Environment

Environmental Impact Statement

EIS Current Status

Tassie Shoal Methanol Project:

The Tassie Shoal Methanol Project's Commonwealth approvals process commenced in November 2000. The primary approval required for this project was a Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval. To this end MEO appointed Sinclair Knight & Merz (SKM) to initiate the EIA process and on December 8, 2000 a Referral Document was lodged with Environment Australia.

On December 19, 2000 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, declared a controlled action for the project's EIA (EPBC-2000/108). On January 23, 2001 the Minister designated that the controlled action will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A draft scope document for the EIS was prepared by SKM and lodged on February 8, 2000. The EIS guidelines were prepared by Environment Australia and publicly exhibited until March 22, 2001. The Ministerial approval for these guidelines was granted on April 18, 2001.

MEO engaged Consulting & Environmental Engineers Pty Ltd (CEE) to prepare the EIS and who acted as the EIS Project Manager and lead consultant. All necessary data was compiled, the required site-specific data acquired and many specialist studies conducted.

The EIS public consultation process was active over a six month period and included discussion with affected State and Commonwealth departments, focus meetings in Darwin and Canberra, advertising and ongoing public access to an information and maintenance of a resource information office in Darwin

The EIS was printed and distributed for public comment between June 17 and July 15 2002. Following a number of comments and queries, a Supplement to the EIS was prepared and distributed August 2002. The assessment of the EIS by Environment Australia was completed on October 17, 2002.

On December 23, 2002, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, The Hon. Dr David Kemp MP approved the EIS and the action. This approval for the Tassie Shoal Methanol Project has effect until November 29, 2052.

Timor Sea LNG Project:

The Timor Sea LNG Project's environmental approval process commenced early in 2003. CEE and MEO prepared a Referral Document, which was lodged with Environment Australia on June 15, 2003. The referral number is EPBC 2003/1067.

On June 12, 2003, the Assistant Secretary declared that the action was a controlled action and the action cannot be taken without approval under Part 9 of the Act.

Assessment required the preparation of a detailed Preliminary Information document. This document was lodged with Environment Australia on November 17, 2003. The Minister has determined that the proposal and document will be made available for public review and comment between January 13 and January 28, 2004.

On May 5, 2004, the Acting First Secretary on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, The Hon. Dr David Kemp MP approved the action. This approval for the Tassie Shoal Methanol Project and the Timor Sea LNG project has effect until May 6, 2052.

Other Statutory Approvals:

Biological Habitat Survey Summary
- Tassie Shoal Region, by CEE Consultants Pty Ltd

The characteristics of seabed biological communities at shoals in the vicinity of Tassie Shoal approximately 275 km north northeast of Darwin were surveyed between 30 October and 4 November 2000 by a team of marine biologists led by CEE Consultants Pty Ltd.

A total of six shoals were surveyed, with a total of 12 sites and 34 transects. The shoals surveyed were:

Evans Shoal (2 sites, 6 transects);
Blackwood Shoal (1 site, 1 long transect);
Franklin Shoal (1 site 3 transects);
Flinders Shoal (1 site 3 transects);
Shoal 9.2 (2 sites, 6 transects) and;
Tassie Shoal (5 sites, 15 transects).

The sites were selected to be at the same depth as the area of Methanol Australia's proposed gas reforming and methanol plant at Tassie Shoal.

General Biological Characteristics

The overall impression of the biological assemblages at the shoals was that they were generally similar. There were extensive areas of sand and rubble interspersed with small coral heads and coral bommies. The coral bommie outcrops were generally 1 to 2 m high. There was a range of hard corals with Porites and Acropora being the predominant large forms. Most of the visible macroinvertebrates, fish, seasnakes and many of the seaweeds (algae) were associated with the coral outcrops. The seaweeds Halimeda and Caulerpa were also relatively abundant on coral rubble.

Results of Survey

The results of the transect surveys for each shoal were averaged and are summarised in the attached bar charts. The shoals in the first chart have been sorted from highest coral cover at Blackwood Shoal to lowest coral cover at Evans Shoal.

