❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Woodside Pluto LNG plant's flaring emissions and environmental impact, with the Minister's response addressing concerns about the size and visibility of the flare, CO2e output, and adherence to environmental commitments.
AnsweredQoN 5458Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to the development of the Woodside Pluto LNG plant on the Burrup Peninsular, the documents:
Bulletin number 1259
and parts 5 and 5.1
Atmospheric Emissions and Pollutants of Woodside's Environmental assessment
and photographs contained in '2012-04-21 Pluto Flare.pdf' located at
http://www.robinchapple.com/qdata
-
(1) Was it anticipated that the flare output of this single train facility would be multiple times larger than that of the adjacent North West Shelf Joint Venture?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), why did the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) not regulate to constrain the output?
(4) What were the commitments given by Woodside to the EPA as part of the assessment process in respect of flaring, light impacts and emissions?
(5) Is the answer to (4) consistent with commitments given under the above documents?
(6) What is the current CO2e output of this flare?
(7) If the EPA is unaware of the CO2e output of this aspect of the facility, will they establish what it is?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Was it anticipated that this flare would be visible from as far away as 60 kilometres?
(10) If yes to (9), why was the flare allowed to be constructed and operate in this manner?
(11) If no to (9), what happened within the evaluation process that allowed this to occur?
Bulletin number 1259
and parts 5 and 5.1
Atmospheric Emissions and Pollutants of Woodside's Environmental assessment
and photographs contained in '2012-04-21 Pluto Flare.pdf' located at
http://www.robinchapple.com/qdata
-
(1) Was it anticipated that the flare output of this single train facility would be multiple times larger than that of the adjacent North West Shelf Joint Venture?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), why did the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) not regulate to constrain the output?
(4) What were the commitments given by Woodside to the EPA as part of the assessment process in respect of flaring, light impacts and emissions?
(5) Is the answer to (4) consistent with commitments given under the above documents?
(6) What is the current CO2e output of this flare?
(7) If the EPA is unaware of the CO2e output of this aspect of the facility, will they establish what it is?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Was it anticipated that this flare would be visible from as far away as 60 kilometres?
(10) If yes to (9), why was the flare allowed to be constructed and operate in this manner?
(11) If no to (9), what happened within the evaluation process that allowed this to occur?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 June 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
42 days
(1)-(3) The view that the Woodside Pluto flare is multiple times larger than the adjacent North West Shelf Joint Venture flare is incorrect. The design basis for the Pluto plant is that there will be no operational flaring. A liquefied natural gas plant requires a flare for safety reasons and, during commissioning, startup, shutdown, ship cooling and emergency situations, flaring is necessary. The recent intense flaring at the Pluto plant is associated with commissioning of the first liquefied natural gas train. This commissioning phase is being regulated by the Department of Environment and Conservation and is being conducted in accordance with a Works Approval issued under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
. Flaring will continue for several more months, but at a significantly reduced rate, until all equipment has been commissioned at the plant.
(4) Woodside stated in the Public Environmental Review that the design basis for the Pluto plant would be no operational flaring.
(5) Yes
(6) Averaged over the first 20 years, the flare is expected to contribute about 65 000 tonnes per annum, or around 2% of the total emissions, of carbon dioxide equivalent from the Pluto plant.
(7)-(8) Not applicable
(9) During the situations when flaring is required, the flare was expected to be highly visible.
(10) Once the plant is in operation, flaring will only be required during shutdown, restart, ship cooling and emergency situations. These short periods of flaring would be comparable to those at the adjacent North West Shelf Joint Venture plant.
(11) 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
. Flaring will continue for several more months, but at a significantly reduced rate, until all equipment has been commissioned at the plant.
(4) Woodside stated in the Public Environmental Review that the design basis for the Pluto plant would be no operational flaring.
(5) Yes
(6) Averaged over the first 20 years, the flare is expected to contribute about 65 000 tonnes per annum, or around 2% of the total emissions, of carbon dioxide equivalent from the Pluto plant.
(7)-(8) Not applicable
(9) During the situations when flaring is required, the flare was expected to be highly visible.
(10) Once the plant is in operation, flaring will only be required during shutdown, restart, ship cooling and emergency situations. These short periods of flaring would be comparable to those at the adjacent North West Shelf Joint Venture plant.
(11) 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.