The Jelimar Development Project - Essay Example

? Case Study: Jelimar Development Project + Case Study: Jelimar Development Project The Jelimar Development Project is one of the natural gas mining activities of Apache Corporation in Carnarvon Basin, offshore Western Australia. The aim of the project is to generate approximately 140 million cubic feet per day of LNG. This natural gas exploitation project has numerous benefits as well as negative effects to the natural environment. The focus of the Jelimar Development Project is to tap the natural gas in the offshore basin of Carnarvon and present it into the oil market. This project dictates that JDP has to conduct natural gas drilling, transportation, as well as refinery of this natural gas for domestic consumption. Environmental Impact of Natural Gases Exploration The natural effects of the JDP are drilling of the natural gas in the sea might lead to water pollution. This would consequently affect the fishes and as well as marine activities. The natural gas is poisonous to marine life thereby calling for standardized methods of drilling and tapping of the natural gas without influencing marine life (Apache Energy). Further, the project area would be out of bound for other marine activities. Arguably, it will seclude the marine activities to occur in other regions out of the demarcated area. A number of technologies used in natural gas exploration involve a technique known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking. This technology involves mixing of dangerous chemicals with large quantities of water and injected into the well at extremely high pressure. The Jelimar Development Project would affect the clean water supply to the surrounding communities where the transportation gas pipeline would cross. The process of laying the gas transportation pipeline will interfere with existing water supply pipeline in the affected area. This interference will result to water pollution. Other than water pollution, natural gas exploration would lead to dangerous air population and destruction of landscape. Air pollution results from the production process of the natural gas. Normally, during production, the exhaust gases are emitted to the sky. This emission has a greenhouse effect to the environment. Elsewhere, the transportation of the natural gas from the offshore production area to the inland might result to water population due to gas leaks as well as land pollution due to the same effect (Haward, 2003 pp. 35). Moreover, the laying of transportation pipes from the offshore production unit to the inland terminals results to destruction of natural environment. The construction company has to remove the over burden before laying the pipes to the ground. Largely, the process would destroy plants on the path of the transportation pipeline. The pollutants released to the water, air, and land has potential health impacts on marine life, plants, and human beings. Scientists have established that natural gas pollutants are likely to pose wide health impacts ranging from headache to asthma and cancer (Lagoni, 2009 pp. 216). In marine life, the pollutants would lead to the death of the aquatic life. Similarly, the pollutants would lead to the death of the plants. Moreover, spill of natural gas into the vegetation would lead to the death of the vegetation cover. Social-economic Benefits of the Project The Jelimar Development Project has numerous social and economic benefits to the Australian community and the rest of the world. First, the natural oil exploration would create employment to the Australian community. This in turn would reduce the number of unemployed subsequently leading to improved life. The Australian society will experience improved living standards because of the income that the community would derive from the project (Gladwin, Kennelly, and Krause, 2005 pp. 880). Further, the project would reduce poverty level because it will affect the unemployed population. Evidently, when the unemployed population acquires employment opportunity, they tend to move to the next social level. This climbing of the social ladder would result to poverty reduction as well as improved living standards. Social delinquency and crime that results from lack of employment is likely to reduce because some of the employed population would decease from criminal and delinquency activities to dedicate their efforts to their new employment. Lack of employment is a recipe of social evils such as crime and prostitution (Goodland and Lodec, 2007 pp. 16). The Australian community is likely to experience reduced number of social crimes and delinquency. Other than the social benefits, the economic benefits of the project include increased GDP. The income that the nation would receive from the natural gas exploration project would not only improve the economic stability of the nation, but would also affect the economic stability of the world. The natural gas exploration often influences the prices of natural gas in the world market. The production of the natural gas would increase the national supply of natural gas consequently affecting the prices of petrochemical products in the market (Davis, Ossowski and Fedelino, 2003 pp. 23). With the expected fall in prices due to the surplus supply of the natural gas to the domestic market, a number of businesses are likely to start booming because of the favorable prices that will attract various investors. Nearly every business depends on natural gas or petrochemical product directly or indirectly. The price change of the natural gas supply in the market often influences the investment in related areas. The overall effect of the natural gas production is positive because it will favor various investments. Commonwealth Law The government legislate the use of land for developmental purposes including the exploitation of natural gas and other minerals. While the law provides that, the developer must meet certain requirements, the development activity lies in the hand on the developer. It follows that the developer must seek license from the authority issuing the same. The exploitation of natural gas and oil must comply with various regulations as provided for by the law (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013 pp. 2). The requirements