Viva Energy
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (18:42): (1573) My adjournment is for the Minister for Planning, and the action I am seeking is for the minister to require Viva Energy to undertake a public and comprehensive maritime assessment process prior to any further consideration of its gas terminal project. The government’s statutory authority for the provision of maritime navigation services, Ports Victoria, submitted letters dated 10 January 2024 and 20 November 2024 to the planning panel assessing Viva Energy’s proposal to build a gas import terminal in Corio Bay. To provide context, I will send copies of the letters to the minister in case they have not seen them. Ports Victoria is concerned that further assessments undertaken by Viva Energy in a supplementary environment effects statement (EES) have not sufficiently progressed the marine transport transit risks, including navigation, mooring and emergency departure risks and control for the proposed operation of the import terminal. Concerningly, the letter validates community concerns that the Corio-based shipping channel is too narrow and too shallow for liquefied natural gas tankers, and significant dredging would be required to meet safety standards. The largest and most economic LNG tankers will be unable to access the proposed terminal and there will therefore be pressure to deepen and widen the Geelong channel. This further dredging is not considered in Viva Energy’s proposal, and experts and submissions to the hearing estimate dredging could be as large as 10 times the proposed amount.
Ports Victoria state that the studies undertaken to date do not adequately determine whether the scope of operations are achievable within the proposed footprint without further modifications exceeding the design scope presented during the EES. Similar project risk assessments in other states, by comparison, have shown that the reconfiguration of shipping channels may be necessary to enable the safe navigation of the LNG tankers, with dire outcomes for the marine environment and community health. For example, the Gladstone dredging project resulted in hundreds of dead and dying fish with lesions on them and stranded sea life discovered with elevated metal levels, including arsenic and mercury, mobilised through dredging, causing a temporary fishing ban in the bay. The Geelong community has raised safety and dredging concerns with this LNG import terminal proposal for more than three years. The ports authority responsible for overseeing maritime navigation and safety is now publicly reiterating these concerns, and Viva Energy is still yet to submit information to Ports Victoria to allow for a comprehensive maritime assessment. Given the existence of these letters from Ports Victoria, how can the Minister for Planning possibly approve a project that has serious and unaddressed maritime safety risks raised by the port authority itself?