Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline Project

The Gloucester Knitting Nannas Against Gas & Greed are committed to doing everything we can to preserve the land, air and water for future generations, which can only be achieved by the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Whilst the plant is intended to run on hydrogen based fuel, but it is unclear whether this pipeline will be able to accommodate this mix.

We are concerned that should the pipeline fail for any reason, methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, will be leaked into the air.

The potential environmental damage caused during the construction of the pipeline also concerns us :

• the heavy machine compacting soil with subsequent subsidence over the trench
• the clearance of trees and bushland within the construction of the pipeline, with an anticipated 65 ha of native vegetation being disturbed, including four endangered ecological communities.
• once in place it will not be possible to plant any crops or plants that have roots deeper than 900mm
• the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment also anticipated that there will be a significant impact on regent honeyeater and swift parrots, which are both critically endangered, and also on koalas and grey-head flying foxes, which are listed as endangered.

For the future of the planet we need to put a stop approving new fossil fuel projects, including this pipeline.

I object to the creation of this pipeline which will provide the required infrastructure for the development of the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station.
My reasons for this objection are largely related to the need to immediately halt climate change. Whilst gas emits less carbon dioxide than coal, it remains a fossil fuel, contributing to climate change & it’s deleterious effects.
Renewables such as wind, solar & batteries need to be immediately utilised as an alternative means of energy supply.
Please decline this pipeline proposal.

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Kurri Kurri lateral pipeline. The pipeline is to feed the proposed Kurri Kurri Gas Power plant, which is only intended to be in operation 2% of the time, and is not needed to meet the emergency requirements for electricity supply when Liddell closes in 2023. The Colongra Gas Plant on the Central Coast already exists and was only used for 0.95% of the time in 2020. Gas is a fossil fuel and we as a country need to be using renewable energy if we are to survive the climate crisis that already exists. Neither the pipeline nor the Power Plant make economic or environmental sense.

See attached

I wish to oppose the Kurri Kurri Power Station Lateral Pipeline Project.
I previously registered my opposition to the Kurri Kurri Gas/Diesel Power Station on 10 June 2021 and wish to re-submit those reasons as they are all relevant for the lateral pipeline project.
Additionally, there are four aspects that I wish to highlight:
i) the Power Station is not needed in 2023 as claimed, and hence nor is the lateral and storage
ii) the Station will not be ‘hydrogen-ready’ as claimed. In fact Snowy Hydro has instructed APA to not build the storage pipeline to be able to store hydrogen blended fuel. If the government intends to approve the project, then a condition of approval must be that the lateral and storage are built to ensure they are hydrogen-ready, in accordance with Snowy Hydro’s claims and the various Commonwealth and NSW government hydrogen policies
iii) the Station cannot run continuously on gas (10 hours maximum) and therefore will be incapable of performing the normal continuous dispatch function of a gas power station
iv) with the cost of the lateral now being revealed (together with other excluded costs), the cost of the project has almost doubled from the initial estimate ($610m), making it even more uneconomic and a waste of taxpayer funds
For these reasons the project should be rejected.
I have attached a detailed submission.

Please refer to the attached document

Aurizon response attached.

I live close to Kurri Kurri and I would love to see better employment opportunities in the area however this pipeline and the Hunter Power Plant are not a sensible way to achieve this.
I oppose the pipeline on many grounds.
The EIS is based on an operational life of 30 years but even under this government’s inadequate target of net zero by 2050 the operational life will need to be shorter. In reality now is not the time to be building new fossil fuel infrastructure which will only make us more reliant on fossil fuels not less.
The claim that the gas plant will reduce emissions is based on a comparison with the output from the aging Liddell power station. This is obviously a false comparison. The clear alternative is large scale battery storage which would be cheaper, cleaner, less disruptive to the environment and surrounding land users but critically would produce far fewer emissions. It would be able to match the 10 hours of backup on offer from the HPP and would be able to respond to demand fluctuations much quicker.
Despite media claims about being “hydrogen ready” the EIS makes it clear that the proposed storage pipeline will not be able to store hydrogen blended fuel at all. If HPP is ever to run on even the tiniest proportion of hydrogen this storage facility will need to be upgraded, an enormously expensive undertaking!
The proposed supply line bringing gas under pressure from Newcastle passes through several mine subsidence areas. This large volume of gas will then be stored close to residential areas. Both aspects seem to me to present unnecessary risks to the local population.
The HPP will cost at least $610 million. The pipeline will cost APA at least another $264 million which will inevitably add to the cost of gas supplied to HPP. This adds up to a colossal misuse of taxpayer’s money.
I am aware that construction of the HPP has begun but even at this late stage it is not inevitable that the pipeline is approved. It should not be rubberstamped just because the HPP already has approval.
Thank you for your time.
In hope for the future of all of us.
Lynn Benn

Please find attached a submission objecting to the Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline Project.

The proposed pipeline is unnecessary because the Kurri Kurri gas fired power station is unnecessary. By the time the power station is completed and operational, that's if it is actually built, it is expected that renewable power projects plus battery storage will make the power station unviable. Further, this gas fired project is against all the science saying no new coal or gas fired power generation should be constructed. I object to the proposed Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline Project.

