More Misinformation regarding Great Barrier Reef.

And the environmentalists accuse sceptics of “misinformation”…!

By Simon on 18 December, 2013 • ( 5 )

A friend alerted me to this image, allegedly showing the plundering of the Great Barrier Reef by the evil capitalists now in charge in Canberra:

Fake, very fake

Gosh, if that really were true… Alas it is half a world away from the GBR. It actually shows the creation of the Palm Island in Dubai:

Context

But hey, who cares about facts when we’re spreading green hysteria? Lacking the capacity for any critical thought, mawkish emotion trumps anything.
Thanks Nick.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Good morning, all friends on these pages.

I would like to wish you all a very merry Christmas and great and prosperous 2014.

The years fly by as we all know and I have been a bit slack on posting anything much on these pages too but I have never and will never forget any of you on here.

We are having quite good weather and cool for this time of the year really.  Of course it is hot out in the sun as usual so I try not to get in that too much.

There is a lot of wind around this past couple of days though which is a bit unusual for December.

Anyway here's to a wonderful festival season.

I hope to check in a bit more in future.

Cheers and kindest wishes to all.

Bev 

And no it was not me who won all that lovely money in Oz Lotto last night.  Just heard it was sold on the Gold Coast.  Fancy winning a whole $70,000,000 as that ticket did!!!

'Twas the Night before Christmas:

Environmental approvals - How does the current system work?

Extract from an article by Chris McGrath first published at The Conversation about the proposed one stop shop for environmental approvals. This section clearly explains the current system.




One of the major obstacles to creating a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals is that Australia’s federal system of government is more like a scrambled egg than a neatly layered cake.
Within this scrambled egg relatively few day-to-day decisions about development that will affect the environment are made by the Commonwealth government. The vast bulk of decisions are made by local, state and territory governments.    

For instance, there are around 250,000 applications a year under state and territory planning laws, most of which are decided by local governments.In contrast, the main Commonwealth environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), deals with only around 400 referrals each year. The EPBC Act mainly regulates actions affecting World Heritage properties, listed threatened species, and other “matters of national environmental significance”. The projects that it regulates closely tend to be big projects.

The EPBC Act approval process has three stages: referral, assessment and approval.

At the referral stage the Commonwealth decides whether a proposed action triggers the Act and requires approval under it. This has proved to be a very efficient process of screening out many projects and providing certainty to proponents that their projects do not trigger the Act. On very rare occasions, projects have been refused as “clearly unacceptable” at this first stage, thereby avoiding further costs and delay in carrying out an assessment.

Experience over the first decade of the Act’s operation showed that over 75% of projects referred under it were decided within weeks and dropped out under this first stage. This fact is normally omitted by individuals and organisations such as the Business Council of Australia, who rail against the costs and delays caused by EPBC Act. Only around 22% of referrals are determined to be controlled actions that proceed through the assessment and approval stages. For these actions the EPBC Act has mechanisms to avoid duplication with state and territory assessments known as “bilateral agreements”.

There are two types of bilateral agreements.
Assessment bilaterals allow state and territory assessment processes to be used under the EPBC Act but the final decision on whether to approve a project remains with the Federal Environment Minister. Assessment bilaterals have been in place with all states and territories for years and have proved to be effective in reducing unnecessary duplication and delay.
In contrast, approval bilaterals delegate the final decision on a project to the state and territory government. While this mechanism has existed in the Act from the outset, it has been virtually unused.

An example of how efficiently the existing assessment bilateral system works to avoid duplication or delay due to the EPBC Act is the Alpha Coal Mine. That project began its assessment under Queensland law in 2008 and has not yet been approved, despite claims to the contrary in 2012 by the Queensland Premier. The project was referred under the EPBC Act in 2009, assessed under the bilateral agreement and approved by the Commonwealth in 2012. The state approvals are unlikely to be granted before early to mid-2014. That is, state approval may come some 18 months after the Commonwealth approval.

Author

Chris McGrath           Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland

To read this article in full at The Conversation, go to - Explainer: one-stop-shop for environmental approvals

Previous related post

Watch for the 1,999 hectare footprints

. 

Watch for the 1,999 hectare footprints

The big four coal seam gas companies in Queensland have had their major projects approved. By the evidence presented firstly by the Courier Mail newspaper and secondly by ABC TV Four Corners program the approval process left much to be desired. To learn more of these events read an earlier post on this site, Gas leak response. Recently the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) cleared any wrongdoing in the approval process mostly by a neat side step of that matters raised '… do not fall within the CMC’s jurisdiction.’  For further reading go to this highly referenced and detailed report of what has occurred in the online Independent Australian article, How the Queensland Government fracked the State

Despite its many flaws the big projects to this point were subjected to an approval process. They had to negotiate an Environmental authority (EA) with the government. They hired consultants to prepare mind blowing large Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) which were open to a public review and submission process. EIS look at more than just environmental impacts; they also include impacts on the likes of cultural heritage, transport, agricultural production and the very important underground water impacts. Each coal seam gas company are developing tenements they hold outside the areas approved within their current projects and to bring each of these new areas into production one would have thought that they would need to be scrutinised for any major impacts on conservation values or top farming soils etc.; but apparently not.

