAS submission on the draft EIS is not included in this summary but can be read in its entirety on the NRETAS website:
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/environment/assessment/register/inpex/index.html.
Public Submissions
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
AFANT
Catherine Martel
97
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Concern on water quality indicators used by the draft EIS and quality of discharge.
The proponent must contribute financially to the development of a monitoring program that would,
among other things, track water quality, including sediment load.
Monitoring and adaptive management necessary to support this proposal, specifically in response to
sedimentation associated with spoil disposal.
Ongoing comprehensive, post and pre condition water quality monitoring programs need to be
conducted in conjunction with the development of a suite of suitable triggers and management
actions.
Air
Question proposed air emission limits.
Management of ozone depleting substances.
The appropriateness of the air quality NEPM to understand/ judge impacts to airshed is questioned.
Jodi Kirkby
Morris Pizzutto
Natacha Aguilar de Soto
Patrick Barrie
Roberta Dixon
Sue Mornane
Warren Clancy
World Wildlife Fund
DCC
Waste
Questions waste management/ capacity associated with site as well as increase in population.
Onshore waste disposal of both onshore and offshore wastes (cannot assume Shoal Bay Landfill).
Risk
AMSTECI
Risk - general
Accuracy of risk modelling (dependent upon input data) (including relevance to the NT due to its
climatic conditions).
Proximity to ConocoPhillips (reference to overseas restrictions on distance limits as well as
ConocoPhillips EIS and EMP).
Cumulative risk arising from both ConocoPhillips and INPEX operating in such close proximity.
Ensuring risk evaluation is continually reviewed.
Design standards and sourcing of expertise.
References DVD The Risks and Dangers of LNG Tim Riley and Hayden Riley.
Refers to website www.lngdanger.com.
Cites international examples of catastrophic failure within the industry.
98
Duncan Dean
ECNT
Greg Chapman
Heather Ryan
HELP NT Parts 1,2, 3 and 4
Pro-forma submission
Rose Kubatov
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Questions whether all potential scenarios of risk have been modelled or tested.
Judgment that the QRA falls short of the government guideline requirements. The 20 pages of the
INPEX QRA is in stark contrast to the 128 pages of the Hazard and Risk Assessment Report (HRAP)
which Bechtel Corporation and their consultants Quest Consultants Inc. prepared for Phillips
Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd as part of the March 2002 Public Environment Report for the 10 MTPA
Facility at Wickham Point.
Modelling of oil spill risk omitted from draft EIS.
The Mahonys
Questions readiness of the community for catastrophic risk and INPEXs responsibility towards getting
the community ready/ protected/ evacuated.
Questions Darwins emergency and health capacity to respond to a catastrophic event.
Cost to Darwin being emergency ready.
99
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Policy Position
Concern that INPEX is trying to avoid GHG reporting/ tax/ policy.
Cannot make claim that proposal will reduce overall global GHG emissions. INPEX cannot
demonstrate that this LNG product will in any way displace dirtier fuels. There are no Australian or
international mechanisms for leaving any coal in the ground. Australia (the producer) has not
committed to export any less coal, and Japan (the consumer) have not committed to shutting down
any coal fired power stations.
The fact that INPEX has conformed to the NT's EIS guidelines and has avoided any commitment to
action, or realistic appraisal of the projects carbon impacts is a concern. The draft EIS highlights the
NT Governments failure to make any progress towards an effective policy framework for addressing
carbon heavy development proposals such as this one.
Atmospheric Solutions
Brigid Oulsnam
Catherine Martel
Catherine Orme
Christine Cox
DCC
Deborah Hall & Andris Bergs
Debra Mills
ECNT
The INPEX project will add another 7Mt per year to the Australian account more than a 1%
increase.
Questions how INPEX will reduce CO2 equivalent emissions.
How is plant going to be designed for energy efficiency.
Significantly increase NT contribution to global GHG emissions NT unable to meet targets and will
damage NT from tourism perspective.
The project represents a net carbon burden, a net climate detriment, and a real barrier to effective
action to manage climate change.
