❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Premier's stance on floating LNG projects, specifically contrasting the approval of the Shell Prelude project with reservations about larger Browse Basin projects due to safety and scale concerns. The Premier defends the different approaches based on project size and cyclone risks.
AnsweredQoN 18Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BROWSE LNG PROJECT — FLOATING OPTION
18. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Premier:
I refer to the Premier's comments in his media
statement of 12 April that outlines his agreement with the Labor Party that
there are limited benefits of floating liquefied natural gas.
(1) If the
Premier had such large reservations concerning floating LNG, why did his
government approve the Shell Prelude FLNG project that is estimated to be worth
$45 billion?
(2) Why did the Premier not issue a media release at the time
setting out his views?
(3) What are
the safety concerns that did not exist for the Prelude FLNG project that are
now concerning the Premier for further FLNG projects in WA?
18. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Premier:
I refer to the Premier's comments in his media
statement of 12 April that outlines his agreement with the Labor Party that
there are limited benefits of floating liquefied natural gas.
(1) If the
Premier had such large reservations concerning floating LNG, why did his
government approve the Shell Prelude FLNG project that is estimated to be worth
$45 billion?
(2) Why did the Premier not issue a media release at the time
setting out his views?
(3) What are
the safety concerns that did not exist for the Prelude FLNG project that are
now concerning the Premier for further FLNG projects in WA?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3)
Mr Speaker, I am not sure, but the member for Cannington referred to an
agreement with the Labor Party or something.
Mr M. McGowan : He
was referring to the fact that —
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am not speaking to the Leader of the Opposition; I am speaking to the member
for Cannington. Can he read out the first bit again?
Mr W.J. Johnston :
If you like, I will say it again. Mr Speaker, I am referring to the comments by
the Premier in his statement of 12 April that outlines his agreement with the
Labor Party that there are only limited benefits for floating LNG.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
There is no agreement with the Labor Party.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
There is no agreement with the Labor Party at all; I do not know what he is
talking about. I know he had a close call in his election; clearly he has not
recovered! But I gather the question is about —
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Albany, will you please?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The question is about floating LNG. Floating LNG on a large-scale project is
yet to be done anywhere in the world. The Prelude gas field that Shell is
developing is, compared with other fields in the Browse Basin, comparatively
small and would not support in any sense the amount of infrastructure involved
in an onshore LNG project. So, the state government and the commonwealth
government did agree to floating LNG for Prelude. Prelude, I think, will
produce about four million tonnes—3.7 million tonnes or something like
that—of LNG per year. The Browse fields could arguably produce 30 million
tonnes of LNG per year. It is a vastly different field.
With respect to floating LNG, it is yet to be done on a
significant scale, and there are some issues. There are always issues in major
projects. The point I make is there is now a different set of issues, and one
of them is that this is in a cyclone zone. Every year, three to five cyclones
will go through this area. A floating LNG project is a large barge, a hull of a
ship; it is not self —
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
It is not self-propelled.
Mr M. McGowan : Why
did you approve one?
The SPEAKER : Can
we let the Premier finish?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Mr Speaker —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Premier.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Mr Speaker, I will give up. Here we are; it is the first question time —
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
will give up! They are the rudest, most ignorant group of people in this
Parliament for a long time!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
So, a floating LNG plant on a small field implies a smaller ship—even
though it is quite large—smaller crew and the like. If we have floating
LNG at Browse, which I presume will be what the proponents will want to do, it
will be 500 metres long—it makes an aircraft carrier looks small—not
propelled and all on top of the deck. Unlike an ore carrier or an oil tanker,
all of the superstructure is built on the deck. Where do members think the
centre of gravity will be on something like that? How do members think that
will fare with 250-kilometre-an-hour to 300-kilometre-an-hour winds? What do
members think the issues will be about evacuating perhaps 200 personnel with an
approaching cyclone three days out? They are a new set of issues on a
technology and scale that have not been tried and have not been proven. I do
not say yes or no to it; I simply say that the whole set of issues are different.
In those Browse fields is Scott Reef, an atoll. Scott Reef is Western Australia
and three nautical miles around it is Western Australia, so the critical
environmental approval over Scott Reef will be with the Western Australian
government. Therefore, there are different issues. It is a very different
project and, as I have said, if this is the way that the joint venture wants to
go, we are back to square one. Woodside itself has said that this means
probably a five-year delay, if it goes that way. On 1 July there will be a
meeting of all the joint venture partners and maybe some of those joint venture
partners have a different view, particularly the Japanese and the Chinese
customers who are participants in the project.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure, but the member for Cannington referred to an
agreement with the Labor Party or something.
Mr M. McGowan : He
was referring to the fact that —
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am not speaking to the Leader of the Opposition; I am speaking to the member
for Cannington. Can he read out the first bit again?
Mr W.J. Johnston :
If you like, I will say it again. Mr Speaker, I am referring to the comments by
the Premier in his statement of 12 April that outlines his agreement with the
Labor Party that there are only limited benefits for floating LNG.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
There is no agreement with the Labor Party.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
There is no agreement with the Labor Party at all; I do not know what he is
talking about. I know he had a close call in his election; clearly he has not
recovered! But I gather the question is about —
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Albany, will you please?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The question is about floating LNG. Floating LNG on a large-scale project is
yet to be done anywhere in the world. The Prelude gas field that Shell is
developing is, compared with other fields in the Browse Basin, comparatively
small and would not support in any sense the amount of infrastructure involved
in an onshore LNG project. So, the state government and the commonwealth
government did agree to floating LNG for Prelude. Prelude, I think, will
produce about four million tonnes—3.7 million tonnes or something like
that—of LNG per year. The Browse fields could arguably produce 30 million
tonnes of LNG per year. It is a vastly different field.
With respect to floating LNG, it is yet to be done on a
significant scale, and there are some issues. There are always issues in major
projects. The point I make is there is now a different set of issues, and one
of them is that this is in a cyclone zone. Every year, three to five cyclones
will go through this area. A floating LNG project is a large barge, a hull of a
ship; it is not self —
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
It is not self-propelled.
Mr M. McGowan : Why
did you approve one?
The SPEAKER : Can
we let the Premier finish?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Mr Speaker —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Premier.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Mr Speaker, I will give up. Here we are; it is the first question time —
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
will give up! They are the rudest, most ignorant group of people in this
Parliament for a long time!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
So, a floating LNG plant on a small field implies a smaller ship—even
though it is quite large—smaller crew and the like. If we have floating
LNG at Browse, which I presume will be what the proponents will want to do, it
will be 500 metres long—it makes an aircraft carrier looks small—not
propelled and all on top of the deck. Unlike an ore carrier or an oil tanker,
all of the superstructure is built on the deck. Where do members think the
centre of gravity will be on something like that? How do members think that
will fare with 250-kilometre-an-hour to 300-kilometre-an-hour winds? What do
members think the issues will be about evacuating perhaps 200 personnel with an
approaching cyclone three days out? They are a new set of issues on a
technology and scale that have not been tried and have not been proven. I do
not say yes or no to it; I simply say that the whole set of issues are different.
In those Browse fields is Scott Reef, an atoll. Scott Reef is Western Australia
and three nautical miles around it is Western Australia, so the critical
environmental approval over Scott Reef will be with the Western Australian
government. Therefore, there are different issues. It is a very different
project and, as I have said, if this is the way that the joint venture wants to
go, we are back to square one. Woodside itself has said that this means
probably a five-year delay, if it goes that way. On 1 July there will be a
meeting of all the joint venture partners and maybe some of those joint venture
partners have a different view, particularly the Japanese and the Chinese
customers who are participants in the project.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.