Oppose Browse LNG precinct at James Price Point

On March 28, Safe Climate Perth held a speak-out, outside the office of the Environment Protection Authority, to register opposition to the Browse LNG precinct near James Price Point being planned by the WA state government.

The project is being assessed by the EPA; submissions close March 28, 2011.

Below is Safe Climate Perth's submission.

You can download the submission here.

Safe Climate Perth

www.safeclimate.org.au

c/- PO Box 204 NORTHBRIDGE, 6865

info@safeclimate.org.au

Ph 0417 319662, 0400 878 322

Campaigning for a safe climate for all people, all species, all generations

 

Monday March 28, 2011

 

Submission regarding Browse Liquified Natural Gas Precinct

 

In making this submission, Safe Climate Perth is mindful that there are numerous social and environmental concerns regarding the Browse LNG Precinct proposal. We are aware of submissions being prepared by Alliance for a Clean Environment and The Wilderness Society, and of potential impacts on human health and the environment from air pollution and marine habitat disturbance from this proposal. We are also conscious that “benefits to the Traditional Owners acknowledged to be custodians of the land” (SAR PART 1 – Executive Summary – p11) are undermined when traditional land is compulsorily acquired and when divisions within indigenous communities are fostered by vested interests.

 

We have concerns about these issues, but in this submission, will focus on the risk of climate change impacts from this proposal, which we contend are sufficient cause for concern to necessitate rejection of this proposal.

 

The proponent’s argument that the development of gas reserves from the Browse Basin will “deliver greenhouse benefits” is a false argument. On the proponent’s figures, 50mtpa of LNG produced per year will add over 445 mtpa CO₂-e (312/0.7) to global greenhouse gas emissions, representing 1.8% (1.26/0.7) of global emissions, using the proponent’s 2000 reference figure.

 

This is not a reduction, but an addition – an addition occurring at a time when the global community needs to bend every effort to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions towards zero and beyond, if we are to restore a safe level of carbon dioxide  of 300-350ppm as estimated Hansen, James, et al. in Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?

 

It is not a benefit, but a harm, as continual fossil fuel extraction and burning (along with other anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions) threaten catastrophic changes to climate, affecting species, biodiversity and human civilisation and possibly human population collapse (as outlined in numerous peer-reviewed reports).

 

The 445mtpa CO₂-e emissions from the LNG produced in the precinct can only represent a reduction in GHG emissions if it is assumed the power would otherwise have been produced by burning coal – which the proponents don’t prove.  Just as an award-winning plan has been developed to show that Australia could reduce our emissions from stationary energy to zero by 2020 by a combination of energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy (http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf), it has also been shown that renewable energy could meet the vast majority of the world’s energy needs (eg http://assets.panda.org/downloads/101223_energy_report_final_print_2.pdf). Given the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy production as quickly as possible, and the potential to do this using renewables, it’s not reasonable to posit LNG use as a measure to “deliver greenhouse benefits.”

 

In addition to the emissions from the LNG produced at the site, the gas precinct project itself will add an additional 12-39mtpa CO₂-e to WA’s already excessive annual greenhouse gas production.

 

Although state and federal governments have not adopted safe climate targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions (eg zero emissions by 2020, as extrapolated from Schnellenhuber 2009, in Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach, (p31)), it is universally acknowledged that emissions need to be reduced. So projects that will increase emissions – and in this case, by up to almost half of WA’s existing emissions – should be decisively opposed.

 

 

 We hope that the EPA will put the interests of a safe climate future for us all ahead of regulatory obstacles and recommend against this project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sections of DSD report directly addressed:

In addition to local, regional and national benefits, the establishment of an economically viable gas processing precinct that facilitates the delivery of gas from the Browse Basin to international markets would deliver global benefits in helping to reduce greenhouse emissions through displacement of more carbon-intensive fuels.

(SAR PART 1 – Executive Summary – p11)

The gas reserves may not be developed at all, thus removing the ability to deliver greenhouse benefits that would be realised by Browse Basin LNG displacing coal in power generation in international markets.

(SAR PART 1 – Executive Summary – p28)

8.2.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Australian LNG can play a significant role reducing global greenhouse emissions through displacement of higher emitting fuels such as coal. For every tonne of CO2 emitted in LNG production within Australia, at least four tonnes can be reduced globally by displacing coal-fired power generation. This lower carbon emission rate makes natural gas a comparatively clean energy source, relative to other hydrocarbon fuels and can form part of the global solution to climate change.

Proposals such as the BLNG Precinct can play an important part in a low carbon future. This is because technologies for power generation using natural gas, including LNG production and transportation, are proven and Australia, which has 1.4% of known natural gas reserves worldwide (BP, 2010), has been a reliable supplier of LNG to international customers for more than 20 years.

Where used as a transitional fuel, LNG power generation systems produce 1.7 times more power for the same carbon emissions as coal-fired generation (Hondo, 2005). This means that a peak export rate of 50Mtpa of LNG could generate 750,000,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity; resulting in emission reductions of 312 million tonnes (Mt) CO2 equivalents (CO2-e) per year where LNG displaces coal-fired power generation. This saving is equivalent to 1.26% of global emissions referenced against a year 2000 baseline (Boden et al., 2009).

The primary sources of atmospheric emissions from facilities within the BLNG Precinct are reservoir emissions and combustion emissions. Reservoir emissions are largely dependent on the concentrations of CO2 naturally occurring in the subsurface reservoir. Emissions resulting from the combustion of natural gas to produce energy to operate the plant vary according to plant design and operating procedures, and can be influenced by environmental conditions (such as air temperature), which impacts on plant efficiency.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the BLNG Precinct may range from 12Mt CO2-e to 39Mt CO2-e per year depending on the plant capacity, not taking into account potential abatement.    

(SAR PART 1 – Executive Summary – p83)