One stop shop for Environmental Approvals

Environment Ministers sign a Draft MOU

The Queensland and Federal Governments have signed a Draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) giving the state more powers to conduct environmental assessments and approvals for major projects.

In March 2013, a senate committee (under the former Labor Government) confirmed the Federal Department of Environment was backing away from handing over responsibilities for biodiversity approvals to the States.

The Draft MOU (which has not been publically released) addresses ''the key principles of maintaining environmental standards, streamlining processes, the removal of duplication and the offer of federal staff to be embedded with the state if required''.

The Draft MOU is being review by Prime Minister Tony Abbott for approval and the changes will need to be passed through Federal Parliament and the Senate. The aim is to achieve a one-stop shop to reduce red tape and provide certainty to business while maintaining the rigorous federal environmental standards.

This would include:

·           Creation of a single approvals process for environmental assessment and approvals under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act via the state system, as part of long-term agreements with each state and territory.

·           Development of the ability and incentive for local government to be part of the one-stop-shop single assessment process.

·           Creation of a single lodgement and documentation process. The single documentation and assessment process could also be expanded to make a single entry point and one-stop-shop for all government approvals across portfolios.

State Environment Minister Andrew Powell says there will be less duplication and quicker decisions - but Commonwealth oversight will not disappear.

Some of the things proposed include embedding Commonwealth officers into the Qld Co-ordinator General's Department.

Approval Processes for Coal and Mineral Exploration

There have been recent changes to the approvals process for coal and mineral exploration allowing for earlier engagement and faster approvals.

Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Andrew Cripps said the new process had the potential to halve the time taken for companies to be granted exploration permits, while maintaining rigorous environmental, native title and land access assessments.

Mining companies no longer need to wait until an exploration permit is granted before engaging with landholders about their proposed exploration activities.

Exploration activities still cannot begin in an area prior to a permit being granted.

Applications to explore will still be subject to the same stringent assessment process to ensure they meet strict environmental, technical and commercial viability, community interest, native title and land access requirements.

A granted exploration permit is not a right to mine, and the Queensland Resources Council estimates that approximately only one in every 200 granted exploration permits ever goes on to become a mine.

Under the new process:

·       companies will now be formally advised within 90 days of lodgement whether their proposed exploration works program for a project has been approved or rejected.

·       For successful applications not subject to native title, once a work program has been approved and an environmental authority has been issued, a permit can be granted after annual rent has been paid.

·       For applications subject to native title, it means companies can start required native title processes and engage landholders about conduct and compensation arrangements a lot sooner.

·       These permit applications can then be finalised within 30 days of the native title process being concluded.

More information about exploration in Qld is available at www.dnrm.qld.gov.au or at www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au

Fees for Petroleum and Gas

In another example of the Qld Government’s approach to regulation and fees: The Qld Government will amend the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation 2004.

Key changes include:

·       Replacement of the requirement for industry to report quarterly with a new annual reporting requirement

·       A capping mechanism for upstream operators to ensure revenue collected from some fee categories is not in excess of the calculated costs to conduct compliance activities

·       Amending the Category 10 fee to three-tiers and applied based on the size of the LPG delivery network. Small and medium sized operators will have a flat fee relative to their size and larger operators will remain at a fee per unit basis with a maximum charge retained

·       Abolition of the Category 9 fee category for the LPG delivery network

·       Removal of the fee for biogas users and exemptions for some biogas producers

More information is available at: www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/petroleum-gas-safety-health-fee.htm

oil and gas Safety and Health Fee

I note a trend in State Governments where administrative costs are extracted from the industry sectors they oversee.

I am interested in your views on the changes in the oil and gas industry with the new fee structure.  What are the implications for your industry?

Will the proposed changes make environmental compliance simpler? Will fees provide a stable funding base to deliver critical safety and health functions?

The Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee was introduced on 1 July 2010.

The fee system was designed to cover the cost of the State Government’s activities carried out for the purpose of safety and health for petroleum and gas operations in Qld.

There was a revision of the way the Petroleum and Gas Inspectorate was funded.

