❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding environmental assessments, conditions, and potential contamination related to causeways and drilling activities in the Stokes Bay - May River system. The Minister's response indicates that while some aspects were referred to the EPA, the Department of Mines and Petroleum primarily regulated the proposals.
AnsweredQoN 5123Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to two causeways into the Stockes Bay - May river system, question on notice No. 2211 asked in the Legislative Council on 17 August 2004 and photos '2012-01-04 Causeway 1.jpg', '2012-01-04 Causeway 2 Borrow Pit.jpg' and '2012-01-04 Causeway 2.jpg' located at
http://robinchapple.com/qdata
, and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister identify if the old causeway (Causeway 1) from Latitude -17.17954 Longitude 123.731804 to Latitude -17.162893 Longitude 123.740001 was assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) or the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)?
(2) If yes to (1), on what date was this assessed?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) If yes to (1), what was the level of assessment?
(5) Were any conditions attached to this causeway that passed through mangal systems?
(6) Was there any requirement for the proponent to remove the causeway, drill pad or drill mud pond and rehabilitate the area?
(7) If no to (5) or (6), why not?
(8) If yes to (5) or (6), will the Minister table any conditions or requirements?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) What were the types of drilling fluids used at this site?
(11) Were the drilling fluids removed and where were they removed to?
(12) As the pond no longer exists and if the fluids were not removed, does the Minister consider that release of these drill muds into the mangal and marine ecosystem acceptable?
(13) Who was the proponent responsible for the environmental management of this causeway, drill pad and drill mud pond?
(14) Will the proponent be prosecuted for environmental contamination, breach of conditions or breach of licence?
(15) Can the Minister identify if the new causeway (Causeway 2) from Latitude -17.152303 Longitude 123.707058 to Latitude -17.162893 Longitude 123.740001 was assessed by the EPA or the DEC?
(16) If yes to (15), on what date was this assessed?
(17) If no to (15), why not?
(18) If yes to (15), what was the level of assessment?
(19) Were any conditions attached to this causeway that passed through mangal systems?
(20) Is there any requirement for the proponent to remove the causeway, drill pad or drill mud pond and rehabilitate the area?
(21) If no to (19) or (20), why not?
(22) If yes to (19) or (20), will the Minister table any conditions or requirements?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) What were the types of drilling fluids used at this site?
(25) Were the drilling fluids and mud removed and where were they removed to?
(26) As the drill mud pond is inundated on king tides and no longer contains any material and if the fluids were not removed, does the Minister consider that release of these drill muds and fluids into the mangal and marine ecosystem acceptable?
(27) Who is the proponent responsible for the environmental management of this causeway, drill pad or drill mud and fluid pond?
(28) Will the proponent be prosecuted for environmental contamination, breach of conditions or breach of licence as a result of release of drilling muds and fluids into the marine and mangal environments?
(29) With reference to the causeway 2 borrow pit, were there any requirements to rehabilitate the area?
(30) If no to (29), why not?
(31) If yes to (29), when are the works anticipated to be commenced?
(32) In establishing this borrow pit, was permission sought or granted to remove material from below the water table?
(33) If no to (32), why not?
(34) If yes to (32), will the Minister table the conditions associated with this application?
(35) If no to (32), what action is available to the Minister to force remediation of this situation and will the Minister take such action?
(36) Is the Minister or his department aware of any other current or future exploration or drilling programs in the Stockes Bay - May river system or Point Torment areas?
(37) If yes to (36), will the Minister identify the locations and proponents?
(38) If yes to (36), will environmental conditions apply to these developments and will they be available for public comment?
(39) If no to (36), why not?
(40) If no to (37) or (38), why not?
http://robinchapple.com/qdata
, and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister identify if the old causeway (Causeway 1) from Latitude -17.17954 Longitude 123.731804 to Latitude -17.162893 Longitude 123.740001 was assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) or the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)?
(2) If yes to (1), on what date was this assessed?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) If yes to (1), what was the level of assessment?
(5) Were any conditions attached to this causeway that passed through mangal systems?
(6) Was there any requirement for the proponent to remove the causeway, drill pad or drill mud pond and rehabilitate the area?
(7) If no to (5) or (6), why not?
(8) If yes to (5) or (6), will the Minister table any conditions or requirements?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) What were the types of drilling fluids used at this site?
(11) Were the drilling fluids removed and where were they removed to?
(12) As the pond no longer exists and if the fluids were not removed, does the Minister consider that release of these drill muds into the mangal and marine ecosystem acceptable?
