Callide Infrastructure Corridor Study Investigation Report fileThe Queensland LNG industry, centred...

Callide Infrastructure Corridor Study

Investigation Report

FINAL | AUGUST 2009

The following document was prepared by RLMS

On behalf of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning

RLMS (Resource and Land Management Services) is an independent consultancy

established in 1990, focusing on the energy, transport, communications and

exploration sectors Australia wide. RLMS specialises in tenure management, land

negotiation and acquisition, route corridor selection, environmental approvals,

mapping, and gas market analysis.

Page i

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDuring the 2009 State Election, Premier Anna Bligh committed to securing a land corridor for a gas ‘super-highway’ which will accommodate gas pipelines transporting Coal Seam Gas (CSG) to the western boundary of the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA) for processing into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The commitment was to acquire a 200m wide corridor between Callide and the GSDA.

The Queensland LNG industry, centred on CSG reserves in the Surat and Bowen basins, has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the Warrego/Maranoa and Central Coalfields regions and Gladstone. It is a multi-billion dollar export industry.As a new industry for Queensland, the State Government has been working with the proponents to establish an appropriate planning regime, including establishing pipeline corridors in the Gladstone region.

The purpose of this investigation is to define a multi-user Callide Infrastructure Corridor (CIC) in sufficient detail to enable the State Government to commence securing the land. Potential route options were developed using a staged approach as follows:

1. Desktop studies and constraints mapping of the Investigations Study Area. Constraints on the design and construction of gas pipelines were developed from corridor selection criteria including:

Maximise potential for co-location of pipelines into corridor

Maximise ease of access for construction and operations

Minimise construction constraints such as significant slopes, multiple bends, soil stability and erodability, extent of rock, number of watercourse crossings, working in third party easements

Minimise disturbance to existing landholders and land use

Minimise disturbance to areas of known ecological and heritage value

Minimise corridor length;

2. Broad field reconnaissance;

3. Discussions with potential users of the CIC and development of corridor route options;

4. Landholder engagement and field refinement of short-listed options; and

5. Selection of preferred route option.

The preferred CIC (Revision G) commences in the Calliope Range and has a main corridor 44km in length. The western lateral corridor is 5.1km long and joins the main CIC approximately 4km from its start. The bifurcation at the start of the CIC is necessary to accommodate the differing routes the potential users of the CIC are expected to take through the Callide and Calliope Ranges. The Callide Range in particular presented a challenge to co-location of gas pipelines due to significant terrain and construction constraints and was not included in the preferred CIC.

Approximately 90% of the CIC tracks through freehold properties, with the remainder consisting of two leasehold properties, one camping and water reserve, 17 road reserve crossings and four drainage reserve crossings.

Recommendations for the management of the CIC are provided including provision of access to the corridor during construction and operations, timing of construction activities, and environmental considerations such as weed management.

Page ii


1. Introduction ............................................................................. 11.1 Background .......................................................................................11.2 Purpose of the investigation ..............................................................1

2. Infrastructure Corridor Context ................................................ 32.1.1 Background........................................................................................ 32.1.2 Proposed Gas Hub for LNG CSG....................................................... 42.1.3 Strategic pipeline corridor................................................................... 52.1.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Traversing the Callide Range ............................................................62.2.1 Broad corridor investigation of the Callide Range............................... 62.2.2 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 6

2.3 Infrastructure corridors in the GSDA..................................................62.3.1 Review of Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor ................................... 62.3.2 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 7

3. Methodology of the Corridor Investigation ...............................83.1 Government objectives......................................................................83.2 Route options ....................................................................................93.3 Data sources ...................................................................................103.4 Limitations .......................................................................................11

4. Corridor Parameters.............................................................. 124.1 Corridor selection criteria.................................................................124.2 Constraints to selecting a corridor route ..........................................134.3 Landholders and land use ...............................................................134.4 Potential corridor users....................................................................13

5. Corridor Options.................................................................... 165.1 Identification of broad corridor options.............................................16

5.1.1 Scope............................................................................................... 165.1.2 Broad corridor options...................................................................... 16

5.2 Assessment of broad route options .................................................175.3 Further investigations on short listed options...................................21

5.3.1 Route investigation in the Callide Range.......................................... 215.3.2 Refinement of the Preliminary CIC ................................................... 21

5.5 Refinement of corridor route with constructability assessment ........256. Recommended Corridor ........................................................ 26

6.1 Key statistics of recommended CIC route........................................266.2 Detailed description of recommended CIC route .............................28

6.2.1 Bifurcation – KP000 to KP004 and KP000L to KP005L .................... 286.2.2 Calliope River – KP004 to KP018..................................................... 306.2.3 Alarm Creek – KP018 to KP030 ....................................................... 316.2.4 Mount Alma Road – KP030 to KP044 .............................................. 32

7. Corridor Management Issues ................................................ 347.1 Easements/licences within the CIC .................................................347.2 Access to CIC..................................................................................357.3 Timing of construction......................................................................367.4 Reinstatement of corridor ................................................................367.5 Operational activities .......................................................................377.6 Cathodic protection and marker signs .............................................377.7 Environmental management of the corridor.....................................387.8 Cultural heritage management of the corridor .................................39

Page iii


7.9 Summary of corridor management issues .......................................398. References............................................................................ 41Appendix A – Study Area Features and Constraints....................A1

Land .......................................................................................................... A1Tenure.............................................................................................................A1Land use .........................................................................................................A2Regional councils ............................................................................................A2Infrastructure ...................................................................................................A3Native title........................................................................................................A4

Environment .............................................................................................. A5Queensland protected areas ...........................................................................A5Protected vegetation and essential habitat ......................................................A5Regional ecosystems and remnant vegetation ................................................A5Fauna habitat ..................................................................................................A6Weed management .........................................................................................A6Matters of National Environmental Significance...............................................A7

Topography ............................................................................................... A8Geology and soils...................................................................................... A8

Geology...........................................................................................................A8Soils ................................................................................................................A9

Water......................................................................................................... A9Cultural heritage ...................................................................................... A10

