A WA parliamentary question seeks information on rail access, downstream processing projects (approval, assessment, support) as of December 2005. The answer provides specific details on projects in progress and the government's approach to supporting such ventures.

AnsweredQoN 740Legislative Assembly
Asked
28 March 2006
Portfolio
Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development

QuestionView source ↗

(1) Were there any changes to rail access arrangements during the three months ending 31 December 2005?
(2) How many downstream processing projects were approved for final construction and start-up during the three months ending 31 December 2005?
(3) How many proposals for downstream processing projects were waiting to be assessed or were in the process of being assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority after being referred to this Authority, as at 31 December 2005?
(4) What was the average waiting time for the assessment of downstream processing projects referred to the Environmental Protection Authority, as at 31 December 2005?
(5) How many proposed downstream processing projects were seeking financial or infrastructure support or assistance from the State Government as at 31 December 2005?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
13 April 2006
Responded by
Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
Response time
16 days
(1) There have been no changes to rail access arrangements in the three months to 31 December 2005. (2) During the three months to 31 December 2005, no downstream processing plants commenced construction and one downstream processing plant, Burrup Fertilisers' Ammonia Plant, entered its commissioning phase. Ore concentrating plants and LNG plants have not been included as these types of projects, similar to crushing plants, simply beneficiate the source raw material. (3) There were two downstream processing projects in the environmental assessment process as at 31 December 2005. (4) Of the two projects, the Burrup Peninsula Ammonium Nitrate project was at the stage of the proponent preparing its Environmental Review document for submission to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Alcoa's Wagerup Alumina Refinery Expansion project had been in the EPA assessment phase for fourteen weeks. The EPA issued its assessment report for that project on 5 January 2006. (5) At any given time, there are several discussions being held concerning the general facilitation of investment into downstream processing of our resources. The State does not, generally, give financial support to individual downstream processing projects. The State prefers to provide common user facilities, when this is justified by a business case. At 31 December 2005, the Department of Industry and Resources was in discussions with several potential downstream processing proponents for common user facilities for the Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct at Albany.
(2) During the three months to 31 December 2005, no downstream processing plants commenced construction and one downstream processing plant, Burrup Fertilisers' Ammonia Plant, entered its commissioning phase. Ore concentrating plants and LNG plants have not been included as these types of projects, similar to crushing plants, simply beneficiate the source raw material. (3) There were two downstream processing projects in the environmental assessment process as at 31 December 2005. (4) Of the two projects, the Burrup Peninsula Ammonium Nitrate project was at the stage of the proponent preparing its Environmental Review document for submission to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Alcoa's Wagerup Alumina Refinery Expansion project had been in the EPA assessment phase for fourteen weeks. The EPA issued its assessment report for that project on 5 January 2006. (5) At any given time, there are several discussions being held concerning the general facilitation of investment into downstream processing of our resources. The State does not, generally, give financial support to individual downstream processing projects. The State prefers to provide common user facilities, when this is justified by a business case. At 31 December 2005, the Department of Industry and Resources was in discussions with several potential downstream processing proponents for common user facilities for the Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct at Albany.
(3) There were two downstream processing projects in the environmental assessment process as at 31 December 2005. (4) Of the two projects, the Burrup Peninsula Ammonium Nitrate project was at the stage of the proponent preparing its Environmental Review document for submission to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Alcoa's Wagerup Alumina Refinery Expansion project had been in the EPA assessment phase for fourteen weeks. The EPA issued its assessment report for that project on 5 January 2006. (5) At any given time, there are several discussions being held concerning the general facilitation of investment into downstream processing of our resources. The State does not, generally, give financial support to individual downstream processing projects. The State prefers to provide common user facilities, when this is justified by a business case. At 31 December 2005, the Department of Industry and Resources was in discussions with several potential downstream processing proponents for common user facilities for the Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct at Albany.
(4) Of the two projects, the Burrup Peninsula Ammonium Nitrate project was at the stage of the proponent preparing its Environmental Review document for submission to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Alcoa's Wagerup Alumina Refinery Expansion project had been in the EPA assessment phase for fourteen weeks. The EPA issued its assessment report for that project on 5 January 2006. (5) At any given time, there are several discussions being held concerning the general facilitation of investment into downstream processing of our resources. The State does not, generally, give financial support to individual downstream processing projects. The State prefers to provide common user facilities, when this is justified by a business case. At 31 December 2005, the Department of Industry and Resources was in discussions with several potential downstream processing proponents for common user facilities for the Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct at Albany.
(5) At any given time, there are several discussions being held concerning the general facilitation of investment into downstream processing of our resources. The State does not, generally, give financial support to individual downstream processing projects. The State prefers to provide common user facilities, when this is justified by a business case. At 31 December 2005, the Department of Industry and Resources was in discussions with several potential downstream processing proponents for common user facilities for the Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct at Albany.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more