Ed Valk
Georgia Phillips
Greening Australia
Helena Bond
HELP NT
Jaemie Page
James Treloar
Justin Tutty
Keren Parnell
Lynne Higgs
100
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
M. F. McAuliffe
Magdalena Szaszorowska Pawel Komisarski
Maria Papadopoulou
Mark Gregson
Michael Cauce
Morgana Robb
Patrick Barrie
Robert E. Rutkowski
Roberta Dixon
Robin Ellis
S. Sankar
Sean Corrigan
Suzanne Rosenberg
Tanya Rodden
Teresa Assem
Teresa Jaworska
Tida Nou
Tina Sykes
Tourist Industry
Wilderness Society WA
World Wildlife Australia
101
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Biodiversity Impacts
Terrestrial
Alana Corr
Limited survey work (restricted to Dry) and too much reliance on desktop studies.
Direct clearance of Monsoon Vine Forest and Mangroves (sensitive/ significant vegetation
communities identified in governments Land Clearing Guidelines).
Loss of habitat and movement corridors.
Loss of feeding areas (specifically for frugivorous birds).
Weed ingress.
Claim that trees in residential areas offset removal of vegetation not acceptable.
INPEX fails to acknowledge natural values of regionally-significant monsoon vine forest including
what has been described as one of the best patches of monsoon vine forest on the Harbour
foreshore.
There is a 100m corridor shown to the east of the LNG Plant on Blaydin Point. This corridor is for a
future road across East Arm and years away from construction, therefore the monsoon vine forest
should be retained, not cleared. Monsoon vine forest is a special eco type and should be retained
where possible.
Vegetation clearing and the sealing of surfaces on Blaydin Point may reduce groundwater recharge,
and in turn, lead to saltwater intrusion and impacts on groundwater-dependent ecosystems and built
infrastructure.
Marine
Amanda McLennan
102
Andrew Raith
Brigid Oulsnam
Catherine Orme
Cheryl Billing Smith
Christine Cox
Clive Pearce
Cristina Reyes
DCC
Deborah Hall & Andris Bergs
DHAC
Dianne Rickard
Don Franklin
Duncan Carson
ECNT
Ed Valk
Francine Bartlett
Gerry Wood
Greening Australia
Heather Moorcroft and Robert Curry
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
While mangrove communities are common in the Harbour, at a global level, mangroves are now one
of the most threatened tropical ecosystemsmore threatened than rainforests and coral reefs.
Oil spill risks and potential impacts on biota have been inadequately evaluated through modelling and
other processes.
Heather Ryan
Helen Lindstrom
Helena Bond
HELP NT
Ian Kitney
Jaemie Page
Jane Herrador
Jennie Renfree
Jodi Kirkby
John Roodenrys
Judy Flynn
Justin Tutty
Keren Parnell
Kitri Cardwell
Kree Eyre
Laura Smith
Louise Harrison
M. F. McAuliffe
Magdalena Szaszorowska
Maria Papadopoulou
Megan Lawrance
Michael Cauce
103
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Michael Webb
Mirjam Kaestli
Morgana Robb
Morris Pizzutto
Natacha Aguilar de Soto
Nicolas Mialaret
Patrick Barrie
Rick Murray
Robert E. Rutkowski
Roberta Dixon
Robin Ellis
Roy Beames
Sam Ryan
Sea Darwin
Sean Corrigan
Susan Lloyd
Teresa Assem
Teresa Jaworska
Tida Nou
Tiffany Theden
Top End Tourism
Tourist Industry
104
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Wendy Sykes
World Wildlife Fund
Blasting
Potential impacts of blasting are not acceptable direct death to marine mammals, turtles and fish.
Lack of scientific studies to support this part of the operations (to understand and manage impacts
appropriately).
Proposed management measures ineffective for turtles and fish and limited for marine mammals.
Noise from blasting impacting upon marine mammals, turtles and fish foraging and
communication there are relevant studies that show impact.