Since then, there has been a restructure the State Government departments.  Depending on where one is operating and what one is doing, Petroleum and Gas operators will also be subject to laws for:

·        environmental protection,

·        land protection,

·        native title,

·        strategic cropping land.

A discussion paper was circulated to stakeholders in early 2012 to allow industry to provide comment on whether there were any unintended overlaps in the fees, whether the fee system covered all industry sectors effectively and whether the fees could be more efficiently applied or administered. As a result of that consultation it is proposed to further amend the fee system.

The unprecedented growth in the size and complexity of Qld's onshore petroleum industry required the regulator to extend its regulatory operation to keep pace.

Now, Industry is encouraged to provide comment on a discussion paper, ‘Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee - Post Implementation Review and Regulatory Impact Statement.’

The consultation process is being used to assess the impacts of recommended amendments to regulations for the Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee.  The adjustments to the Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee were designed to better reflect the range and level of compliance checks required for various industry activities.

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines inspectorate carries out audits, inspections and investigations of petroleum exploration and production, pipelines, automotive LPG, gas users, and licensing for the installation and servicing of domestic, commercial and industrial gas devices. The following permits are governed by the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 and Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation 2004:

·        authority to prospect,

·     petroleum lease (this lease is also governed by the Petroleum Act 1923 and Petroleum Regulation 2004),

·        petroleum potential commercial area,

·        petroleum survey licence,

·        petroleum pipeline licence,

·        petroleum facility licence,

·        data acquisition authority,

·        water monitoring authority.

So why has such new fees been introduced?  In brief: to cover revenue and allocation shortfalls.  The downside in this approach is if that industry sector shrinks, will the scale of the administration also shrink too?

The Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee is expected to raise about $7.1 million next financial year.

The Qld Government’s proposed fee restructure aims to recover costs in proportion to the supervision & intervention required by the inspectorate in areas such as exploration, production and distribution. 

The fee restructure also aims to assist the industry to cover the full cost of running the specialist inspectorate as the Qld Government attempts to reduce the industry’s compliance costs.

The fee goes towards the employment of additional inspectors, continuous staff training and administration of the compliance services.

Inspectors conducted almost 3,500 audits and inspections last financial year.  Petroleum and gas inspectors investigated almost 530 accidents and incidents in 2011-12, involving more than 50 injuries but no fatalities.

Proposed measures include annual returns instead of quarterly reports and a better explanation of the 15 fee categories used to determine companies’ fees.

These changes are based on feedback to the Qld Government through consultation with industry operators.

For more information visit the Department of Natural Resources and Mines website

is QLD missing the start on the low-carbon revolution?

The following statement by Greg Combet - Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Minister for Industry and Innovation.....

....seems somewhat remote from the actions of the Qld State Government's addictions to fossil fuels (including Coal, Crude Oil & Coal Seam Gas).

We have a head start on low-carbon revolution

Greg Combet posted Wednesday, 14 December 2011

As published in The Australian, Wednesday 14 December 2011

The decision by the UN climate change conference in Durban to pursue a new global agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has profound economic significance for Australia.

For the first time, all of the world's major emitters -- including Australia's two biggest trading partners, the US and China -- have committed to take on legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution. This new agreement, which is to be negotiated by 2015 and come into effect from 2020, will create a new international legal architecture for tackling climate change.

It will replace the Kyoto Protocol's increasingly unsustainable divide between developed and developing economies by bringing all emitters into the international emissions reduction framework.

In contrast to the claims by Tony Abbott and Bob Brown that the outcome was insignificant, countries around the world -- developed and developing -- have welcomed the agreement as a major step forward. The Durban outcome leaves no doubt that all major emitters will be part of a new legal pact on climate change.

Some people have claimed that the 2020 timeframe for a new international legal agreement is too far off and that this will be a "do nothing decade". This could not be further from the truth.

All countries now have a clear signal that there will be a new legal framework to reduce global emissions. The fact that this framework will be backed by legal force cannot be underestimated. It means that all countries will be legally bound to implement measures to reduce carbon pollution.