that developer must meet in relation to exploration of natural gas are industrial pollution and waste control regulation, environmental sustainable practice regulation – this regulation affect the greenhouse emissions, water act- the regulation affect the industrial and chemicals disposed into water, and any other environmental protection activity as provided for in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Development Approval Process The development approval process in depend on the available legislations. The development activities in various part of the world often comply with laws that apply in a specific location as well as the international laws related to the development exercise. Various regulations affected the Jelimar Development Project. These regulations range national legislation to international regulations. The developer had to approach and seek the consent of the interested parties before conducting its activities. Across government, the Commonwealth, states and territories, and local councils have shared responsibility for environment and, result, each level of government maintains suite of environmental legislation and regulatory powers (Voigt, 2009 pp. 21). To begin with, the environmental legislation in the states and territories – the commonwealth government dictates national and international use of flora, fauna, ecological communities, and heritage places as defined in the commonwealth legislation as issues of environmental significance. The responsibility to protect the onshore and offshore environment lies in the hand of the state. The local councils in each state have the power to make environmental plans, assess and approve some developments, investigate and control pollution as well as enforce environmental laws. The regulations as defined in the state legislation seem to apply in the commonwealth government. Under the commonwealth government, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(EPBC Act) applies as a national environmental law. The umbrella body administering this national law is Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations, and Communities (SEWPC). Jelimar Development Project sought the licenses of all the bodies involved. Primarily, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations, and Communities (SEWPC) was responsible for licensing the offshore natural gas exploitation. Moreover, Jelimar Development Project had to meet the requirements of the planning and environment act. Compliance to International Law Jelimar Development Project recognizes the international standards and practice concerning environmental sustainable practices. The international community under the umbrella bodies works in collaboration with the commonwealth government to advance and observe the international standards. The commonly recognized principles in relation to the international standards include conducting development programs that promote human rights concerning health, sustainable development that reflect the needs of the present society as well as the future society, and state sovereignty over natural resources (Hoffman, 2012 p. 5). Largely, the initiation of development projects in a country depends on the approval of that nation. Governments through the umbrella bodies evaluate, monitor, as well as license various developmental activities as much as such activities meet the requirements set by the said government. Environmental Impact Assessment The establishment of the Jelimar Development Project attracted various environmental assessments from governmental institutions as well as international environmental watchdogs. At national level, the project was referred to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The objects of this act include protection of environment to aspects that are significant to national environmental matters, to promote ecologically sustainable practices, and to promote co-operative approach to environmental protection. The requirements of this act dictated that Jelimar Development Project must comply with the set environmental management and utilization practices. Largely, environmental activities that violate the provisions of this act are subject to punishment as provided for by the Australian laws. The respective environmental implementing body in Australia in scrutinized the proposed activities and practices of the Jelimar Development Project in relation to the environmental act and its object. The process of evaluating the activities of the proposed project attracted the views of all the concerned bodies. The arguments presented to the licensing body often dictate the approval or rejection of the project. Normally, the concerns raised against environmental degradation are evaluated to ascertain the exact impacts (damage) that the organizational activity would have on the environment (Winn and Pogutz, 2013 pp. 205). When the impacts are extreme, the environmental body would advise the company appropriately as well as declining the proposal as well. Other than environmental impact assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, Jelimar Development Project had to comply with provisions Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities (DSEWPC). According to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, the activity of corporation in relation to the environment should be sustainable. The need to protect the environment for the future generation is a concern that extends beyond the national boundaries. The commonwealth provisions dictate that the development projects should not only damage the environment, but also engage in sustainable practices (Winn and Pogutz 2013 pp 2007). Further, Jelimar Development Project Rock Bern Support Installation EP complied with Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act (Environment) Regulation 2009 (OPGGS (E)) under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The environmental impact assessment conducted against the Jelimar Development Project reflected the best practice because of the following reasons. First, Jelimar Development Project complied with the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (Ref 2011: 5936). As provided for under this regulation, Jelimar Development Project had to submit a preliminary report that defines