Why Viva’s bid for a floating gas terminal has been ‘delayed’

The next steps for Viva’s $250m “delayed” floating gas terminal proposal off Refinery Pier have been revealed.

Geelong environmental protesters at Geelong port, protesting an extension to refinery pier for Viva's floating gas terminal.

A fresh inquiry will be launched into Viva’s floating gas terminal proposal after the state government paused the project last week.

State planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny announced she would need more information to make a decision on the $250m liquefied natural gas import terminal plans.

Under the new process Viva Energy will have to undergo a supplementary environmental effects statement process after a committee report determined more information was needed.

In a letter to Viva Energy, Ms Kilkenny requested the energy giant develop a draft study program, which would then be peer reviewed, open for public comment and subject to a further inquiry process.

MP Sonya Kilkenny. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Crosling

Recommendations from the state panel released last week called for a more detailed marine environment assessment, refinement of hydrodynamic modelling, further assessment of dredging impacts on seagrass and its surrounding environment and an updated Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

“There is a balance to be struck between the twin policy objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring Victoria’s energy system is secure, reliable and affordable,” the committee report read.

“The project is one, but not the only, way of meeting Victoria’s future gas demand.”

More than 2000 submissions were made to last year’s Inquiry and Advisory Committee process, raising concerns with safety, emissions and environmental impacts.

While the committee report acknowledged further assessment of risks and safety would be required in time, it was “satisfied that future regulatory processes will ensure that risks are appropriately assessed and can be managed to an acceptable level or (if not) the project will not proceed”.

Viva Energy CEO Scott Wyatt at their Geelong refinery. Picture: Aaron Francis/The Australian

“The safety hazard and risk assessments undertaken to date are appropriate for this stage in the project’s development,” it read.

Viva Energy spokesman Michael Cave confirmed the company was reviewing the report in detail before embarking on work with the Victorian Government.

Last week the company revealed the project was likely to be delayed as a result of the process.

“The company remains confident about the long-term demand profile underpinning the project, given the regulatory forecasts that indicate a need for gas imports to supply Victoria’s natural gas supply in the coming years,” it said in a statement at the time.

Setback for Viva’s Corio Bay floating gas terminal bid

Viva Energy will have to take its bid for a floating gas terminal on Corio Bay back to the state government.

Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny told the Victorian parliament on Wednesday that an additional environmental effects statement – assessing the project’s potential impact – would have to be prepared.

The plan underwent a seven-week state panel process, which drew more than 2000 submissions, in July last year.

The $250m proposal would see the energy giant ship LNG into Corio Bay to a terminal moored on an extension to Refinery Pier.

Residents protesting against the terminal plan. Picture: Mark Wilson

But Ms Kilkenny told the parliament the process may need to be redone.

“I have been left with no choice, and I have sent letters to this effect – I have been left with no choice but to advise Viva that an additional environment effects statement will need to be prepared,” she said.

“It is then up to the proponent whether it wishes to embark on that further environment effects statement, and I will leave that entirely with the proponent in this case.”

The energy giant has long argued the project would create jobs and help fill the state’s projected gas shortage, but neighbours and activists have raised concerns with emissions, environmental impact and potential safety issues.

“When planning is done poorly, it can have a negative impact on those communities through their health and wellbeing,” Ms Kilkenny told the parliament.

Ms Kilkenny told the Geelong Advertiser it would be up to Viva Energy to decide “whether they now choose to pursue a supplementary environment effects statement”.

An ASX statement from Viva Energy confirmed it had received a request for “supplementary information” in relation to the terminal process.

“Specifically, the Minister is seeking additional information with respect to matters relating to the marine environment, air quality, noise, and Aboriginal cultural heritage,” it read.

“Viva Energy is currently assessing the requested supplemental process, together with the report of the independent Advisory Committee (IAC), which will be published shortly.”

The company statement said the decision for the “project is expected to be delayed”.

It argued the state inquiry process had highlighted the “strength” of the proposed location and synergy with the existing refinery site and skilled workforce.

“The company remains confident about the long-term demand profile underpinning the project, given the regulatory forecasts that indicate a need for gas imports to supply Victoria’s natural gas supply in the coming years,” it read.

“Viva Energy will review the supplemental process and the IAC report to determine next steps.”

Geelong Renewables Not Gas campaign spokesman Darcy Dunn said more than 2000 people and organisations had made submissions against the project.

“While we welcome the government’s acknowledgment that Viva Energy’s environment effects statement was flawed, Viva have had their chance,” he said.

“They’ve submitted 10,000 pages of evidence. If they couldn’t get it right the first time, why should the community trust that they will get it right the second time?”

Originally published as Why Viva’s bid for a floating gas terminal has been ‘delayed’