Those countries with strong domestic climate change policies already in place -- from Europe to China -- have a head start on the low-carbon revolution that will occur this decade and beyond.

The Gillard government's carbon price ensures Australia is ready to meet our domestic and international commitments.

Just imagine if we had waited until 2020 before taking action.

Not only would we miss out on valuable opportunities this decade to build the jobs and industries of the future, we would face a significant economic shock when the new legal framework came into place and we had to achieve emissions cuts overnight. But this is exactly the approach that underpins the Coalition's climate change policies. Abbott thinks that by planting trees and offering taxpayer-funded subsidies to a few polluters, Australia will be well positioned to compete in the future low-carbon world. It is a recipe for economic decline.

The Durban outcome builds on climate action already under way including the pledges of 90 countries to reduce emissions by 2020.

This will create momentum for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. In addition, the government is providing $1.5 billion to support innovation in Australian industry and manufacturing to seize the opportunities of a low-carbon world. Australia's transformation to a clean energy future is critical to our future competitiveness.

Implementing our clean energy reforms will be essential in the years ahead and central to my new responsibilities as Minister for Industry and Innovation and my continuing role as Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The outcome in Durban confirms that by moving ahead with these reforms we are moving in step with global action on climate change.

Sustainable Business Weekly QLD Edition [CSG Senate Enquiry, Oil, PV, ALPNC]

CSG Senate Enquiry

A Senate committee has released an Interim report: the impact of mining coal seam gas on the management of the Murray Darling Basin. The report calls for a moratorium on future coal seam gas (CSG) projects in key parts of Qld, NSW & in the parts of the Murray-Darling Basin that lie over the Great Artesian Basin, pending Qld Government & scientific investigations into the impact on groundwater.

The report contains recommended measures that should be in place before any further production is approved including:

· a national regulatory framework should be established;

· comprehensive water management plans;

· gas production should be excluded from highly productive agricultural land;

· where the industries do co-exist, agricultural productivity should be given priority in any dispute between land holders & CSG companies.

The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association believes many of the recommendations are already being addressed.

The Federal Government has 3 months to respond to the recommendations. The committee's final report is due in June 2012.

Oil Recycling

A new $30m Southern Oil Refineries (oil recycling) plant is to be built in Gladstone.

The plant will process waste lubricant oil from mining & agricultural machinery, transport vehicles & cars into usable lubricants. Construction of the refinery will commence in early 2012, with plans to be operational in 2013.

PV

A $6.76 Cloncurry Solar Farm project has been given a green light & $5.7m by the Qld State Government.

The Qld Government has named Ingenero Pty Ltd as preferred tender to design, build and operate a 2.128 MW solar farm at Cloncurry.

The Qld Government is progressing contractual negotiations with Ingenero to build & operate the solar farm on land close to the Cloncurry North electricity substation. The solar farm will comprise 7,600 polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic panels mounted on multiple rows at an angle of 25^o & facing due north.

These panels will generate approximately 3,700 MWhrs of electricity per year.

Weather permitting, the Cloncurry Solar farm should be completed in October 2012. The Cloncurry Solar Farm project is part of the Qld Government's commitment to make Qld the 'Solar State' & its ClimateQ strategy to address climate change.

Further information about Qld Government solar initiatives is available at: www.cleanenergy.qld.gov.au

ALP National Conference

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) met for the 46th National Conference over the weekend to attempt to shape a new National Platform and to consider important reforms to the Party.

Former Senator John Faulkner told the conference: "Labor has had the courage to change Australia. Today we must find the courage to change ourselves."

The Liberal Party, the National Party & the Greens all have their own conferences, but no one tends to notice them. It is a little strange that Labor's biannual national get-together attracts so much attention.

The ALP National Conference ran from 2-4 December 2011. Each day there was policy forums covering policy issues from workplace relations in the iPhone age through to marine sanctuaries, new voices for social democracy and everything in between.

Emotions ran high during the debate over whether Labor should change its platform to support selling uranium to India.