Appendix B – CIC route refinement from landholder engagement....................................................................................................B1

Landholder 1 ............................................................................................. B1Landholders 2 and 3.................................................................................. B2Landholder 4 ............................................................................................. B2Landholder 5 ............................................................................................. B3

Appendix C – CIC route refinement from constructability fieldassessment................................................................................ C1Appendix D – Meeting records ................................................... D1

Figure 1-1 Study AreaFigure 2-1 Rationale for Gas Hub and Strategic Pipeline CorridorFigure 3-1 Corridor JustificationFigure 5-1 Broad Corridor OptionsFigure 5-2 Potential Corridor through Callide RangeFigure 5-3A Corridor Revisions 0 to DFigure 5-3B Corridor Revisions 0 to DFigure 5-4A Comparison of Proponents’ Route and Rev D CICFigure 5-4B Comparison of Proponents’ Route and Rev D CICFigure 5-5A Corridor Revisions D to FFigure 5-5B Corridor Revisions D to FFigure 6-1 Preferred CIC (Rev G)Figure 6-2 Bifurcation (KP000-KP004 & KP000L-KP005L)Figure 6-3 Calliope River (KP004-KP018)Figure 6-4 Alarm Creek (KP018-KP030)Figure 6-5 Mount Alma Road (KP030-KP044)Figure 7-1 CIC Access and Crossing Points

Page 1


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundDuring the 2009 State Election, Premier Anna Bligh committed to securing a land corridor for a gas ‘super-highway’ which will accommodate gas pipelines transporting Coal Seam Gas (CSG) to the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA) for processing into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The commitment was to acquire a 200m wide corridor between Callide and the GSDA.

The Queensland LNG industry, centred on CSG reserves in the Surat and Bowen basins, has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the Warrego/Maranoa and Central Coalfields regions and Gladstone. It is a multi-billion dollar export industry.

To date, seven separate LNG projects for the Gladstone region have been publicly announced:

GLNG: Santos and Petronas, maximum capacity 10 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa);

Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG): BG Group, maximum capacity 12 Mtpa;

Australian Pacific LNG (APLNG): Origin and ConocoPhillips, maximum capacity 16 Mtpa;

Gladstone LNG: LNG Ltd, Golar LNG and Arrow Energy, maximum capacity 3 Mtpa;

SUN LNG: Sojitz Corporation, maximum capacity 1 Mtpa;

Southern Cross LNG (SCLNG): Southern Cross LNG Pty Ltd, maximum capacity 3.9 Mtpa; and

Shell Australia LNG Project: Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, maximum capacity 16 Mtpa.

All of these projects are proposed to be located at Gladstone, exporting LNG from the Port of Gladstone. As a new industry for Queensland, the State Government has been working with the proponents over a number of years to establish an appropriate planning regime, including establishing pipeline corridors in the Gladstone region.

1.2 Purpose of the investigationThe purpose of this investigation is to define a multi-user Callide Infrastructure Corridor (CIC) in sufficient detail to enable the State Government to commence securing the land. The CIC would provide a common pipeline corridor between the Calliope Range and the western boundary of the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA).

The Department of Infrastructure and Planning commissioned Resource and Land Management Services (RLMS) to undertake a study of potential route options for the corridor and recommend a preferred CIC, in consultation with the State Government,potential users of the CIC (proponents) and the affected landholders.

The Government defined a potential study area for the CIC based on preferred routes provided by a number of the potential users of the corridor. However, the desktop study and constraints mapping undertaken by RLMS were undertaken for a larger study area (Investigations Study Area) to allow scope for deviations in route options if required (refer to Figure 1-1).

To provide context on the CIC investigation, a broad study was undertaken of the location of the CSG fields being developed in the Surat Basin, the pipeline routes

Page 2


from the gas fields to Callide already proposed, and the potential for co-location of the gas infrastructure to the GSDA. This is described in the next section.

Page 3


2. INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR CONTEXT

2.1 Infrastructure co-location west of the Ranges

2.1.1 Background

Historical development of gas infrastructure in Queensland

The first gas transmission pipeline from the Roma area to Brisbane was commissioned in 1969 to supply conventional gas to Brisbane and regional centres along the route (Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, 2009). Gathering lines brought the gas to a location at Wallumbilla, near Roma, where the water and condensate was removed before being transported in the Roma to Brisbane Pipeline (RBP).

In 1989, the Wallumbilla to Gladstone pipeline (Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP)) commenced operation connecting the Surat Basin gas fields with the gas fields in the Denison Trough to supply industrial customers in Gladstone and Rockhampton. The South West Queensland Gas Pipeline from Ballera to Wallumbilla went into service in 1996 to connect the Cooper Basin to the RBP and the QGP. The development of these gas pipelines, and the necessary gathering lines slowly transformed Wallumbilla into a Gas Hub.

The pipeline from Ballera to Mount Isa was constructed in 1997. It transports gas from the Cooper Basin in south west Queensland to the North West Queensland Mineral Province where gas is supplied to the Mica Creek Power Station, Cannington Mine, Phosphate Hill Mine and a Fertilizer Plant.

In the last five years, a number of CSG fields have been commissioned and connected to the RBP and QGP through the Wallumbilla Gas Hub. The flow of gas in the Ballera to Wallumbilla pipeline has recently been reversed as gas production from the Cooper-Eromanga basins declines and gas produced in the eastern basins increases. This has allowed gas produced in the east to be transported to supply gas markets in the south and east of Australia such as Adelaide and Sydney.

Previous study on Surat to Gladstone infrastructure corridor

In 2008 the Department of Infrastructure and Planning commissioned an assessment of the viability of the Surat Basin Rail (SBR) corridor alignment (proposed by Surat Basin Rail Pty Ltd) as a Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor (MULISC). GHD Pty Ltd completed this assessment and concluded there was no immediate benefit for utilising the SBR as a multi-user corridor to co-locate other infrastructure. The Government then requested GHD to identify a potential alternative alignment for a MULISC from the Surat Basin through to the GSDA. That study was completed in February 2009 and was reviewed as part of this study.

