my submission to the Qld Water Strategy

The following is my submission to the community consultation on the Qld Water Strategy, which closes on 29 March 2013, 11.59pm

Queensland's water sector: a 30-year strategy discussion paper


Department of Energy and Water Supply

PO Box 15456

City East Qld 4002



To whom it may concern,





Please find follow a few brief comments addressing the 30 year water strategy discussion paper.



Over the next 30 years, it is increasing likely that rainfall will become more variable and more intense. We are likely to see greater extremes of droughts and flooding rains.



I am concerned about the emphasis in the strategy on "lowest cost". I would like to see a greater emphasis on best value.



There are opportunities for integration of water management that could lead to lower costs.

There is a wholesale move by the Qld State Government towards "light handed" regulation. While I understand the rationale, I am not entirely confident that environmental and public health values can be protected with "light handed" regulation.



That said, I would like to see more demonstration projects and research around new and innovative ways to obtain and deliver water supplies and sewage/trade waste collection and treatment.



The current institutional arrangements for water supply and sewage collection and treatment is not ideal.



I would like to see more vertical integration.



The water sector is currently split horizontally (particularly in SE Qld) along the same lines as the electricity industry into generators and retail/distributors.



This model does not lend itself to integrated water management, across water catchments. In many cases local councils are in a better position to manage the integrated water cycle. Storm water is often neglected as a source of useful water, particularly for industrial reuse, cooling water, irrigation water etc.



I would like to see the retention of the integrity of the regulatory framework (e.g. drinking water quality, environmental protection, public health) while reducing the regulatory burden, by making regulation less prescriptive and move towards performance based or outcome based regulation.



I think water/sewage quality regulation needs to focus on setting criteria that are "fit for purpose".



Self regulation is appropriate when water and sewage treatment plants are run by public sector utilities. I would be very concerned if self regulation applied to private sector (for-profit) utilities.



I think it is entirely appropriate that numerous government departments regulate or have an interest in water and sewerage services including DEWS, Environment, health, natural resources etc.



I think the water business would benefit from geographical catchment based water utilities. In some cases that might been amalgamation of small regional (council utilities). In SEQ, that might mean de-amalgamation of Qld Urban Utilities and Unity Water. Water Utilities should mange the entire water cycle including water supply, stormwater, sewage, trade waste and water recycling.



During the millennium drought (2002-2009), the western corridor water recycling scheme was established. This scheme has never been commissioned for indirect potable re-use.



There would be many benefits from treating sewage effluent for potable reuse.



The advanced water treatment plant at Bundamba could also improve the quality of the effluent that is currently being discharged to the natural environment.



If purified recycled water was used for potable supplies, one would not have to retain so much water in dams. The dams could be operated with lower storage levels and provide greater capacity for flood mitigation.



In terms of innovation, I would like to see the Qld water industry participate in more local projects, to demonstrate the next generation of toilet technologies. As a developed nation, I would like to see us invest in developing technologies that have global implications.



There are 2.4 billion people in the world who lack access to a designated sustainable place to poo. A billion of those people live in Asia/Pacific.



There are a billion people in the world who lack access to adequate drinking water supplies.



The Qld water industry could be developing technologies and service delivery models that meet our own needs. The same technologies may help those in developing communities.



Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the consultation for the 30 year water strategy.



regards,



Rowan Barber      

Here we go again #ShaleOil

Media Statements

JOINT STATEMENT

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection
The Honourable Andrew Powell

Minister for Natural Resources and Mines
The Honourable Andrew Cripps

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Newman Government approves oil shale industry

The creation of new jobs and broad economic benefits are expected, following the Newman Government announcement that it will allow the development of a commercial oil shale industry in Queensland under strict environmental conditions.

Natural Resources and Mines Minister, Andrew Cripps, said the Government’s new oil shale policy sets rigorous environmental controls on the industry and will allow existing oil shale operator QER Limited to progress its trial plant at Gladstone to commercial stage.

“Queensland currently has around 90 per cent of Australia’s known oil shale resources, which are equivalent to approximately 22 billion barrels of oil,” Mr Cripps said.