Labor's Left faction has vowed not to give up its fight against uranium exports to India after the conference endorsed the Prime Minister's plan to lift the ban.

Several protesters were ejected from the conference for chanting anti-uranium mining slogans during Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese's address. Former lead singer of Midnight Oil Peter Garrett was not amongst them. The Member for Kingsford Smith made a passionate speech about Nuclear disarmament & the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty but he was ignored.

The Federal Government is now preparing negotiate an agreement with India to export Australian uranium

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act is one of the most fundamental tools for biodiversity protection available to the Federal Government.

Late last year, Federal Labor received the final report of Dr Allan Hawke’s review of the EPBC Act. Amongst other

things, this report recommends linking bioregional planning & strategic assessment to broader environment policy objectives, using environmental markets and offsets arrangements to achieve the desired level of conservation of our precious biodiversity.

The Federal Labor Government will consider the recommendations of the Hawke review carefully, to ensure that our national environmental laws are supporting efficient and effective environment protection and to facilitate sustainable development, while at the same time cutting red tape and increasing certainty for business. Labor will introduce new legislation into Parliament during their second term to implement any reforms identified to better achieve these objectives.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35875307/A-Healthy-Environment

Coal Seam Gas vs Shale Gas ~ notes from the field

The following rant is taken from a bloke who left the CSG industry last week...reposted here for those who are interested in such things

There are 2 industries, and 2 VERY different legislators at play here.

ok, so what you saw in gasland was shale gas; that went largely unregulated and unchecked.

Shale gas, (and oil), reservoirs, like all conventional reservoirs, can be subject to all the conventional nasties, SBRs (sulphur reducing bacteria), mercury, heavies, condensates, hydrogen sulphide and other sulphates, benzene etc etc etc... this is, by and large, thermogenic gas.

In a coal seam, it is predominantly thought of as biogenic gas. Coal seams have varying amounts of gas adsorbed onto the carbon lattice depending on how much anaerobic digestion went on in laying down the coal, and how porous the coal is etc

To release the gas, all you have to do is drop the pressure, the easiest way to do this, is pump the water out.

Long story short, in a shale well, you have massive depths, high temps, and some corrosion accelerants down there that you want to deal with; which is by, as I understand it, they put some serious biocides down there, as well as some pretty nasty corrosion inhibitors.

In a coal seam, the coal will "skin up"and not allow the gas to move to the wellbore (which is essentially a water well with a pump in the bottom of it),so no coal seam gas operator with any nouse, will really want any hydrocarbons in their reservoir as it will bind the coal and essentially kill the well.

Fraccing is a process where high pressure formation water is pumped into the coal seam to "fracture" the coal to increase the permeability of the gas thus increasing your drill spacing to yield the reservoir. When I say pumped, they roll up with about 2000hp of turbocharged diesel pump to shift this water, its hardcore. Then a propant, which is either washed river sand, or a thermoset gel, like a guiar gum (the coagulant used in ice cream) Additives used in fraccing fluids in coal seams usually consist of some chlorine bleach, and some acetic acid to kill off whatever bugs may have been in the water that was sitting on the surface pre fraccing.

note:this is usually formation water, from the coalseam. The issue with fraccing in CSG is not the chemicals, its the hydro geology.

Here's the clincher, IF YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD GEOLOGICAL INTEGRITY YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOUR FRAC IS GOING! IF YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE WILL BE NO VERTICAL COMMUNICATION TO OTHER GROUNDWATER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FRAC.

Technically, this is quite manageable, but it will be more expensive for the operator to do so.

Salinity on the surface from the evap dams and the R.O. plants needs some more planning, as does the effects of bulk movement of formation water (water out of the coal formation) and what effect that can have on the groundwater filtering out of other basins, into the coalseam then up into the dams. What effect this will have in 20 years if we try to pump 4 LNG trains out of Gladstone full of gas, is not yet well known enough. This is where the DERM needs to focus environmentally.

Socially, taking intensively farmed blacksoil, that is a whole nuther discussion...