The GHD study report assessed the gas pipeline routes proposed by the LNG proponents from Surat Basin to the Gladstone area. It looked at the potential for this infrastructure to be co-located with each other or an existing infrastructure network. The proposed conceptual routes allowed for division of the project area into three portions:

East of the SBR corridor;

West of the SBR corridor; and

Callide Range through to the western boundary of the GSDA.

Page 4


The GHD study found that there was potential for co-location of pipelines proposed by Arrow Energy, Queensland Gas Company (QGC) and Origin Energy into a multi-user corridor tracking east of the SBR corridor from a location north of Miles to south of the Callide Range. It was identified that a multi-user corridor could assist in minimising impacts to landholders who have already been subjected to negotiations from one or more proponents.

The Santos pipeline is proposed to run north through Santos owned tenements, then generally co-locate with the existing QGP through the Callide Range. This is currently the only pipeline proposed for west of the SBR corridor.

The GHD study identified that it was unlikely that gas pipelines could be co-located through the Callide and Calliope Ranges due to engineering and geographical constraints. However, north east of the ranges, it reports an opportunity exists to converge the pipeline separation, as the pipelines follow very similar routes, and co-locate them adjacent to the existing QGP easement.

An alternative proposal by Jemena is described in the GHD study. The Gas to Gladstone Pipeline (GTGP) is proposed to be owned and operated by Jemena as a multi-user gas pipeline. It would commence to the west of Dalby, tracking in a north westerly direction to pick up gas from tenements owned by Santos, Origin Energy, Arrow Energy and QGC and then follow the same route as the QGP to Gladstone. GHD concluded that for a number of reasons, it is unlikely that the LNG proponents would accept the proposal by Jemena and would proceed with progressing their own routes.

In summary, the GHD study concluded that there is opportunity to create a multi-user corridor as a mechanism for aiding co-location of the proposed gas for LNG infrastructure east of the SBR and from the Callide Range to the western boundary of the GSDA. It recommended widths of any corridor should provide flexibility for accommodating future infrastructure development.

2.1.2 Proposed Gas Hub for LNG CSG

Issues that have been identified from the rapid development of the CSG fields, proposed pipelines to Gladstone, and the export of CSG as LNG include the following:

Increased social impact from the construction and operation of up to four new gas pipelines, with potential to expand to eight pipelines;

Combined impact on future mining and the sterilisation of mineral resources and farming land;

Small explorers and operators of CSG acreage are sometimes hindered by decisions and actions of the larger operations such as dealings with landholders and government regulators; and

Domestic access to gas supplies could potentially become restricted.

In an attempt to reduce impacts from the development planned for the Surat/Bowen Basins and to facilitate good planning practice, the State Government sees merit in the co-location of infrastructure. As demonstrated at Wallumbilla, the establishment of a gas hub could be considered for CSG transported to Gladstone. An indicative investigation area between Taroom and Wandoan has been nominated as this presents the best location to aggregate gathering lines to collect CSG from the surrounding producing fields (refer to Figure 2-1). A gas hub in this location has the following advantages:

Strategically selected to provide a central location for all producing fields. The location would have to be planned to cater for long term production of CSG.

Page 5


New gas hub can be linked to the Wallumbilla Hub which provides access to South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian markets.

There is good access to road, rail, water, and power in this location which will better facilitate construction activities and provide a location for localised industry using natural gas such as fertilizer production.

Reduced impact on agricultural activities and landholders in general.

Co-location of gas facilities into a hub could reduce the number of landholders and other third parties that may be subject to greater influencefrom gas infrastructure.

May address single party monopoly issues and can provide open access to all operators depending on who owns and operates the facility.

State Government control of development of the hub minimises activities that have occurred at Wallumbilla such as purchase of land by entities with the objective of blocking others access.

Could provide infrastructure to bring in developing CSG from New South Wales, rather than it heading south.

In contrast, potential disadvantages of a gas hub in this location include the following:

Total pipeline length may be longer for some proponents than others.

Proposed Nathan Dam site is a constraint to optimising a route through to the Callide Range.

Standardised gas specifications not favoured by proponents of LNG facilities.

Timing may not suit all proponents.

Most of the existing pipeline route work and consultation is negated.

Affected landholders could have up to eight pipelines and other facilities on their land rather than one or two.

2.1.3 Strategic pipeline corridor

The establishment of a gas hub in the Taroom/Wandoan area then allows a strategic gas pipeline corridor to Gladstone to be nominated which provides the following:

Reduces the sterilisation of resources and land;

Allows better control of environmental and social impacts with a combined easement/corridor area;

Reduces potential damages to pipe from third party interference;

Reduced risk to third parties.

The issues of co-location of gas pipelines in this area have been adequately addressed in the second report from GHD and are summarised in section 2.1.1above.

2.1.4 Conclusion

In this area, the disadvantages outweigh the potential advantages of a new gas hub and strategic gas corridor. The proponents would find great difficulties in switching to a common corridor in this area at this late date as they have expended much time and considerable money on their existing pipeline alignments. Most proponents have or are very close to submitting their Environmental Impacts Statements and would find the delay of a change to a new corridor untenable.

Page 6


2.2 Traversing the Callide Range

2.2.1 Broad corridor investigation of the Callide Range

During the preliminary field investigation, it was evident that due to the terrain constraints through the Callide Range, the constructability of all proposed pipelines would be reduced as a result of the characteristics of the pipe and its inability to bend at large angles to follow contours. Therefore, to co-locate two or more proponents within a narrow corridor through the range would be extremely difficult.

There is potential for the pipeline routes selected by proponents to overlap and cross at times as each proponent selects their best route through the ranges. The preliminary investigation of the Callide Range undertaken for this study identified a corridor for more than two pipelines that is over 3km wide to accommodate the construction difficulties. A corridor of this width is considered impractical as it would have four differing routes of 50 metres wide within it.