“As the world supply of conventional crude oil diminishes, there are strong prospects for oil shale to become the next major source of liquid fuel supplies in Australia, and Queensland is well placed to lead that charge.

“The industry has the potential to create thousands of new jobs in the construction phase alone, and provide royalties and other economic benefits for our regional communities and the broader economy, which is great news for Queensland.”

Minister Cripps said the new oil shale policy would:

• recognise the strategic importance of oil shale to contribute to energy security, and encourage private sector investment in high quality oil shale extracting technologies
• ensure project proponents must first demonstrate their oil shale technology will meet high environmental standards and community expectations
• allow, in general, the consideration and development of other oil shale deposits in Queensland, pending thorough environmental assessment on a project by project basis
• continue the existing 20-year moratorium suspending development of the McFarlane oil shale deposit near Proserpine until 2028

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Andrew Powell, emphasised that strict environmental controls would apply to any proposal to mine and process oil shale.

“To date, there has been extremely limited commercial application of oil shale in Australia and overseas,” Mr Powell said.

“That’s why any proposed oil shale development will be subject to detailed environmental assessments on a project-by-project basis. 

“We will consider these proposals on their merits and require a trial stage to determine the feasibility and environmental performance of any unproven technologies.

“The approval process for any oil shale development will demand that operators adopt best practice environmental management techniques and comprehensive monitoring of the process, its emissions, wastes and impact on the community and environmental settings.

“Under the new policy, existing operator Queensland Energy Resources Ltd (QER) will be able to proceed directly to commercial production, but new entrants to the industry will need to prove their oil shale extraction technologies through trials.

“Importantly, both existing and new operators in the oil shale industry will need to prepare full Environmental Impact Statements for their projects.”

Mr Powell said the QER pilot plant near Gladstone has successfully demonstrated the viability of its processing technology.

“The report into the QER plant demonstrated it operated well within the environmental performance requirements of its Environmental Authority issued by my department,” he said.

[ENDS] 13 February 2013

Media contacts:

Minister Cripps: Jane Paterson             0417 281 754      

Minister Powell: Ken Vernon             0431 027 017      

Further Information:

Oil shale is a fine grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter called kerogen. It is a completely different industry and extraction process to shale gas or shale oil.

Hydrocarbons are derived from oil shale that has been mined and then heated in a processing plant.  This process produces vapours which are condensed and converted into synthetic crude oil, and then refined to produce ultra-low sulphur transport fuels.

My letter from the Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP

on the 26 October 2012, I wrote to the Deputy Premier, in response to his media release which stated:

Mr Seeney said the assessment showed that well-managed development could co-exist with a healthy environment. “It illustrates that we can have bulk export ports and they can operate with no threat to the Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Seeney said. 

Mr Seeney seems to have completely missed the point.  The greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef are not from the port operations but from accumulative impacts of the continued combustion of fossil fuels.

On  26 November 2012, I received the following response from:

Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP
Deputy Premier
Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning


Our ref: MC12/399

23 NOV 2012

Mr Rowan Barber
Street Address
Address QLD XXXX


Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 26 October 2012 to the Honourable Jeff Seeney MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, about the voluntary Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).  The Deputy Premier has asked that I respond on his behalf.

As you are aware, the voluntary Abbot Point CIA has focus on 16 study areas, and is taking a holistic look at the cumulative effects of the future port related expansion proposals at the Port of Abbot Point.

The CIA scope is about port expansion itself.  Emissions associated with the transport of coal to the port are not within the scope of the CIA.  It was a voluntary cooperative exercise between the three proponents of the existing or proposed facilities at Abbot Point.  It was coordinated by the North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.

I suggest you provide comments to the Abbot Point Working Group through the formal consultation process on this matter.  The following link provides information on making a submission  http://www.abbotpointworkinggroup.com.au/comment.html.

Please ensure your comments are submitted prior to 5pm, Tuesday, 4 December 2012.

If you require any further information, please contact Mr Phillip Kohn, A/Director, State Development Areas, Office of the Coordinator General, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, on 3405 6674, who will be pleased to assist.