105
AMSTECI
Andrew Raith
Brigid Oulsnam
Catherine Martel
Catherine Orme
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Dredging impacts
Christine Cox
Cristina Reyes
DCC
Deborah Hall & Andris Bergs
Debra Mills
Derek Archer
DHAC
Don Franklin
ECNT
Ed Valk
Francine Bartlett
Gerry Wood
Greening Australia
Heather Moorcroft and Robert Curry
Helena Bond
Ian Kitney
Jaemie Page
James Treloar
Jane Herrador
Jennie Renfree
Jodi Kirkby
106
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
John Hart
John Roodenrys
Judy de Groot
Keren Parnell
Kitri Cardwell
Kree Eyre
Lindsay Mugglestone
Louise Harrison
Lynne Higgs
Magdalena Szaszorowska
Margie West
Maria Papadopoulou
Marnie Cooper
Megan Lawrance
Michael Cauce
Morgana Robb
Morris Pizzutto
Natacha Aguilar de Soto
Nicolas Mialaret
Patrick Barrie
Pro-forma Submission
Raphael Kunzli
107
Issue - Impacts
Raised By
Rebecca Savage
Robert E. Rutkowski
Roberta Dixon
Roy Beames
S. Sankar
Sam Ryan
Sean Corrigan
Susan Lloyd
Tanya Rodden
Teresa Assem
Teresa Jaworska
The Mahony's
Tida Nou
Top End Tourism
Warren Clancy
Wendy Sykes
World Wildlife Fund
108
Generic
Governments failure to negotiate gas towards its own power generation.
Poor state of some Indigenous communities evidence that local population does not receive economic
advantage associated with a resource development.
Community left with cost of unusable site when plant ceases to operate.
Impact on housing costs and availability.
Impact on cost of everyday household items (eg fuel).
Ability for local companies to compete to retain staff and/ or engage contracts with INPEX (including
tourism).
Fly in/ fly out.
Social impacts associated with temporary workforce.
The last election result demonstrated the value of the project to Darwin society.
No evidence that it will bring value to Darwins population.
The public should be informed of any land and capital costs and risks to be borne by Government in
support of the INPEX project. These may relate to land development at Middle Arm Peninsula, road
and transport corridor upgrades, and provision of enhanced emergency service response capabilities
for potential accidents.
DCC
ECNT
Heather Ryan
HELP NT Parts 1,2
Sea Darwin
The Mahony's
Tourist Industry
AFANT
109
Angela Roodhouse
Catherine Martel
Cheryl Billing Smith
DCC
Deborah Hall & Andris Bergs
Derek McCarthy
Don Franklin
must be preserved to ensure fish, marine life and other wildlife continue to thrive there.
The Project will change the nature of Darwin Harbour currently a unique environment of international
conservation significance (as identified by NTG).
ECNT
Ed Valk
Gerry Wood
Societal Impacts
Greening Australia
Much of the employment generated by this project will be for workers from elsewhere, while local
people will be confronted with a range of negative social and local economic impacts, such as
increased housing stress, constriction of the labour market and trade sectors (as experienced during
the Wickham Pt construction) and dramatically altered demographics.
Recognise and acknowledge the potential economic contribution that the Project can make to
Australia, the Northern Territory and Darwin but, at the end of the day, it is not possible to manage a
project of this magnitude without any impacts and it will be the people of Darwin who will be most
affected by the development. INPEX and the Northern Territory Government have responsibility to
ensure that, wherever possible, there are local benefits and these continue for the life of the project.
The workers accommodation at Howard Springs will have an impact on the surrounding residential
and retail area. Some of these affects are mentioned in the Socio-Economic Impacts however a more
detailed study needs to be done. (eg the effect on the local roads due to the increase in traffic
travelling to and from the accommodation village? Will there be sufficient water storage in the
Whitewood Road water tank to supply the accommodation village without effecting local supplies and
pressure?
Proximity to Palmerston.
Location of the workers residence.
Visual pollution.
Impacts to Roads
There needs to be clarification of the routes that will be used for the transport of equipment and
materials and accordingly the effect this may have on transport routes. The construction of the
workers accommodation village will also have an effect on local roads.
Increase of traffic (including heavy vehicles) and associated risk.
110
Helena Bond
HELP NT
Jennie Renfree
Jodi Kirkby
Judy Flynn
Justin Tutty
Louise Harrison
Robert E. Rutkowski
Roberta Dixon
Sea Darwin
Sue Mornane
Susan Lloyd
The Mahony's
Tourist Industry
Impacts on Tourism
Concerns
Sea Darwin
NT tourism dependent upon experiential travellers therefore need to protect natural and cultural
assets.