2.2.2 Conclusion

It was agreed this study would focus on refining an infrastructure corridor route from the Calliope Range through to the western boundary of the GSDA. The Callide Range portion would not be included at this stage, however, if the proponents experience significant issues through the Callide Range, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is prepared to revisit and refine the preliminary scoping work already completed.

2.3 Infrastructure corridors in the GSDA

2.3.1 Review of Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor

Connell Wagner (now Aurecon) has been assisting the State Government with infrastructure issues within the GSDA. Most recently they have undertaken the Gladstone Land, Port, Rail and Road Infrastructure Study. One of the key drivers of Stage 2 of the study was the progression of projects to be located within the GSDA that needed access to infrastructure. Most notable were the LNG Proposals for Curtis Island.

Issues arising during Connell Wagner’s investigations into the Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor included the following:

Potential development on Curtis Island;

Potential infrastructure within the Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor;

Crossing locations from mainland to Curtis Island;

Connectivity of infrastructure corridor with existing infrastructure; and

Land use constraints such as oil shale resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and port development plans.

In relation to the proposed gas pipelines that may utilise the CIC, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning requested RLMS to review route options for a pipeline corridor connecting with the CIC, tracking through the GSDA, across the Narrows and over to the LNG Precinct on Curtis Island. RLMS worked in consultation with Aurecon to ensure that industrial land, residue storage areas and other infrastructure corridors already identified within the GSDA are not compromised by any new route options. The objective was to ensure a multi-user gas pipeline corridor was practical from the eastern side of the Callide Range, through the GSDA, to the LNG precinct on Curtis Island.

Concurrent to this, QER Limited, proponents of the Stuart Oil Shale Project, presented the State Government with a proposal which would allow infrastructure to

Page 7


cross the Stuart oil shale resource. The proposal minimised the volume of ore that would be sterilised by providing an infrastructure route through the resource, between two open pits.

The route options identified by Aurecon were able to be refined and a preferred route for the gas pipelines through the GSDA, across the oil shale resource, and over the Narrows to Curtis Island was developed.

2.3.2 Conclusion

A preliminary field review of the preferred route for the gas pipelines through the GSDA has been undertaken. Further consultation with proponents on their proposed method of construction across the Narrows is currently underway. In addition, advice is being sought from relevant State agencies on minimising potential impacts from construction of the gas pipelines. The investigation, methodology, route options considered, and results of consultation will be presented in a separate report to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning.

Page 8


3. METHODOLOGY OF THE CORRIDOR INVESTIGATION

3.1 Government objectivesGiven the number of LNG projects proposed for the Gladstone area, the State Government has recognised there is potential for cumulative impacts to occur, particularly to landholders. The Government has set up the LNG Industry Unit within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to coordinate planning requirements inthe Gladstone region such as shipping and dredging of the Port of Gladstone. The LNG Industry Unit also facilitates working groups consisting of representatives of State Agencies, LNG project proponents, landholders, and other stakeholders to deal with all aspects of the development of the LNG industry, such as impacts from water produced during development of the CSG gas fields.

The proposed routes for the pipelines transporting the CSG to the LNG facility sites converge on Gladstone from various areas between the Surat Basin and southern Bowen Basin (refer to Figure 3-1).

The State Government sees merit in the co-location of infrastructure. As such, in 2008, it commissioned the Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-user Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor (MULISC) Investigation. That investigation found that co-locating gas pipelines with rail and power was not recommended as the induced current into the pipeline from the power lines and the varying current induction from rail line as electrified trains pass may have a negative impact on the pipeline’s cathodic protection system. It also concluded the Surat Basin rail line route was an indirect option for gas pipelines from the Surat Basin to Gladstone.

The second phase of the MULISC Investigation concluded there was opportunity for the QCLNG pipeline and SGP to co-locate and similarly opportunity for the GLNG pipeline and existing Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP) to co-locate. It found that most of the proposed gas pipelines were coming within a few kilometers of each other over the Callide Range and through the Calliope River flood plain to Gladstone and there was an opportunity for all identified pipelines to co-locate adjacent to the existing QGP.

As a result of the MULISC investigations, the State Government accepted the benefits of managing a corridor for the multiple pipelines and commissioned this study to investigate a common route from the Callide Range to the GSDA. This study also provides a strategic assessment of the potential for co-locating the gas pipelines into a common corridor from the gas fields in the Surat and Surat/Bowen Basins north to Callide. This assessment is described in Section 2.

This study recommends a preferred route for the CIC and provides comment on how the pipelines coming from the south and west will connect to the CIC and the connection of the CIC into the GSDA.

In summary, the objectives of the Government in providing the CIC include:

Less disruption to landholders in both planning and construction phases of pipelines for the LNG projects;

Less segregation of land parcels and less impact on productivity of land; and

Fewer disturbances to areas of ecological and cultural value.

Page 9


3.2 Route optionsA staged approach was used to determine potential route options for the multi-user gas pipeline corridor between Callide and Gladstone. These stages were:

Desktop studies and constraints mapping;

Broad field reconnaissance;

Discussions with proponents and development of potential route options;

Landholder engagement and field refinement; and

Selection of preferred route option.

Desktop studies were carried out on the Investigations Study Area defined in Figure 1-1. Constraints to the design and construction of the proposed gas pipelines were identified and mapped including:

Topography;

Environmental constraints (e.g. Queensland protected estate, such as national parks and state forests; endangered and of concern regional ecosystems; and essential habitat);

Third party infrastructure;

Land tenure and land use constraints;

Mining and petroleum tenure; and

Geology and soils.

A number of broad route options were developed at desktop level and investigated further during the field reconnaissance stage. The constraints mapping was used during the broad field reconnaissance to indicate areas to avoid, or areas that needed to be investigated further. The field reconnaissance was undertaken from 11 to 14 May 2009. No private land was accessed during this field review. The field work concentrated on the Callide Range as this was where most of the constraints existed. A preliminary corridor route was determined in the field (Revision 0).

Assembled data was displayed on constraint maps for the relevant preliminary corridor and meetings were held with gas pipeline proponents who would potentially use the corridor to review the preliminary corridor.