Yours sincerely


Dimity Elson
Acting Senior Policy Advisor

Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP
Deputy Premier

Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

My letter to the Deputy Premier

Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jeff Seeney

cc: The Premier, The Honourable Rob Cavallucci and the Honourable Andrew Powell

Dear Mr Seeney,

Thank you for welcoming the release of the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment by North Queensland Bulk Ports.

You say that that proposed port expansion was unlikely to affect the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Have you taken into consideration the accumulative impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels?

The terms of reference of the report are limited to the cumulative impacts of Port operations. 

The Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment process is clearly wide ranging and involve 15 detailed studies in the following areas:

·       Shipping;

·       Marine Water Quality;

·       Dredge Plume Modelling

·       Operational Noise;

·       Groundwater;

·       Dust;

·       Underwater Noise;

·       Visual Amenity;

·       Lighting;

·       Coastal Hydrodynamics;

·       Species & Habitat Assessment;

·       Wetland Hydrology & Water Quality

·       Climate Change;

·       Fishing;

·       Joint Offsets Strategy

The report identifies mechanisms to reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions from the port and ensure port design has accounted for possible climate change effects such as sea level rise. 

The report does not consider greenhouse gas and particulate emissions of transport of coal over vast distances using bunker C fuel oil or combustion of thermal coal.

regards,

Rowan Barber

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jeff Seeney

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Report puts lie to green scare tactics

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney today welcomed the release of the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment by North Queensland Bulk Ports, which draws a line through an environmental scare campaign run by Labor and the Greens. 

The assessment was a proactive study undertaken for the proponents of future port expansion and looked at the possible impacts of development across the marine and terrestrial environments involving 16 separate environmental studies. 

It found that proposed port expansion was unlikely to affect the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. 

Mr Seeney said the assessment showed that well-managed development could co-exist with a healthy environment. 

“It illustrates that we can have bulk export ports and they can operate with no threat to the Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Seeney said. 

“This assessment should put an end to the scare campaigns run by extremist groups whose real agenda is to shut the coal ports and the coal industry as a whole. 

“Too often they cry wolf, claiming that any proposed new development will wipe-out entire marine or terrestrial species and threaten the existence of the reef itself. 

“This report puts the lie to those claims. 

“In the case of Abbot Point it says that impacts on the marine environment are manageable, that significant impacts on the terrestrial environment are unlikely and that mitigation and management measures would substantially reduce any potential impacts. 

Mr Seeney said the assessment had been peer reviewed by leading scientists and experts, leaving no room for extremists to distort its findings. 

“It highlights that we can have both economic development while protecting the environment because we will insist on world’s best practices and world’s best standards,” he said. 

[ENDS] 24 October 2012

Media Contact: John Wiseman –             0409 791 281      

30 year plan for Queensland’s water sector

My letter to the Minister for Energy and Water......

The Honourable Mark McArdle

Minister for Energy and Water

cc: The Premier, Mark Pascoe (CEO - International Water Centre), Robert Cavallucci (Member for Brisbane Central)

Dear Mr McArdle,

At the AWA Water Association Awards and Gala dinner recently, you announced that the Qld Government will “Release a discussion paper for a 30 year plan for Queensland’s water sector".

Over dinner, this led to a discussion about: "what are the issues that the Qld Government should discuss?" 

We (as a society) have to get better at dealing with an integrated water cycle with a comprehensive (holistic) approach to managing water supplies, irrigation, sewage treatment and managing stormwater.

Our current institutional arrangements do not lend themselves to an integrated approach.

Our centralised water distribution and sewerage networks are very vulnerable to extreme weather events and heavily reliant on energy intense treatment and transport.

In framing a 30 year plan for the Water Sector, I would like to see the Qld Government and the Water industry respond to the causes and impacts of climate change.

The causes of climate change, obviously include generation of greenhouse gas emissions (directly and indirectly).

The impacts include a greater intensity and variability of rainfall events. 

 I am interested in seeing more mileage for Sustainable sewage transport and treatment as part of the 30 year plan.

Sustainable sewage (also known as Productive Sanitation) might include source segregation of urine, faeces and trade waste with more emphasis on resource recovery and reuse.