report that shows the intention of the company as well as the effects of its activity to the environment. Normally, the environmental assessment body evaluates the possible effects of the corporation’s activities before it commences it drilling exercise. The number of requirements that Jelimar Development Project met prior to its activity seems to suggest that the environmental impact assessment reflected the best practice. The recommended practice by environmental assessment bodies state that the developer must meet the set requirements before commencing its activities (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013 pp. 1). A review of the report submitted to the above environmental protection authorities show that Jelimar Development Project acted within the law before commencing its activities. Impact of the Environment Impact Assessment to Jelimar Development Project The environmental impact assessment process played a critical role in defining the nature of approach that Jelimar Development Project employed in exploiting the natural gas. The environmental laws defined the choice of exploration as well production processes. Normally, companies exploiting gas and oil employ fracking process to drill oil or natural gas, but Jelimar Development Project had to settle for drilling methods that had less impact to the environment. Jelimar Development Project applied Rock Berm Supports Installation EP in order to comply with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Storage Regulation Act 2009. The approval of this activity took place in August 21, 2011. Available literature indicates that various oil exploration companies often apply fracking method to drill natural gas (Sands & Peel, 2012 pp. 43). Nevertheless, literatures concerning impacts of fracking show that the method is hazardous to the environment. Methane is the major component of natural gas and during mining process, about 4 percent of this gas escapes to the atmosphere. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report concerning fracking indicates that this method release a number of contaminants to the atmosphere. Some of these contaminants promote greenhouse effects. Critics show that chemical additives used in drilling the mud have toxins that are dangerous to human health (Alder, 2001 p. 276). Further, fissures created during the fracking process may create underground pathways for gases and other radioactive elements thereby contaminating water. The soil and contamination is also among the potential pollution that would result from the use of fracking process for the offshore natural gas drilling. Usually, the agencies approving licensing developmental activities often evaluate the impacts of the activity against the set requirements. Largely, Jelimar Development Project had to meet all the requirements in order to conduct its natural gas exploration. The impact assessment process did not impose unreasonable delay or financial burden to the project. The project commenced as per the provisions of its calendar. This tends to suggest that Jalimar Development Project met the requirements set by the Commonwealth Government as well as state regulations. Failure to meet the environment regulation requirements would have one or all of the following effects to the project. First, it would delay the commencement date of the project. Second, the arbitration process might require the developer to spend extra cash to foot the financial cost inquired in the legal processes. Third, legal processes are sometime time consuming which might implicate the normal operation of the company as well as its economy proceeds. Developers should design projects which do not only meet the standard requirements, but also sustainable. Environmentally sustainable projects do not only attract accolades of the respective governmental body, but extends to the international community (Robert et. Al, 2002 pp. 204). The marine activities in the Pacific Ocean where the mining activity would take are likely to face the influences of these activities. As stated in the Jelimar Development Project proposal, the natural gas mining activity had direct impact on the fishing, marine transport, as well as some land activities. However, the impact assessment report indicated that the mitigation measures in place are adequate to protect the environment from the effects of the natural gas mining activity. A review of various developmental projects related to the Jelimar Development Project shows that natural gas mining has several environmental impacts as well as social and economic benefits to the immediate society and the rest of the world (Wals, 2007 pp. 24). At the national level the environmental impacts would affects the national environment subsequently influencing climatic or plate tectonic movement. For instance, the crack created on the earth crust during the drilling of the natural gas often creates cracks that lead to earthquakes or release of radioactive chemicals to the earth surface (Lenzen and Murray, 2001 pp. 229). The consequences of such activities are beyond the national boundary. For instance, the seismic waves created by the offshore drilling often cover various kilometers. Thus, during the drilling process, the marine activities in the affected sea would stop for the defined period as stated in the project proposal. The Jelimar Development Project exercised maximum caution in preventing unnecessary interference on the sea as well as the land. The project had a direct effect on the sea transport because the ships cruising through the project area had to seek alternative root. Nevertheless, the process met the set standards including submitting impact reported on the intended activity as well as proposed mitigations for the identified challenges. Critics believe that ascending to the law does not only absolve the developer from legal feuds, but from unwarranted financial burdens (Lenzen, 1999 pp. 263). The proponents of the project would benefit had they carried environmental impact assessment if not mandated by government because such impact assessment are not only applicable to their activities in Australia, but also in other regions of the world. The Apache Corporation is multinational company that runs various projects across the globe. The impact