Following the meeting with proponents a revised corridor route was mapped (Revision A) and a more detailed field review was undertaken on 26 May 2009 to consider issues associated with the major watercourse crossings and crossings of third party infrastructure.

A preferred corridor route was selected (Revision B) and presented to:

The Department of Infrastructure and Planning;

A meeting of relevant State Government Agencies; and

A joint meeting of potential corridor users.

Revision C adjusted the width of the corridor at relevant locations to accommodate construction needs. The current proponents worked together to agree on a proposed corridor that was presented on 19 July 2009 for consideration by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Revision D incorporated those elements of the potential users proposed corridor considered satisfactory.

The Revision D route was subject to review after landholder engagement(undertaken in the week commencing 6 July 2009) during which information on land use, location of owner infrastructure and any proposed future land use was provided by the landholders. A number of route deviations were considered. Revision F of the

Page 10


CIC was subject to a constructability field assessment on 17 and 18 August 2009with representatives from all proponents. Small refinements to the CIC were made and the preferred route (Revision G) was finalised on 19 August 2009.

Appendix D provides a record of all meetings held with respect to this study.

3.3 Data sourcesThe primary sources of digital data for the desktop review, GIS mapping and corridor recommendations include:

Department of Infrastructure and Planning:

Broadhectare Study, 2008;

Good Quality Agricultural Land, date unknown;

Dawson Highway upgrade alignment, date unknown;

Electricity transmission network (Ergon, Powerlink), date unknown;

Land use, 2004;

Bushfire risk areas, 2009;

Queensland Heritage Register places, 2009;

Registered and notified Indigenous Land Use Agreements, 2009;

Department of Environment and Resource Management:

Digital Cadastral Database, 2009;

1:25,000 contours (10m interval), date unknown;

Spot5 Imagery, 2006;

Biogeographic regions, 2006;

Nature refuges and coordinated conservation areas, 2009;

Protected areas of Queensland estate, 2008;

Ramsar wetland sites, 2009;

Essential habitat V2.1 (Vegetation Management Act), 2009;

Directory of Important Wetlands, 2002;

Remnant vegetation (pre-clearing and V5), 2003;

World Heritage areas, 2008;

WildNet database, 2004, (data extracted 2009);

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) database:

Protected Flora, Fauna, Ecological Communities, Heritage Places, sites of international significance such as World Heritage and Ramsar Wetlands), Protected Matter report 4 June 2009;

National Native Title Tribunal: Native title claim areas;

Geological Survey of Queensland: 1:100,000 scale geological maps, 2004;

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation:

Weed washdown facilities, 2009;

Petroleum and mining tenements, restricted areas, 2009;

RLMS: Industry and Infrastructure database; 2009.

Non-digital data references used in the preparation of this report are listed in Section 8.

Page 11


3.4 LimitationsThis investigation was based largely on information publicly available together with confidential information supplied by proponents of the gas pipelines. Much of the study area was inaccessible by vehicle during the field reviews. A helicopter survey was not carried out due to the potential to impact on landholders and land use such as cattle management.

It is important to note that additional constraints may exist in areas where only limited desktop and field investigations were completed. The size and scale of identified constraints may also expand into areas not previously examined in detail.

A detailed assessment of environmental impacts was not undertaken as part of this study. Each proponent using the CIC will be required to address the potential impacts in detail in order to obtain the relevant approvals.

Page 12


4. CORRIDOR PARAMETERS

4.1 Corridor selection criteriaA range of corridor selection criteria were developed in consultation with Department of Infrastructure and Planning. These are based on RLMS route selection experience and have been developed over a number of projects. They are listed in Table 4-1together with the rationale behind the criteria.

Table 4-1 : Corridor Selection Criteria

Criteria Rationale

Maximise the potential to co-locate gas pipelines within the corridor.

There are four currently proposed pipeline projects with potential for consolidation of a number of these, and potential for others to be planned. The CIC should allow looping (duplication) of pipelines and addition of others while minimising its width.

Minimise the terrain constraint on the route.

A corridor which contains significant slopes or multiple bends has the potential to limit the diameter of a gas pipeline and increase the costs of construction.

Maximise ease of access for construction and operations.

Providing a route with easy access for construction and operations can assist in minimising construction costs, logistical issues and impacts during construction and operations.

Minimise construction constraints such as:

Areas subject to inundation; Soil stability and erodability; Extent of rock; Number of watercourse

crossings; Number of infrastructure

crossings; Working in third party

easements.

Minimising construction constraints in route selection will assist in minimising the extent of disturbance required for construction, the duration of construction, the scale of impacts and ultimately the costs of construction.

Minimise disturbance to existing landholders and land use.

A corridor that is able to avoid high density residential areas and land uses that would be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the pipelines would result in less disturbance during construction and may assist in obtaining landholder acceptance of the proposal.

Minimise disturbance to areas of known ecological value.

It is preferable to avoid areas of known ecological value during corridor selection in order to minimise the potential impacts during construction and operation of the pipelines. Avoidance of areas of high ecological value will also assist in ensuring that users of the corridor will be able to obtain the necessary permits to enable construction.

Minimise disturbance to known It is preferable to locate the corridor to avoid known sites, where data is available, which will assist in

Page 13


Criteria Rationale

heritage values. minimising adverse impacts to heritage values.

Minimise corridor length. Minimising the overall length of a potential gas pipeline can provide significant economic benefits to a project(e.g. construction cost is approximately $1-2M per km).

Minimise disturbance to and potential interference from existing third party infrastructure.

Minimising the need to cross existing infrastructure will assist in minimising construction constraint. Minimising proximity to sources of high voltage electricity (e.g. electrified rail and transmission lines) will minimise potential conflicts associated with induced current and cathodic protection of the gas pipelines within the corridor.

4.2 Constraints to selecting a corridor routeAppendix A contains a description of the features and characteristics of the Investigations Study Area. Potential constraints within the Study Area, that relate to the selection criteria above are identified in Appendix A and include:

Topography;

Land tenure;

Land use;

Existing infrastructure;

Environmentally sensitive areas such as remnant vegetation, protected areas, essential habitat and matters of national environmental significance;

Watercourses and dams;

Geology and soils; and

Known cultural heritage areas.

