Environmental groups Viva LNG reaction SCT

ENVIRONMENTAL groups have slammed the decision to approve Viva Energy’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal project in Geelong, arguing questions about safety and dredging still need to be answered.

On Friday last week, the Victorian government gave a positive assessment on its Environmental Effects Statement (EES) for the terminal in Corio Bay which would use a vessel known as a floating storage and regasification unit to store and convert LNG back into natural gas, and would see visiting carriers transport LNG from other parts of Australia and overseas into the bay.

Proponents suggest the project will play an important role in mitigating looming gas shortfalls and provide a reliable back-up for renewable energy generation, but it has been opposed for years by environmental groups and local residents, including those who formed a “no gas terminal” sign in February this year.

Viva Energy lodged its original EES with the Victorian government in 2022 but Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny in April 2023 asked for more information in another EES on the project’s potential impacts on marine environment, air quality, noise, and Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Geelong spokesperson Lauren Dillion said Maritime experts, Ports Victoria and energy company Vopak had all flagged the existing Corio Bay shipping channel was too narrow and shallow for most LNG tanker ships and significant dredging could be required.

“This additional dredging isn’t currently part of Viva Energy’s proposal and wasn’t scrutinised in this environmental assessment.

“Only a small dredging footprint was assessed next to the refinery, which ignores all of the likely dredging needed for tanker access.

“This means the community, the regulator, and even the minister have yet to see any assessment of what will happen to the local ecosystem if the shipping channel is deepened for LNG ships.”

Geelong Sustainability spokesperson Jane Spence described the LNG terminal as both “a climate risk” and “an economic gamble that could leave Victorians worse off”.

“This short-term decision has significant negative long-term impacts for our community, our environment and our collective future,” she said.

“We are incredibly disappointed by this outcome in the face of considerable community opposition.”

The terminal could supply in excess of 120 petajoules of gas per year and peak supply of up to 750 terajoules per day.

Construction is expected to take two years but “promises a complete solution to the structural gas shortfalls forecast to impact Victoria from 2028 onwards”, Viva Energy stated.

Viva Energy chief strategy officer Lachlan Pfeiffer said the approval was a significant milestone for Victoria’s energy security.