Take the example of the British Gas owned QGC project, Queensland Curtis Liquid Natural Gas (QCLNG) project which was approved for mapped area that included 6,000 gas wells, CSG water storage ponds, linking roadways, linking gas & water pipes, compressor stations, processing plants, accommodation camps, export gas pipeline and a LNG plant on Curtis Island.

The first photo (above) was taken at the end of November 2013 shows the QGC Woleebee Creek processing plant under construction; a massive piece of industrialisation lifting out what was once quiet cattle paddocks west of Wandoan in what was once amongst Australia’s best beef fattening country.

On the 6^th November the Australian Financial Review ran an article, BG seeks clearance for extra 400 CSG wells, in which it was announced:

“BG Group is seeking environmental approval to drill an additional 400 coal seam gas wells near Wandoan to help maintain gas flows to its $US20.4 billion LNG export project in Queensland once production from the initial batch of wells starts to tail off.”

“A BG spokeswman said the area involves about 50 landholders and the construction of up to three gas compression facilities, water and gas gathering pipelines, access roads and laydown areas in addition to the wells.
“The development is not expected to have any significant environmental impact, with about 94 per cent of the total permit area – or about 123,500 hectares – cleared of trees and used mainly for grazing,” he said.”

“Also included in the project are access tracks, accommodation camps and gas and water gathering lines, as well as storage ponds and pumping stations. Gas will be treated in processing plants being built as part of the initial project.”

 
 
 
 

 

The AFR article does say that this new smaller area to the existing QCLNG project is seeking environmental approval; but what approval?  According to a presentation given by Rory Ross at Shine Lawyers CSG information seminar at Wandoan on the 4^th December, any state approval will be no more than a tick and flick process with no public notification or public input. Apparently there is a trigger for any project with a footprint of above 2,000 ha to be subjected to scrutiny but no so those below. QGC doesn’t consider the project requires an EIS as it has determined that it has a 1,400 ha footprint.

QGC has to seek approval from the Commonwealth under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC). I’m yet to find a link to the application but if you type into a search engine these words - EPBC QGC Detailed description of proposed action - you should find a PDF file to download.

The second image (above) is sourced from this application, the green line shows the boundary of the new ‘400 well’ area; the light grey lines shows the pre-existing farm property boundaries for the “about 50 landholder’s”.  On the map if you look to the south of the green boundary to old farm boundaries marked in red, these are farms now owned by QGC and amongst them you will see a gasfield area in green text named, Woleebee creek; this is the location for massive the processing plant as shown in the first photo.   

But how available is the Commonwealth process to public notification or input?  At the Shine Lawyer seminar the audience was informed that the application was opened to public submissions for 10 working days on the EPBC website before the document was removed from the site. Apparently the environment minister, Greg Hunt, has determined that the application has to be subjected to further additional scrutiny but to find this information is not easy.

Currently any scrutiny of these additional smaller areas is held by a thin thread of the EPBC act and specifically the water trigger amendments introduced by the former government to appease the former independent MP Tony Windsor. There have been rumblings for the water trigger removal and one vehicle for doing so could be the Productivity Commission and then this last week there was the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth for “One stop shops” for environmental approvals.

The processes for approvals for CSG projects in the past have been far from desirable; current arrangements are not ideal and what for the future? There is certainly a lot of room for improvement and while onerous, conflicting, repetitive and time consuming regulation is not needed for all productive sectors of the economy there must be in place effective scrutiny.  

The last image was prepared by Rory Ross for his presentation. The yellow triangles depict current CSG wells. Look at the saturation to the south of the proposed new “400 well’ area to the Woleebee Creek field; this is the footprint of a 750 metre well spacing, the same according to the application will go in the new area to the north. Makes a mockery of a 1,400 ha footprint within the 123,500 ha area; even Roma farmer Peter Thompson who often speaks out about the positives about CSG made this very important observation in an October interview in the Weekend Australian when speaking about reaching a value on compensation for CSG activity on his land:

“At the end of that time it was finally agreed he would be compensated for the impact on his entire land, not just the area where the gas wells were. That saw him achieve the level of payment he originally sought.

"It was bringing it to an acceptance that the work impacts the whole property - the impact is not just around the gas wells, the impact is across the whole place," Mr Thompson said.”

To meet an ongoing need for export volume of LNG the CSG companies will progressively bring into production new fields. Going by current indications they will be tacked onto the initial project piece by piece, each below the 2,000 trigger. So watch out for the 1,999 footprint.