4.3 Landholders and land useA key objective of an infrastructure corridor is to minimise the impacts on landholders by co-locating infrastructure within the one specified area rather than allowing each project proponent to take out separate easements over property. The co-location of infrastructure within one easement substantially reduces disturbance to landholders, their land use and activities, and the environment.

As a result of the importance the Department of Infrastructure and Planning places on landholder engagement, Rowland was engaged to develop and carry out the landholder communication strategy. A separate report has been completed by Rowland for the Department on this aspect of the CIC study.

4.4 Potential corridor usersSeven LNG Projects have been announced for the Gladstone Region. All projects are planning to source gas from the Surat and/or Bowen Basins in Queensland:

The SUN LNG Project propose to use gas transported in the existing QGP to the Gladstone City Gas Gate. SUN LNG proposed to construct a short pipeline (3.5km) within the GSDA from the Gladstone City Gas Gate to the LNG site on Fisherman’s Landing Wharf. Therefore this project would not be a potential user of the CIC.

Page 14


No information is available for the open access pipeline proposed by Southern Cross Pty Ltd, however, given the location of CSG reserves in Queensland, it is possible that SCLNG will be a future user of the CIC.

Gladstone LNG will be located at Fisherman’s Landing Wharf. Surat Gladstone Pipeline Pty Ltd (SGP), a wholly owned subsidiary of Arrow Energy, is proposing to develop a 470km underground pipeline that will deliver CSG from Arrow’s Surat Basin gas fields (Kogan North Central Gas Processing Facility) to the Gladstone LNG facility. SGP is a potential user of the CIC between Callide and the GSDA.

The Shell Australia LNG Project is proposed by Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The Project would ultimately have the capacity to produce 16 Mtpa from up to four liquefaction trains located on Curtis Island. The CSG would be supplied from jointly owned (with Arrow Energy) petroleum acreage in both the Surat and Bowen Basins. While this project includes a gas pipeline from the Gladstone City Gas Gate to the plant on Curtis Island, the feed CSG would be delivered to the Gas Gate by the SGP and/or the approved (but yet to be constructed) Central Queensland Gas Pipeline. Therefore, this project itself would not be a potential user of the CIC.

GLNG is a Joint Venture between Santos (60%) and Petronas (40%). The proposed 435km underground gas pipeline will deliver CSG from Santos’ Surat and Bowen gas fields to an initial 3-4 Mtpa single train LNG processing plant on Curtis Island. GLNG is considered a potential user of the CIC.

QCLNG is a project of QGC (a BG Group Business) to develop their CSG operations in the Surat Basin. A 380km underground pipeline is proposed to deliver the CSG to a liquefaction plant on Curtis Island. The LNG Plant will have an initial production capacity of 7.4 Mtpa LNG. QCLNG is a potential user of the CIC.

APLNG is a joint venture of Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips. The project involves the expansion of production of CSG from the Walloons gas fields. The CSG will be transported to Gladstone by a 400km underground gas pipeline. An initial 4 Mtpa liquefaction train is planned for the APLNG plant in Gladstone with a maximum capacity of 16 Mtpa. The gas pipeline component of this project could potentially be located within the CIC.

Table 4-2 lists the basic statistics for the gas pipelines that could potentially be located within the CIC. The information has been supplied by proponents and is subject to change.

Note that the APLNG project was announced after the other projects and there is less information available.

Page 15


Table 4-2 : Potential Corridor Users and their Pipeline Requirements

Pipeline Statistics GLNG QCLNG APLNG SGP

Easement /LicenceWidth

50m 50m 50m 30m

Pipe Diameter 900mm (36”) 1070mm (42”) 1320 (52”) or 1070mm (42”)

600mm (24”)

Max Operating Pressure

15 MPa 15 MPa 10.2 MPa or 15 MPa

15 MPa

Capacity 170-220 PJ/yr NP NP 263 PJ/yr

Minimum cold bend radius per joint

8-9° 20° NP NP

Future looping proposed

Yes Yes No Yes

Main Line Valve in corridor

Yes Yes (2) NP No

NP: not provided

Page 16


5. CORRIDOR OPTIONSThe development of the corridor route options considered the following:

The selection criteria referred to in Section 4.1. Of these selection criteria,topographic constraints were given priority because it imposes significant technical difficulties for pipes of the diameter proposed in the CIC.

Individual routes developed by each pipeline proponent.

Existing easement for the QGP.

Consultation with landholders.

5.1 Identification of broad corridor options

5.1.1 Scope

The broad corridor route options were developed by considering the selection criteria outlined in Section 4 and constraints identified during the desktop investigation.These broad options are described in more detail below and shown on Figure 5-1. These options were briefly investigated in the field to either rule them out or include for further investigation.

The option for all proponents to utilise the one pipeline carrier has not been considered. The capacity required to deliver sufficient gas for all proposed LNG projects is prohibitive and a pipeline with a large enough diameter (or a duplicated pipeline) would be impractical to build. More than two pipelines would have to be built which therefore has the same issues as determining a corridor for the existing proponents, i.e. the major topographical constraint areas do not have enough room for more than one pipeline easement.

5.1.2 Broad corridor options

Option 1 – Generally follows the route chosen by a number of proponents through the Callide and Calliope Ranges, commencing east of Callide Dam. The route follows Coal Road north through several valleys, and comes off the Callide Range to the south east of the Dawson Highway. It tracks through the Calliope Range to the south of the Dawson Highway and then generally follows the existing Queensland Gas Pipeline route to the Larcom Creek Meter Station just west of the GSDA.

Option 2 – Follows a route chosen by a number of proponents, generally following the Dawson Highway through both the Callide and Calliope Ranges. It joins Option 1once east of the Calliope Range.

Option 3 – Commences to the east of Jambin, and runs north of Boundary Hill Coal Mine, tracking north of the Callide Timber Reserve. Option 3 then generally follows to the south of the Moura Short Line rail, then crosses the rail line to pass to the north of Mount Redshirt. The route tracks in an easterly direction through undulating cleared farm land and then turns north north-east, past Mount Alma township, to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.