My name is Alexa Stuart I live in Lambton and I strongly object to the Kurri Kurri Lateral pipeline.

I have been closely following the Kurri Kurri gas plant since it’s proposal last year and have been strongly against the project since then. The gas plant is unnecessary, many experts (including AEMO) have said that it isn’t needed and will cause power prices to increase rather than decrease as promise. It is also a fossil fuel plant which will emit millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its life, which will further fuel climate change. We are at a critical point in history where we need to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to renewable energy rather than continuing to build more polluting fossil fuel plants.

The singular justification for this fossil fuel plant is that it facilitates the Kurri Kurri gas plant, however I strongly believe that neither the gas plant nor the pipeline is necessary or should be built.

My primary concern after reading the EIS is that the storage pipeline has no capacity to hold a hydrogen blended fuel. This is despite clear statements from Snowy Hydro executives that the plant will be able to be run on a hydrogen blended fuel from when it is operational. It is clear that in the future the gas plant will run on hydrogen (even in the pipeline EIS it recongnises the importance of this by ensuring that the transmission pipeline can hold a hydrogen blended fuel) so it would make far more sense and be far more economical to build a storage pipeline that can carry a hydrogen blended fuel rather than having to rebuild the pipeline in a few years. Even on Snowy hydro’s website is says that the plant “will be capable of running initially on up to 10% hydrogen” however we know that this is not true as the pipeline EIS states “the storage pipeline will not be built to specifications that would enable it to store hydrogen blended fuel.”

Another major concern that I have with the project is that it will clear habitat of the regent honeyeater. Whilst I acknowledge that the amount of land being cleared is not very large, it is still incredibly concerning given that the regent honey eater is critically endangered. When projects like these continue to be approved the habitat is incrementally destroyed which has a very big impact on the chance of survival of this species. We should be protecting it’s habitat rather than destroying it.

There are a multitude of reasons why this project should not go ahead and I hope you consider carefully the objections to the project.

See attachment.

To Whom It May Concern,

I object to the approval of this pipeline.

The Kurri Kurri Lateral pipeline is not needed for energy production and is purely a political stunt to catch votes. It is dated technology which will significantly impact the climate crisis. There are very few jobs that will be created and it is not guaranteed that they will be local jobs, more likely people from outside the Kurri Kurri township. The environmental impact on the surrounding area will be significant, especially considering that gas extraction is just as high in emissions as coal production. Add to this the fact that the plant will run on diesel for much of the time, all at a huge cost to the Hunter community, at a time when many people cannot even afford basic medical care - that is if you can even get an appointment. The future has no room for fossil fuels - renewables are cheaper, cleaner and are able to be built more quickly than this monstrosity.

This project is a sad indictment on the priorities of our politicians, not what is needed by their constituents.

Regards,

Meg Bowman

I object to the pipeline for at least 3 reasons:
1. The pipeline will connect Narrabri to Kurri Kurri through valuable farmland which is needed to produce food and will be badly damaged by the construction
2. The proposed pipeline is being put forward as a future hydrogen pipeline. Experts tell us that hydrogen is dangerous and unstable and not suitable for transport in a traditional gas pipeline. Wooly notions of gas come green hydrogen do not stack up. Gas is a fossil fuel and Australia needs to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels not increase the usage. Green hydrogen only has a use where the high cost, danger and wastefulness of the product is mitigated by the value of the end product. This is not the case in the Kurri Kurri plant.
3. Renewable technology is progressing fast, is cheap to produce and clean and it makes a white elephant of power plants such as the proposed Kurri Kurri plant before its built.

The Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline (KKLP) is not a useful longterm investment. It is 24 Kms of steel pipe, 1 m. through, holding gas under pressure, to be buried nearly a meter under soil. It will create uneven surfaces, & will be prone to washout of soil around it, making harvesting crops with machinery difficult. It will need to be monitored for safety for leaks, especially where it connects to narrower pipes leading to the compressor station. It will have a 50m wide 'footprint'over the land. Snowy Hydro will pay annually to lease it, a waste of our taxpayer money.
We need to move rapidly to renewable-source electricity and get off highly polluting carbon-creating gas projects, including these support projects for gas. Kurri Kurri and this pipeline will fast become expensive stranded assets, a white elephant we can do without.
Do not approve this project.
Janet Thompson

Please refer to the attached submission.

See the attachment for my objection.

Please see attached submission objecting to the Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline Project

The Kurri Kurri lateral pipeline should NOT be constructed.

Climate experts around the world have stated that we need to get out fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, so no gas plant and even less gas pipeline should be build. As voters around Australia are more and more concerned by Climate change, making it their top voting priority - please refer to the ABC Vote Compass 2022, I am confident ministers and the Planning minister of NSW will take the right decision and won't go ahead with this project which will be an ecological disaster.

This project will cost the community more than it will benefit on the long term. Considering the government emission reduction target by 2050, the kurri kurri plant will need to be stopped before the planned 30 years to achieve those targets . We should be transitioning to renewable energies and create hundreds of jobs NOW.

Also, it is unfair to landowners upon which land the pipeline will be constructed - their land will have less value and it will be cleared from tree - that sequester carbon - and any vegetation. This will significantly negatively impact the fauna in those areas, including already endangered honey eater birds, swift parrots and koalas.