Environment Victoria, Geelong Renewables Not Gas and a marine scientist have warned that an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) released by Dutch multinational oil and gas company Vopak is riddled with factual errors and not fit for purpose.
The company is seeking environmental approval for its plans to bring liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers into Port Phillip Bay and operate a floating regasification plant 19 kilometres from Avalon.
Key problems identified with Vopak’s EES include:
Vopak’s marine assessment is incomplete and misleading:
A review by Dr Matt Edmunds of Australian Marine Ecology found that Vopak’s marine assessment is incomplete and misleading. The EES spent 110 pages assessing species like whales and turtles that don’t meaningfully live in Port Phillip Bay, while failing to properly assess threatened species that do, like the southern hooded shrimp and school shark. There were also basic errors in the fieldwork, including misclassification of scallops and seaweed. Most alarmingly, the discharge of potentially toxic substances directly onto the Bay floor was not assessed at all.
Vopak quietly abandoned its renewable energy commitment:
In 2022, Vopak’s own proposal committed to powering the terminal with 100% renewable energy. That commitment has since disappeared without explanation. Electricity now accounts for 82% of the project’s operational emissions, emissions that would have been zero under the original plan. Shipping emissions have also been underestimated by approximately half, with fugitive methane from LNG tankers appearing to have been ignored entirely.
Threatened grasslands and protected wetlands are at risk:
The pipeline would run through 443 hectares of internationally protected Ramsar wetlands and destroy or damage 3.5 hectares of critically endangered grassland. Vopak did not survey for threatened bird species like the Australian Painted Snipe or Hooded Plover before assigning impact ratings, and has not established whether construction overlaps with the arrival of migratory shorebirds, a basic question that should have been answered before the EES was submitted.
Safety assessment is incomplete:
The risk management plan for this project does not yet appear to exist. Vopak’s own report acknowledges it is yet to be developed and the project remains at concept stage only. Despite this, the same report claims all relevant hazards have already been addressed. Gas is odourless during shipment and transit through the Bay, yet Vopak has not explained how an odourless leak would be detected or managed in waters used daily by recreational boaters, swimmers and fishers.
Doctor Matt Edmunds, author of Vopak EES review from Australian Marine Ecology, said:
“The EES study was not done in accordance with scientific discipline. The study did not assess ecosystem-level impacts, or combined, cumulative impacts with other disturbances.”
“The EES did not include considerations of toxicant releases and the effects of electromagnetic fields from seabed power cables on migrating school sharks.”
“The proposed environmental management framework was reminiscent of approaches from the 1970s and did not follow modern best practices.”
Lauren Dillon, spokes for Geelong Sustainability, said:
“Our community is exhausted from having to fight off these polluting, destructive gas terminals one after another. First Viva Energy, now Vopak. People around Port Phillip Bay love this place deeply – they fish here, swim here, raise their families here – and they are tired of having to defend it from projects that treat the Bay as an industrial gas corridor.”
“The fact that Vopak has submitted an assessment riddled with errors disrespects this community, the Bay, and the EES process. This proposal cannot be approved as it stands, and we will fight it every step of the way.”
Dr Kat Lucas-Healey, Senior Climate and Energy Advisor at Environment Victoria said:
“This sloppily conceived and opportunistic project will directly link Victorian homes and businesses to the volatile international gas market while also harming Port Phillip Bay. It is a lose-lose for our state. Batteries have already overtaken gas in firming the renewable grid, and they do it at much lower cost.”
“Shipping gas around the world causes massive additional climate pollution – to the extent that it can be as bad as coal. We need to be cutting emissions and shifting to the cheaper, cleaner alternatives that already exist.”
Click here to download Marine Ecology – EES Review by Matt Edmunds