Option 4 – is similar to Option 3, diverting to follow Back Creek upstream to the north of Mount Redshirt. It then rejoins Option 3 to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.

Option 5 – Tracks east through the Don River State Forest passing to the north of Mount Redshirt and joins the same route as Options 3 and 4 to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.

Page 17


Option 6 – is a deviation that could be applied to Options 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 and gives an alternate location for entry to the GSDA. The route option tracks north and entersthe GSDA south of the Mount Larcom township.

Option 7 – is wholly outside the Investigations Study Area. This option follows a route through the Ulam Range which lies north of the Calliope Range. There is a similar length of rugged terrain to the Calliope Range, then the route follows gently undulating cleared farm land, crossing the Bruce Highway north west of the smalltownship of Ambrose.

5.2 Assessment of broad route optionsEach of the broad corridor route options was assessed in the field against the corridor selection criteria.

Table 5-1 summarises the assessment against the selection criteria. Where there is a major constraint which is very difficult to overcome for any of the broad route options, the option was ruled out. This is indicated in the Table by red shading of the table cell.

Option 1 route through the Callide Range will be difficult to accommodate more than two pipelines, however there appears to be no topographical constraints on the rest of the route. There is potential for some impact on a small number of environmentally sensitive areas and a timber plantation.

Option 2 has similar terrain constraints to Option 1 through the Callide Range, and then follows the same route as Option 1.

Option 3 was not considered viable as there were pinch points that would not allow multiple pipelines to be constructed in close proximity. It also increases the length of pipeline for all potential users. The same assessment was made for Option 4 and it was also ruled out.

Option 5 goes through the Don River State Forest and would also require all proponents to track much further north in order to join the corridor. Therefore, due to the significant increase in length and the subsequent increase in costs over Options 1 or 2, this option was discarded.

Option 6 provides an alternative entry point in to the GSDA for the gas pipelines, however it goes outside the Investigations Study Area. Also, it is constrained as it tracks between the East End mine site and associated infrastructure and Larcom Creek, and also passes through smaller land holdings, increasing the number of landholders affected.

Option 7 seeks an alternative to the Callide and Calliope Range crossing. It tracks a long way north in order to find a feasible route through the Ulam Range. The increase in length for proponents is not justified as the terrain in the Ulam Range is just as rough as that for Options 1 and 2. In addition, co-location of several pipelines is not possible due to the terrain constraints. Therefore this Option 7 was not considered further.

In summary, Options 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were discarded and Options 1 and 2 were short listed and are discussed further in the next section.

Pag

e 18

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Tab

le 5

-1 C

om

par

iso

n o

f b

road

co

rrid

or

op

tio

ns

wit

h s

elec

tio

n c

rite

ria

Cri

teri

aO

pti

on

1O

pti

on

2O

pti

on

3O

pti

on

4O

pti

on

5O

pti

on

6(d

evia

tio

n)

Op

tio

n 7

Max

imis

e p

ote

nti

al

to c

on

solid

ate

ga

s p

ipel

ines

in

corr

ido

r

Diff

icul

t for

four

pr

opon

ents

to

follo

w s

ame

rout

e th

roug

h C

allid

e R

ange

.

Diff

icul

t for

four

pr

opon

ents

to

follo

w s

ame

rout

e th

roug

h C

allid

e R

ang

e.

Diff

icul

t for

mor

e th

an o

ne

prop

onen

t to

co-

loca

te.

Diff

icul

t for

mor

e th

an o

ne

prop

onen

t to

co-

loca

te.

Unk

now

nN

ot a

pplic

able

Diff

icul

t for

four

pr

opon

ents

to

follo

w s

ame

rout

e th

roug

h U

lam

Ran

ge.

Min

imis

e te

rrai

n

con

stra

int

Nec

essi

tate

s di

verg

ing

from

co

-loca

tion

of

pipe

lines

to

pick

ing

own

rout

e th

roug

h ro

ugh

terr

ain

of C

allid

e an

d C

allio

pe

Ran

ges.

Res

t of

rout

e O

K.

Nec

essi

tate

s di

verg

ing

from

co

-loca

tion

of

pipe

lines

to

pick

ing

own

rout

e th

roug

h ro

ugh

terr

ain

of

Cal

lide

and

Cal

liope

R

ange

s. R

est o

f ro

ute

OK

.

Nec

essi

tate

s di

verg

ing

from

co

-loca

tion

of

pipe

lines

to

pick

ing

own

rout

e th

roug

h ro

ugh

terr

ain

of

Cal

lide

and

Cal

liope

R

ange

s. R

est o

f ro

ute

OK

.

Nec

essi

tate

s di

verg

ing

from

co

-loca

tion

of

pipe

lines

to

pick

ing

own

rout

e th

roug

h ro

ugh

terr

ain

of

Cal

lide

and

Cal

liope

R

ange

s. R

est o

f ro

ute

OK

.

Unk

now

nN

ot a

pplic

able

8-10

km o

f ro

ugh

terr

ain

thro

ugh

Ula

m

Ran

ge. R

est o

f ro

ute

OK

.

Max

imis

e ea

se o

f ac

cess

Acc

ess

good

al

ong

mos

t of

rout

e

Acc

ess

good

al

ong

mos

t of

rout

e

Acc

ess

fair

alon

g m

ost o

f ro

ute.

Acc

ess

fair

alon

g m

ost o

f ro

ute

exce

pt

alon

g B

ack

Cre

ek to

Mou

nt

Red

shirt

.

Acc

ess

very

di

fficu

lt fo

r m

ost

of r

oute

. Cou

ld

not a

cces

s b

y ve

hicl

e on

pub

lic

road

s to

in

vest

igat

e op

tion

fully

in

the

field

.

Goo

d ac

cess

av

aila

ble.