Impact on accommodation and short-term housing.
Tourism provides economic opportunity to remote communities, and is an industry that contributes
towards preservation and enhancement of landscapes this benefit is threatened by the INPEX
proposal. The proposal will impact NT Clean Green Image.
This project will generate many opportunities for Tourism Development but will also create some
pressures on the Tourism Industry particularly all industry that interacts with Darwin Harbour.
The draft EIS has limited reference to Tourism collectively, that operates within the Darwin Harbour.
There is limited reference to the value of Eco Tourism yet there is considerable identification of the
significant plant and wildlife with in Darwin Harbour.
Scenic harbour cruises and general leisure Tourism appears to be not identified or addressed in the
draft EIS.
Many operators would like the plant to be invisible and located in an area that required less
construction activity on Darwin Harbour sea bed.
INPEX will compete for resources and infrastructure.
Does not recognise that tourism is more than fishing.
111
Susan Lloyd
Tourist Industry (Rick Murray)
Tourism Top End
Raised By
Generic
Pro-forma submission
112
Sophie Chapman
HELP NT
Heather Ryan
Terry Lustig
Christine Cox
Tourist Industry (Rick Murray)
Mirjam Kaestli
Cristina Reyes
Morris Pizzutto
Sea Darwin
Ed Valk
Roberta Dixon
Helen Lindstrom
Kris Garrein
Glen Osboldstone
Helena Bond
Nicolas Mialaret
Teja Lipold & David Grace
Cheryl Billing Smith
Catherine Martel
Raised By
Tida Nou
Don Franklin
Jaemie Page
Mick Guinea
Noise
In assessing potential underwater noise impacts on marine species the draft EIS draws only loosely
on the considerable body of literature available, omits key recent references, and makes little attempt
to analyse the broad thrust of the research.
The draft EIS provides insufficient consideration of the impacts of blasting on Darwin Harbour marine
wildlife, no underwater noise modelling has been done, proposed mitigation measures are
inadequate and the proposed acoustic monitoring techniques have never been tested.
Brigid Oulsnam
Atmospheric Solutions
NLC
Greening Australia
John Roodenrys
Biodiversity
Justin Tutty
113
Louise Harrison
AFANT
ECNT
DCC
Raised By
Darwin Harbour, along with the potential for more new harbour developments adopting the same
views.
Greenhouse
The draft EIS does not adequately describe detailed sequestration and mitigation pathways, and the
contribution that these pathways would make to the overall CO2 footprint of the Project.
The additional volumes of greenhouse gases expected to emanate from the accommodation village
should be quantified and reported in the EIS.
INPEX fails to acknowledge predicted increase in intensity and frequency of extreme weather,
including cyclone events. (Scientific projections identified by the CSIRO report 'Climate Change
Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions In Northern Australia' as referenced in NT Government's
'Strategy for Greenhouse Action'). It remains unclear how INPEX's commitments to engineer for
anticipated cyclone activities will factor in the projected increased intensity and frequency of these
extreme weather events over the project lifetime.
Why have emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and other greenhouse gases been
excluded from the greenhouse assessment of the draft EIS? Methane emissions in particular will be
significant, and all significant greenhouse emissions should be detailed in the EIS.
Why have venting and fugitive emissions sources been excluded from the greenhouse assessment of
the draft EIS? All sources should be detailed in the EIS.
In regards to the benchmarking in relation to NT and Australian emissions, Table 93 should state
explicitly that the project will increase Northern Territory (NT) emissions by 40% (on average) or 53%
(peak) over the project life.
The greenhouse emissions benchmarking of Ichthys against similar projects should be carried out on
the established basis of t CO2e / t LNG. This measure shows that Ichthys will be among the most
carbon intensive LNG projects in the planet, and does not represent best practice.
The Draft Statement avoids mentioning the true carbon burden of downstream burning of the LNG
product, and INPEX representatives were unable to provide this number to community consultations
held upon release of the Draft.
INPEX offers no rationale for why they are comparing LNG to coal instead of solar.