I am looking forward to the release the discussion paper for a 30 year plan for Queensland’s water sector and participating in the discussion.

regards,

Rowan Barber

rio plus 20

In the opening lines of Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest, he writes:

"...people are curious to know what is happening in their world, but no speaker wants to leave an auditorium depressed, however dark and frightening a tomorrow is predicted by the science that studies the rate of environmental loss. To be sanguine about the future, however, requires a plausible basis for constructive action: you cannot describe possibilities for that future unless the present problem is accurately defined  ....."

This week will see more than 100 Heads of State gather in Rio de Janeiro for the third World Summit on Sustainable Development: "Rio Plus 20".  I won't be there in person but I have Peter Allen playing in my head and my two year old has loaned me her maracas.  My beloved wife and my two daughters keep smiling at me.....

When my Baby, When my baby smiles at me I go to Rio De Janeiro 
My-oh me-oh 
I go wild then I have to do the samba, then la Bamba 
Now I'm not the kind of person with a passionate persuasion for dancin' or romancin' 
But I give in to the rhythm and my feet follow the beat of my heart 

When my baby, when my baby smiles at me 
I go to Rio, De Janeiro 
Me salsa fellow 
When my baby smiles at me 
She shines the lanterns of my life 
And I am free at last what a blast! 
Whoa 

When my baby, when my baby smiles at me 

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment

The predominant issue arising from the proposed Qld Greentape reduction legislation was a roller coasting blame game between the Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney and the Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke over Alpha Coal.

This week’s Sustainable Business Weekly focuses on proposed changes to the Environmental impact assessment processes.

Earlier this week the blame game escalated between the Qld Premier and Federal Minister Tony Burke over the approval of Hancock Coal’s Alpha Coal Mine.  By the end of the week, the Deputy Premier was claiming to have reached consensus.

Chris McGrath, a Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland observed that by the new Queensland Premier and Deputy Premier do not seem to understand their own State Government approval processes.

The Queensland Premier and Deputy Premier are suggested in their initial media statements that the mine is approved at a state level and that the Commonwealth approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) is all that is required for the mine to proceed.

Those suggestions turned out to be wrong and the state level approvals of the mine are probably 12-18 months away, which makes the pressure being placed on the Commonwealth Minister to make a decision within 30 days and claims of Commonwealth “green-tape” holding up the project simply false.

At a state level the Coordinator-General’s report was released on 29 May 2012 recommending that the mine be approved subject to conditions. The Coordinator-General is a powerful bureaucrat appointed under Queensland legislation to facilitate large-scale developments in the state.

The idea that the Coordinator-General’s report gives approval of the mine comes directly from the Deputy Premier’s original media release on 29 May:

Alpha Coal Project given go-ahead.  The Newman Government has given the green light to what will be one of Australia’s biggest mines, the $6.4 billion Alpha Coal Project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. Queensland’s Coordinator-General has provided conditional approval for the mine – the first in the untapped coal rich Galilee Basin.

The Queensland Premier made the point on the 5 June 2012 on the 7.30 Report:

Well, let’s be very clear. The approval that the Queensland Government has granted is for the mine at Alpha and for a railway line down to the coast at Abbot Point and the rail loop but not the port itself.

The Premier went on to ask:

What we want to know is: will the Minister approve the project in the 30 day period provided for under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of the federal government? That’s all the Minister has to do. Approve the project subject to conditions. Let’s get the jobs for Queensland and Australia and get on with it.

The Deputy Premier and Premier were fundamentally mistaken about the approval process because the Coordinator-General’s report does not decide whether the project is approved at a state level (although in practice it is a big step towards the approvals being granted).

In a subsequent media statement, on the 7 June 2012 the Deputy Premier backed away from the Premier’s original position, stating:

“Queensland today provided a detailed response to the Federal Environment Minister on matters he has raised over the past week in relation to the Alpha Coal project’s conditional approval.

It was also agreed that there was a different understanding and interpretation of the current bilateral environmental approval process between the parties.

There is a joint commitment to the future of the bilateral agreement and Queensland will respond within the next ten days to the Commonwealth’s notice that it may suspend the bilateral approvals process.

