'Critical information missing' from LNG approvals

Updated

The environmental assessment process for two of Australia's biggest coal seam gas projects was a "farce", a former Queensland bureaucrat has claimed.

Senior environmental specialist Simone Marsh was part of the Queensland Government team that approved Santos's $18 billion and Queensland Gas Company's (QCG) $20 billion LNG projects in 2010.

She told Monday night's Four Corners program that the final stages of the three-year approval processes were rushed and the environmental impacts not properly assessed.

"All the scientific arguments in the world wouldn't have changed things in that situation," she said.

"They had decided they wanted to go ahead with the projects and there was nothing stopping it."

In 2010, during the final stages of the three-year approval process - after assessing the environmental impact statements (EIS) and supplementary materials ahead of the Coordinator-General's report - she repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of key information in the documents.

Four Corners has obtained more than 900 pages of documents under Queensland's Right To Information Act.

Those documents appear to support Ms Marsh's claims.

In other words, the process had been finished and the same information that was asked [for] right at the beginning of the process had still not been provided Simone Marsh

One departmental brief dated May 4, 2010 - less than a month before the Coordinator-General's report was published - states: "Delivery of information requested by DIP and agencies following assessment of the supplementary EIS (DERM primarily) has been slow".

It goes on to say: "We need to be assured that overall impacts are acceptable. This has been difficult and uncertain without the full suite of information normally processed by DERM (Department of Environment and Resource Management) and other agencies.

"We are mindful of the CG report being able to provide a 'bankable' outcome."

Ms Marsh says she tried to raise her serious concerns about the missing information with the companies, and internally with senior management, but it "became apparent" to her that the Government was going to proceed without it and ask for the details after the process had concluded.

"Terms of reference had been established for the projects, requiring a range of typical environmental information that allows you to undertake proper risk assessment of the situation," she said.

"When you look at the Coordinator-General's conditions that eventuated from these projects, you see that the Coordinator-General has asked the proponents to provide the information that the terms of reference asked for many, many months earlier.

"So, in other words, the process had been finished and the same information that was asked [for] right at the beginning of the process had still not been provided."

Ms Marsh has taken the matter to Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission.

In his report, the Coordinator-General hinted the company had provided insufficient information during the process to date, and asked for 10 further reports.

"I am not convinced there is sufficient detail in the draft EIS and SEIS (supplementary environmental impact statement) ... in order to determine with some degree of accuracy the impacts on environmental values in the gas fields," he wrote in his assessment of the Santos project.

The fact that the Coordinator-General's reports supported the projects proceeding is not the issue ... The issue is that the Coordinator-General should not have approved the projects given that critical information was missing. Dr Chris McGrath

The head of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), Rick Wilkinson, said he was confident that proper process had been followed.

"I think it's right and proper ... that there should be whistleblowers, and if something is not right then they should raise it," he said.

"But I'm confident, from what I've seen, that the right processes were followed. And there were many checks and balances on the way through."

On Twitter, Mr Wilkinson pointed to a paragraph in the Coordinator-General's report which says the Santos project "adequately meets the requirements for impact assessment to the greatest extent practicable".

In written statements, QGC and Santos said the Coordinator-General approved the environmental impact statements on the basis that sufficient information had been made available.

Santos says the time and volume of work produced indicates there was a "comprehensive assessment", while QGC said its project was subject to 1,500 state and federal environmental conditions.

But Dr Chris McGrath, a senior lecturer in environmental regulation at The University of Queensland, said he believed it was a flawed decision to sign off on the project.

"The fact that the Coordinator-General's reports supported the projects proceeding is not the issue," he said.

"The issue is that the Coordinator-General should not have approved the projects given that critical information was missing."

The Queensland Government, Santos and QGC, all declined interview requests from Four Corners.

The Four Corners program "Gas Leak" aired on ABC 1 at 8:30pm AEDT on Monday.

Topics: oil-and-gas, industry, business-economics-and-finance, states-and-territories, government-and-politics, environmental-management, environment, mining-environmental-issues, gladstone-4680

First posted