Dredging
114
Raised By
Studies and modelling of dredging impacts lacking and based upon assumptions.
The draft EIS contains an inadequate and incomplete assessment of the direct and indirect impacts
of dredging and dredge spoil disposal on coastal dolphins, marine turtles and dugong.
The incidence of cyclones in the Darwin area is considered in the dredge spoil dispersal modelling,
however only a category 2 is mentioned. It is unclear the impact of re-mobilisation of sediments with
more severe cyclones.
The draft EIS presents only a dredging concept which could be vastly different to the actual dredging
operations however the public dont get a chance to comment on the actual dredge operations.
It is unsatisfactory to rely on limited geotechnical information and present instead assumptions when
describing dredge operations and potential impact.
It is difficult to find specific reference to material amounts to be transported to the offshore disposal
site in both the draft EIS and appendices.
The assumption that particles > 75 m are coarse is challenged based upon international
standards. To make the assumption that only fines <75m will be mobile in solution and therefore
responsible for plume and sediment deposition is questioned, particularly as the draft EIS states
something different when discussing offshore disposal.
Questions correct understanding of tidal movements within the whole Harbour.
Blasting
The draft EIS contains inadequate and incomplete assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of
blasting Walker Shoal for the shipping channel and inadequate exploration of alternative channel and
jetty options.
Waste Water and pollutants
Information regarding specific water and waste pollutants fate, disposal methods and impact has
not been provided
Marine discharges do not appear to have been assessed against the ANZECC trigger limits for
marine water quality.
The draft EIS lacks substantive ecological research or measurement of ecotoxicology of some of the
chemicals to be use. There is a reliance on industry-based standards and an inherent assumption
115
Raised By
Raised By
Consultation
AFANT
LDC acknowledges principles of support and consultation to Larrakia and other traditional owners.
LDC satisfied concerns have been addressed respecting social and cultural significance of land to be
impacted by the development.
LDC satisfied with management of archaeological sites.
116
Issue - Proposal
Raised By
Support
Alternatives
Many submissions objected to the proposal based upon the options presented.
Other sites not considered.
Submissions propose alternate sites in Harbour.
Submissions propose site sharing with ConocoPhillips.
117
HELP NT
Heather Ryan
Pro-forma submissions
Ichthys Gas Field Development Project, Blaydin Point
Assessment Report 65
Issue - Proposal
Raised By
Duncan Carson
Tina Sykes
Mark Gregson
Georgia Phillips
Mirjam Kaestli
M. F. McAuliffe
Morris Pizzutto
Rachel Bury
Glen Osboldstone
Sean Corrigan
Jane Herrador
Francine Bartlett
Maria Papadopoulou
Debra Mills
Lynne Higgs
Tanya Rodden
Morgana Robb
Marnie Cooper
Patrick Barrie
Meredith Tyburczy
Kitri Cardwell
Sam Ryan
118
Issue - Proposal
Raised By
Lindsay Mugglestone
Rebecca Savage
Magdalena Szaszorowska Pawel Komisarski
Teresa Jaworska
Teresa Assem
Grahame Hubbard
Julie Weston
James Treloar
Helena Bond
Megan Lawrance
Robert E. Rutkowski
Ken Hooke
Andrew Raith
Raphael Kunzli
Judy de Groot
Robin Ellis
Sue Pratt
Cheryl Billing Smith
Catherine Martel
Tida Nou
Catherine Orme
Jaemie Page
119
Issue - Proposal
Raised By
Brigid Oulsnam
Michael Cauce
Jennie Renfree
Diane M. Kastel and family
Megan Clementi
Keren Parnell
John Roodenrys
Justin Tutty
Louise Harrison
Margie West
AMSTECI
DHAC
ECNT
Pro-forma submissions
Sustainability Issues
120
Dianne Rickard
Duncan Carson
Tourist Industry
Cristina Reyes
Sea Darwin
Cynthia Miall
Liz Thorton
Issue - Proposal
Raised By
The onus of proof should lay with the proponent that the project will not impact, not on the population
to prove environmental worth.