Comparison of the Six Shoals

Although data for Blackwood Shoal was derived using a remote camera rather than direct measurement by diver at the other shoals, the hard coral cover at Blackwood of almost 35 percent was substantially higher than the 20 percent at Franklin and less than 10 percent at Evans. All other animal groups (soft corals, sponges other invertebrates) and turfs were more abundant at Blackwood than the other shoals. Algal cover was low at Blackwood, but appeared to be dominated by Halimeda like the other shoals. Hence there is a strong indication that the marine biological assemblages on Blackwood Shoal were substantially richer than the other five shoals.

The remaining five shoals were relatively similar. Differences in the number or size of coral outcrops along the transects at each site were the main reason for the variation in the animals groups between the shoals. The data indicate that Franklin and Flinders were the second and third biologically richest of the six shoals examined. Shoal 9.2 and Tassie Shoal were very similar, and Evans Shoal appeared to be the least rich of the six shoals examined.

The amount of algae varied substantially between the shoals. The predominant alga was the calcified green alga Halimeda, with a range of other green and red algae but no obvious brown algae. Halimeda was recorded growing over coral rubble, coral outcrops and, to a lesser extent, on sand at all shoals. Halimeda is an important component of the shoal's ecosystem as it contributes substantial volumes of calcium carbonate to the sediments. The white calcareous segments of dead Halimeda are clearly visible in the sediments at the shoals. Interestingly, the predominant alga at Shoal 9.2 was Caulerpa racemosa, although the abundance of Halimeda remains in the sediments indicated that Halimeda must be abundant at times at this shoal. Studies by AIMS and BHP indicates that the amount of Halimeda present at the Big Banks Shoals is highly variable in time. The AIMS/BHP conclusion was that cyclonic storms can virtually clear the shoals of Halimeda.

Comparison of Five Sites at Tassie Shoal

The marine biological community components at the five sites surveyed at Tassie Shoal were the same as those at the other shoals. There was a small degree of variation between the sites at Tassie Shoal, with most variation due to the amount of hard coral. This variation indicates slightly higher number of coral outcrops along some transects or at some sites. The amount of algae was quite consistent between the five sites at Tassie Shoal.

Conclusion

The data processing and analysis so far support the following general observations of the shoals:

The sites at the shoals in the vicinity of Tassie Shoal all have generally similar marine biological communities. There are large areas of sand and coral rubble interspersed with coral outcrops and seaweeds.
Blackwood Shoal appears to have the richest marine biological assemblages of the six shoals due to the high abundance of hard corals and coral outcrops, which provide habitat for a wide range of other marine biota.
The remaining five shoals are relatively similar to each other, although small differences in the data indicate that Tassie Shoal and Shoal 9.2 are intermediate between the richer shoals of Flinders and Franklin and the less diverse Evans Shoal.
Compared with the shoals of the Big Banks Study, the six shoals surveyed around Tassie Shoal have less coral cover than the Big Banks "coral" category and much less Halimeda than the "Halimeda" category.
The marine biological assemblages at the five sites on Tassie Shoal are relatively similar. Together with drop camera observations at other sites on Tassie Shoal, the data indicate that the habitats over the northern top half of Tassie shoal are homogeneous with small, sporadic differences in the density of coral outcrops.

The marine biological habitats at the proposed location of Methanol Australia's plant on the eastern side of Tassie Shoal appear to be typical of those represented elsewhere on Tassie Shoal and at other shoals in the region.

The Company has also made application for an Infrastructure Licence (NT/ISL1(A)) pursuant to section 59B(3) of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 over the place on Tassie Shoal where we plan to locate the methanol production facilities. This Licence effectively gives title over the area of the seafloor where the facilities are positioned for the life of the project.

This application is currently afoot and MEO is providing the necessary information to allow the grant of such a Licence. Clearly, the environmental approval is the most significant requirement to obtain grant of this Licence. Other requirements include the preparation of a Safety Case and an Environment Management Plan for the construction and operational phases of the project. Preparation of these documents is underway. It is probable that the final grant would coincide with the grant of a Production Licence to the gas producer.

It is possible that the eventual ownership structure of the projects may also include international corporations. The involvement of such companies would most likely require review and approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board.