Previous related discussions

Top ten tactics and tricks

Gas Leak Response

 

UPDATE #1- Follow up discussion

Environmental approvals - How does the current system work?

 

.

PRA: QLD vegetation management legislation update

 

Image scanned from 5th December issue of the Queensland Country Life

 

There are many new self-assessable vegetation management codes under the amended State

Government legislation. DNRM is conducting a series of meetings in various areas to explain the

codes and the operation of Qld Globe.

 

http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/vegetation-management/public-information-sessions

http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/mapping-data/maps/queensland-globe

 

There are codes for fodder harvesting, thinning, weed management encroachment, property

infrastructure, clearing of high value regrowth, clearing of regrowth watercourse area, clearing to

improve operational efficiency of existing agricultural developments. Some purposes will still require

a permit.

 

Landowners need to notify DNRM (There is a form to fill in. Can be done online.)

 

http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/vegetation-management/self-assessable-vegetation-clearingcodes/

notification-form

 

But they have a new philosophy of working co-operatively with landowners to ensure codes are

complied with. DNRM still wants to speak with people who want to carry out developments.

An Approved Area Management Plan is another way to get approval. You still need to notify the

Department before clearing starts.

They still do have compliance officers and satellite monitoring and illegal clearing will be detected

even if it is small areas done over a number of years.

One useful change is that there is no longer a category called high value regrowth on freehold land

only. The category still exists on leasehold land. The maps on Qld Globe should reflect this.

PMAV’s are still relevant. The mapping will only reflect a new PMAV once it has been certified.

 

http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/vegetation-management

Getting clearing permits for the new uses of High Value Agriculture (HVA) and Irrigated High Value

Agriculture (IHVA) will involve a fair amount of research with it being necessary to show with

accountants figures that it is viable and that the soil type and expected rainfall are suitable. In the

case of the IHVA it will be necessary to have a water license and will increase operational efficiency.

 



 

Scan of an article in the 5th December issue of the Queensland Country Life

 

Previous related posts

 

PRA: Bushland at risk – part 1

 

PRA: Bushland at risk – part 2

 

.PRA: Qld reforms to Vegetation management act 

The Great Barrier Reef is Doomed!!

The Great Barrier Reef is doomed according to one Professor who has a book to sell when locals in the area suggest that it is looking better than ever.

Baby corals has been found with some reefs showing signs of recovery following Cyclone Yasi in 2011.

Here is an item from the Cairns Post today (11th December 2013). 

I suppose we have to believe the Professor as he has a book to sell.
When are these people going to give up the scam?

Agricultural competitiveness

Media release by Barnaby Joyce, Minister for agriculture

Photo sourced [here]

 

Australia has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to examine the competitiveness of the nation’s agriculture industry, according to Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce.

Announcing the terms of reference of the Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper today, Minister Joyce said the goal of the paper would be to generate jobs, impact farm gate returns, investment and economic growth in one of Australia’s key export industries.

“The White Paper will be about bringing history, our natural competitive advantage and our future together,” Minister Joyce said.

“We have a unique set of assets in Australia, and proximity to the fastest growing markets in the world. This paper will be about asset building and national wealth - it will be an examination without prejudice of Australia’s natural competitive advantage into the future.”

The White Paper will develop recommendations for boosting agriculture’s contribution to economic growth, export and trade, innovation and productivity by building capacity and enhancing the profitability of the sector.

“A vibrant, innovative and competitive agriculture sector will lead to better returns to farmers, more jobs, more investment and stronger regional communities,” Minister Joyce said.

“Australia is a leading agricultural producer and exporter, and the sector has considerable opportunities for future growth creating a greater overall breadth and strength for the Australian economy.

“As a nation we must encourage a strong agricultural sector, with primary producers that remain among the most innovative in the world.

“We are committed to building a plan together with farmers that will help us increase production and export our top quality products to markets across world.”

Those with an interest in the sector are encouraged use the current period to generate ideas that will chart the path to a sustained, vibrant and innovative future for agriculture.

An issues paper for the Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper will be released in the coming weeks ahead of extensive consultation with industry and the community.

“We are encouraging people to have their say with this important policy document, and we want a wide cross-section of Australians to contribute,” Minister Joyce said.

The Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper will consider issues including food security, improving farmgate returns, debt, drought management, supply chain competitiveness, investment, job creation, infrastructure, skills and training, research and development, regulatory effectiveness and market access.

The White Paper process will also provide the opportunity to review, in consultation with industry, whether guidelines relating to drought preparedness and in-event drought measures are adequate.

Building on our strengths in agriculture is part of the Government’s plan to build a diverse 5-Pillar economy to generate jobs and deliver a stronger, more prosperous economy.

The terms of reference will be available at agriculturalcompetitiveness.dpmc.gov.au.

Previous related post

Strong, vibrant agriculture

.