Not in keeping with the principles of ESD:
o Biodiversity conservation and ecological protection
o Inter-generational equity
o Improved valuation and pricing
o Precautionary principle
Wendy Sykes
Clive Pearce
Glen Osboldstone
Jane Herrador
Francine Bartlett
Greg Chapman
Angela Snow
Brian Cotgrove
Helena Bond
Kylie Ellis
Catherine Martel
Atmospheric Solutions
NLC
Greening Australia
John Roodenrys
Justin Tutty
Louise Harrison
DHAC
ECNT
DCC
121
Site rehabilitation
Post-operations land use?
Lack of rehabilitation planning and funding.
Greening Australia
Resource Use
No information on water usage or sourcing.
DCC
DCC
Raised By
Offsets
Pro-Forma Submissions
Greenhouse
GHG emissions offset program - locally based.
Creation of a carbon Fund.
Substantial offshore greenhouse emissions are forecast for the facility arising from the extraordinarily
long pipeline and corresponding compression requirements (stated in the draft EIS as 100 MW).
These should be offset to bring the greenhouse emissions intensity of the facility in line with standard
/ current facilities.
INPEX should commit to not waiting for governments to set an 'acceptable' level of pollution, and
should instead aim to offset all their carbon emissions.
Why is geosequestration (as per Gorgon) not being considered, nor an appropriate offset strategy (as
required for Pluto) developed should geosequestration be proven infeasible?
122
Duncan Carson
Tina Sykes
Mark Gregson
Georgia Phillips
Tourist Industry
Sea Darwin
Ed Valk
Roberta Dixon
Biodiversity
Measures to compensate for the destruction of habitats.
Creation of new national parks and/ or conservation zones suggestions of Ludmilla Bay, Bynoe
Harbour to be locally based.
Suggests that IPEX should invest into research of Dolphins.
Sean Corrigan
Jane Herrador
Maria Papadopoulou
Debra Mills
Lynne Higgs
Tanya Rodden
Morgana Robb
Patrick Barrie
Sam Ryan
Lindsay Mugglestone
Rebecca Savage
Magdalena Szaszorowska Pawel Komisarski
Teresa Jaworska
Teresa Assem
Grahame Hubbard
Julie Weston
James Treloar
Helena Bond
Robert E. Rutkowski
Ken Hooke
Kree Eyre
Raphael Kunzli
123
Judy de Groot
S. Sankar
Amanda McLennan
Suzanne Rosenberg
Sue Pratt
Catherine Martel
Heather Moorcroft and Robert Curry
Tida Nou
Wilderness Society WA
Catherine Orme
Jaemie Page
Brigid Oulsnam
Michael Cauce
Atmospheric Solutions
Diane M. Kastel and family
Megan Clementi
Keren Parnell
Greening Australia
John Roodenrys
Louise Harrison
ECNT
124
Heather Ryan
Sea Darwin
Catherine Martel
NLC
Justin Tutty
AFANT
DHAC
ECNT
DCC
NT Government Submission
Issue
Raised By
Options/ alternatives
Studies required
Appropriate baseline surveys (including habitat mapping) required for areas potentially impacted by the Project
required as part of the integrated monitoring program.
125
Issue
Raised By
Monitoring
Indication of support for the integrated marine monitoring program noted in draft EIS.
Monitoring to extend to areas adjacent to dredge disposal areas.
Permit issued under s16 of the Fisheries Act for dredge spoil site and removal of Walker Shoal include monthly
monitoring on aquatic life, including fish kills (this information then informs subsequent blasting and dredging activity.
DCM coordinated response
Engagement
Determined that project will have a significant impact on Darwin and the region throughout life of project; accordingly
INPEX to maintain communication with community, business and government to ensure measures proposed to ensure
socio-economic benefits of the project are realised.
Specific Comment
Traffic advice;
Clarification of DHF role;
Provision of supporting information regarding waste water treatment and DHF requirements;
Clarification sought on proposed disposal method for medical waste;
Information sought on relationship of the proposal and the NT Planning Scheme;
Information provided regarding biting insect hazards;
Clarification of requirement/ role of the Fisheries Act as well as the Radiation Protection Act;
Statement that safety is a significant issue and accordingly risk identification and hazard management will be
undertaken as part of the licensing of the facility (as opposed to during the EIA process?).
126