It was agreed both parties would work to find a way forward on the bilateral process within that period.”

Queensland’s New Environment Minister does not believe in anthropogenic climate change!

Queensland's environment minister has confirmed he doubts the role of humans in causing climate change, but says he believes society should act to curb pollution and find renewable power sources.

Premier Campbell Newman backed his minister, Andrew Powell, saying it was “refreshing” to have someone in charge of the portfolio who was prepared to tell the truth.

Mr Powell also confirmed his doubts about the degree to which humans were influencing climate change, after he made comments to that effect on ABC Radio this week.

“Is the climate changing? Yes it is,” Mr Powell told reporters during a media conference.

“Am I 100 per cent convinced of the human population's role in that? No I'm not.

“Are we polluting the environment? Yes we are. Are we using a non-renewable energy source? Yes we are. Do we need to address both of those factors? Yes we do.”

Divesting of Coal Fired Power

Divesting of Coal Fired Power

The Qld Government has withdrawn its financial support for the Cloncurry Photo Voltaic Solar Farm to achieve savings for the state’s taxpayers about $5.6 million.  In it Media statement, the Government noted that large-scale solar farms are proven technology & the Qld State Government believes it is up to the private sector to decide whether to invest in, build & operate such projects in Qld.

Should Premier Newman sell Stanwell Corporation & CS Energy to the private sector, for the same reasons that AGL has bought Loy Yang A in Victoria?

The purchase of Loy Yang A will make AGL the equal largest generator of electricity in the Australia.  Up until recently, AGL have pursued a strategy of developing the nation’s lowest carbon intensity in its energy assets, this purchase nearly triples its intensity.

Loy Yang A will act as a “cash cow” for the company, despite the introduction of a carbon price.  AGL propose to use the substantial cash flows to help fund its renewables investment, which it estimates at around $4-$5 billion to meet its share of the renewable energy target. It expects to meet 60-80% that capital cost itself. 

When one considers the transition from fossil fuels to renewables – taking the cash from an older asset like Stanwell & Tarong Power Stations & reinvesting it in renewable certainly makes sense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Following is the Media Statement from the Qld State Government:

Minister for Energy and Water Supply
The Honourable Mark McArdle

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Cloncurry Solar Farm closure

24 May 2012

Government withdraws its funding from Cloncurry Solar Farm

The Queensland Government today withdrew its financial support for the Cloncurry Solar Farm as part of its campaign to achieve savings for the state’s taxpayers.

Minister for Energy and Water Supply Mark McArdle said the Cloncurry Solar Farm was at a very early stage and withdrawing from the project now would save Queenslanders about $5.6 million.

“These are savings which will benefit all Queenslanders rather than localised climate initiatives,” Mr McArdle said.

“The government’s withdrawal from the project now minimises the cost to taxpayers.

“I want to stress that the Queensland Government’s decision to exit the Cloncurry Solar Farm is not due to concerns about the proponent or their ability to deliver. This is about getting the state’s finances back on track.

“Large-scale solar farms are proven technology and it is up to the private sector to decide whether to invest in, build and operate such projects in Queensland.

“The government is working to establish a stronger renewable and alternative energy sector with a targeted focus on practical research and development of Queensland’s abundant renewable energy resources.

“We are also supporting Queensland businesses to access funding from Commonwealth programs to develop Queensland-based clean energy projects.”

Mr McArdle said the government had informed Ingenero Pty Ltd, which was named preferred tenderer in December 2011 to design, build and operate the 2.128 megawatt solar farm, and the Cloncurry Shire Council.

“The Queensland Government had an option in its contract with Ingenero to cancel the contract at any time for any reason. The government has chosen to exercise this option to save money for Queensland taxpayers.”

Mr McArdle said most of the funds would have been spent on the purchase of photovoltaic panels and racking, but these costs would be saved because the project was at such an early stage.

The government’s financial withdrawal from the solar farm will have no impact on the reliability of electricity supply in Cloncurry as the project’s main aim was to test the performance of a solar farm in north-west Queensland.

ENDS