assessment on drilling and producing natural gas in the ocean is crucial to United Nations as well as other international organizations, which influence oil natural gas production (Riedy and Diesendorf, 2003 pp. 126). The drilling of the natural gas, for instance, leads to weakening of the earth crust consequently affecting the occurrence of earthquake (Ally and Pryor, 2007 p. 406). International bodies often demonstrate interest in activities that would affect the stability of the earth crust. Additionally, the anticipated environmental impacts of the projects could extend beyond the borders of Australia. For instance, the infamous oil spill in the gulf coast of Mexico did not only affect United States, but also various countries that use the ocean water for transport and fishing. The protection of endangered species such as shark is an international affair (Houghton, 2008 pp. 283). Arguing from this sense, proponents of this project did not commit any wrong by conducting impact assessment because the result of such assessment would not only affect the activity of the developer in the target country, but extends to the international cycles. Apache Corporation, the company handling Jemilar Development Project, would use the impact assessment report to market its business across the globe. Thus, whereas the government requires the developer to meet certain regulations, compliance report often help developers to acquire international as well as national tenders. Jemilar Development Project benefited because the report shows that its proposed activity met the set national and international standards. Arguably, this company may use such reports to seek similar projects in future. Moreover, the ability of the company to meet the requirements without necessarily flawing the existing environmental laws is a demonstration that the company could execute sustainable environmental activities. In conclusion, the Jelimar Development Project is an offshore natural gas mining in Carnarvon Basin in Australia. This activity has numerous environmental impacts as well as social and economic benefits. The possible environmental impacts of this activity include water pollution due to the effluent emitted to the water consequently contaminating water making it unsuitable for human and marine life. Air pollution would occur due to gases emitted to the atmosphere due to the production of activities that leads to burning of gases. Jelimar Development Project complied with a number of environmental regulations at state, commonwealth government, and international level. Under the Commonwealth Government, Jelimar Development Project had to meet the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Further, the developer met the requirements of the international law as provided for and applied by various umbrella bodies. Bibliography Ally, J. and Pryor, T. 2007, Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 170, Issue 2, Pages 401–411. Lenzen, M. 1999, Total requirements of energy and greenhouse gases for Australian transport, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 265–290. Lagoni, R. 2009, Oil and Gas Deposits Across National Frontiers, American Society of International Law, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 215-243 Riedy, C., & Diesendorf, M. 2003, Financial subsidies to the Australian fossil fuel industry, Energy Policy, Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 125–137. Lenzen, M. and Murray, A. S. 2001, A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia, Ecological Economics, Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 229–255. Houghton, S. D. 2008, Long Distance Commuting: A new Approach to Mining in Australia, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 159, No. 3, pp. 281-290. Alder, J. 2001, Australia's Oceans Policy: Sink or Swim? The Journal of Environment Development, vol. 10 no. 3 266-289. Gladwin, N. T., Kennelly, J. J., and Krause, T. 2005. Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research, ACAD MANAGE REV, vol. 20 no. 4 874-907. Goodland, R. and Lodec, G. 2007, Neoclassical economics and principles of sustainable development, Ecological Modelling, Volume 38, Issues 1–2, Pages 19–46. Robert, H. K, et. al. 2002, Strategic sustainable development — selection, design and synergies of applied tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 197–214. Sands, P. & Peel, J. 2012, Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp37-57. Voigt, C. 2009, Sustainable Development As a Principle of International Law: Resolving Conflicts Between Climate Measures and WTO Law, New York: BRILL, pp24-34. Hoffman, J. 2012, Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana, Geology and Human Health, pp 1-5. Australian Government Department of the Environment. 2013, Heads of agreement on Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for the Environment. Wals, J, E. 2007, Social Learning Towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis, Sydney: Wageningen Academic Pub. Pp24-34. Winn, I. M. and Pogutz, S. 2013, Business, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity, New Horizons for Management Research. Organization Environment, vol. 26 no. 2, 203-229. Starik, M. and Kanashiro, P., 2013, Toward a Theory of Sustainability Management, Uncovering and Integrating the Nearly Obvious, Organization Environment, vol. 26 no. 1, 7-30. Davis, M. J., Ossowski, R. & Fedelino, A. 2003, Fiscal Policy Formulation and Implementation in Oil-producing Countries, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Apache Energy, Julimar Development Project Rock Berm Supports Installation Environment Plan Summary, Apache Energy, Julimar Development Project Installation Pre?works Environment Plan Summary, < Accessed 29, Nov 2013 http://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/epsummaries/EP-Summary-Julimar-Devt-Project-Preworks.pdf> Apache Energy, Brunello Topholes (Bru-A-2,3,4,5) Environment Plan Summary, Accessed 29, Nov 2013 http://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/epsummaries/EP-Summary-Brunello-Topholes-EP-Summary.pdf > Haward, MG, 2003, The ocean and marine realm, In: Managing Australias Environment, The Federation Press, S Dovers & Su Wild River (ed), Leichhardt, NSW, pp. 35-52. ISBN 1-86287-447-6. Read More