(13) Who was the proponent responsible for the environmental management of this causeway, drill pad and drill mud pond?
(14) Will the proponent be prosecuted for environmental contamination, breach of conditions or breach of licence?
(15) Can the Minister identify if the new causeway (Causeway 2) from Latitude -17.152303 Longitude 123.707058 to Latitude -17.162893 Longitude 123.740001 was assessed by the EPA or the DEC?
(16) If yes to (15), on what date was this assessed?
(17) If no to (15), why not?
(18) If yes to (15), what was the level of assessment?
(19) Were any conditions attached to this causeway that passed through mangal systems?
(20) Is there any requirement for the proponent to remove the causeway, drill pad or drill mud pond and rehabilitate the area?
(21) If no to (19) or (20), why not?
(22) If yes to (19) or (20), will the Minister table any conditions or requirements?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) What were the types of drilling fluids used at this site?
(25) Were the drilling fluids and mud removed and where were they removed to?
(26) As the drill mud pond is inundated on king tides and no longer contains any material and if the fluids were not removed, does the Minister consider that release of these drill muds and fluids into the mangal and marine ecosystem acceptable?
(27) Who is the proponent responsible for the environmental management of this causeway, drill pad or drill mud and fluid pond?
(28) Will the proponent be prosecuted for environmental contamination, breach of conditions or breach of licence as a result of release of drilling muds and fluids into the marine and mangal environments?
(29) With reference to the causeway 2 borrow pit, were there any requirements to rehabilitate the area?
(30) If no to (29), why not?
(31) If yes to (29), when are the works anticipated to be commenced?
(32) In establishing this borrow pit, was permission sought or granted to remove material from below the water table?
(33) If no to (32), why not?
(34) If yes to (32), will the Minister table the conditions associated with this application?
(35) If no to (32), what action is available to the Minister to force remediation of this situation and will the Minister take such action?
(36) Is the Minister or his department aware of any other current or future exploration or drilling programs in the Stockes Bay - May river system or Point Torment areas?
(37) If yes to (36), will the Minister identify the locations and proponents?
(38) If yes to (36), will environmental conditions apply to these developments and will they be available for public comment?
(39) If no to (36), why not?
(40) If no to (37) or (38), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 May 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
56 days
(1) The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority has advised that the proposal for Causeway 1 was not specifically referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to section 38 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act) and therefore was not assessed by the Authority.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) The EP Act provides that proposals that are likely if implemented to have a significant impact on the environment can be referred to the EPA for it to decide whether to assess the proposal.
(4) Not applicable.
(5-14) The proposal was regulated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum under the relevant petroleum legislation and these questions should be directed to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum.
(15)-(18) The Office of the EPA has advised that a proposal for the Stokes Bay - 01 exploration well which included a causeway and borrow pit was referred to the EPA by the then Department of Industry and Resources pursuant to section 38 of the EP Acton 7 March 2007. The EPA made a decision not to assess the proposal and to provide public advice on 13 June 2007. There were no appeals against the EPA's decision.
(19-35) The proposal was regulated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum under the relevant petroleum legislation and these questions should be directed to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum.
(36) The EP Act provides that proposals that are likely if implemented to have a significant impact on the environment can be referred to the EPA for it to decide whether to assess the proposal. The Office of the EPA has advised that no current proposals for exploration or development in the Stokes Bay area have been referred to the EPA.
(37-40) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EP Act) and therefore was not assessed by the Authority.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) The EP Act provides that proposals that are likely if implemented to have a significant impact on the environment can be referred to the EPA for it to decide whether to assess the proposal.
(4) Not applicable.
(5-14) The proposal was regulated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum under the relevant petroleum legislation and these questions should be directed to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum.
(15)-(18) The Office of the EPA has advised that a proposal for the Stokes Bay - 01 exploration well which included a causeway and borrow pit was referred to the EPA by the then Department of Industry and Resources pursuant to section 38 of the EP Acton 7 March 2007. The EPA made a decision not to assess the proposal and to provide public advice on 13 June 2007. There were no appeals against the EPA's decision.
(19-35) The proposal was regulated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum under the relevant petroleum legislation and these questions should be directed to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum.
(36) The EP Act provides that proposals that are likely if implemented to have a significant impact on the environment can be referred to the EPA for it to decide whether to assess the proposal. The Office of the EPA has advised that no current proposals for exploration or development in the Stokes Bay area have been referred to the EPA.
(37-40) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.