Acc

ess

diff

icul

t at

sta

rt n

ear

Ula

m R

ange

bu

t get

s be

tter

once

dow

n th

e ra

nge

into

farm

la

nd.

Min

imis

e co

nst

ruct

ion

R

ough

but

co

nstr

uctib

le.

Rou

gh b

ut

cons

truc

tible

Rou

gh b

ut

cons

truc

tible

Eas

ier

cons

truc

tion

Qui

te h

illy

thro

ugh

the

wes

t E

asy

cons

truc

tion.

Qui

te r

ough

th

roug

h an

d

Pag

e 19

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Cri

teri

aO

pti

on

1O

pti

on

2O

pti

on

3O

pti

on

4O

pti

on

5O

pti

on

6(d

evia

tio

n)

Op

tio

n 7

con

stra

ints

than

opt

ion

3.of

Don

Riv

er

Sta

te F

ores

t.w

est o

f the

U

lam

Ran

ge.

Min

imis

e d

istu

rban

ce t

oex

isti

ng

la

nd

ho

lder

s

Affe

cts

pulp

woo

d pl

antin

g.A

ffect

s pu

lpw

ood

plan

ting.

Affe

c ts

som

e pu

lpw

ood

plan

ting.

Affe

cts

som

e pu

lpw

ood

plan

ting.

Affe

cts

som

e pu

lpw

ood

plan

ting.

Sm

alle

r la

ndho

ldin

gs

affe

ctin

g m

ore

land

hold

ers.

Unk

now

n fo

r m

ost o

f the

ro

ute,

with

smal

ler

land

hold

ings

on

the

east

end

.

Min

imis

e d

istu

rban

ce t

o

area

s o

f kn

ow

n

eco

log

ical

val

ue

Som

e im

pact

po

ssib

le to

vu

lner

able

sp

ecie

s. S

mal

l pa

tche

s of

en

dang

ered

and

of

con

cern

RE

th

at c

ould

be

avoi

ded

if ne

eded

. A

num

ber

of a

reas

of

ess

entia

l ha

bita

t for

a

thre

aten

ed

spec

ies,

incl

udi

ng

at p

oint

whe

re

Opt

ion

2 jo

ins

Opt

ion

1. C

an b

e av

oide

d if

need

ed.

Som

e im

pact

po

ssib

le to

vu

lner

able

sp

ecie

s. S

mal

l pa

tche

s of

en

dang

ered

and

of

con

cern

RE

th

at c

ould

be

avoi

ded

if ne

eded

. A

num

ber

of a

reas

of

ess

entia

l ha

bita

t for

a

thre

aten

ed

spec

ies,

in

clud

ing

at

poin

t whe

re

Opt

ion

1 jo

ins

2.

Can

be

avoi

ded

if ne

eded

.

Som

e im

pact

po

ssib

le to

vu

lner

able

sp

ecie

s. S

mal

l pa

tche

s of

en

dang

ered

R

Es

that

cou

ld

be a

void

ed if

ne

eded

. One

is

also

a

thre

aten

ed

com

mun

ity

unde

r th

e E

PB

C

Act

.

Som

e im

pact

po

ssib

le to

vu

lner

able

sp

ecie

s. S

mal

l pa

tche

s of

en

dang

ered

R

Es

that

cou

ld

be a

void

ed if

ne

eded

. One

is

also

a

thre

aten

ed

com

mun

ity

unde

r th

e E

PB

C

Act

. Goe

s th

roug

h of

co

ncer

n R

E.

Goe

s th

roug

h O

f co

ncer

n (s

ub-

dom

inan

t)R

egio

nal

Eco

syst

em in

th

e D

on R

iver

S

tate

For

est.

Sm

all p

atch

of

enda

nger

ed R

E

that

cou

ld b

e av

oide

d.

Goe

s in

to la

rge

vege

tate

d ar

ea

how

ever

not

lis

ted

as

rem

nant

.

Pot

entia

l im

pact

on

thre

aten

ed

com

mun

ities

in

the

Ula

m

Ran

ge S

tate

F

ores

t and

cl

oser

to th

e B

ruce

Hig

hwa

y.

Min

imis

e P

oten

tial f

or

Pot

entia

l for

P

oten

tial f

or

Pot

entia

l for

P

oten

tial f

or

Pot

entia

l for

P

oten

tial f

or

Pag

e 20

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Cri

teri

aO

pti

on

1O

pti

on

2O

pti

on

3O

pti

on

4O

pti

on

5O

pti

on

6(d

evia

tio

n)

Op

tio

n 7

dis

turb

ance

to

ar

eas

of

kno

wn

h

erit

age

valu

e

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

t o

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

dist

urba

nce

to

herit

age

valu

es.

Min

imis

e co

rrid

or

len

gth

Ave

rage

A

vera

geLo

nger

than

O

ptio

n 4.

C

onne

ctio

n to

co

rrid

or r

oute

is

long

er fo

r po

tent

ial

prop

onen

ts.

Ave

rage

Con

nect

ion

to

corr

idor

rou

te is

lo

nger

for

pote

ntia

l pr

opon

ents

.

Pot

entia

lly

shor

ter

for

prop

onen

ts

head

ing

to

Cur

tis Is

land

, de

pend

ing

on

rout

e th

roug

h G

SD

A.

Dev

iate

s a

long

w

ay n

orth

to g

et

thro

ugh

the

rang

e.

Con

nect

ion

to

corr

idor

rou

te is

lo

nger

for

pote

ntia

l pr

opon

ents

.

Min

imis

e d

istu

rban

ce t

o a

nd

fr

om

th

ird

par

ty

infr

astr

uct

ure

Sm

all n

umbe

r of

cr

ossi

ngs.

Sm

all n

umbe

r of

cr

ossi

ngs.

Nec

essi

tate

s se

vera

l mor

e cr

ossi

ngs

of th

e M

oura

Sho

rt

Line

rai

l tha

n th

e ot

her

optio

ns.

Sm

all n

umbe

r of

cr

ossi

ngs.

Sm

all n

umbe

r of

cr

ossi

ngs.

Rou

te p

asse

s be

twee

n E

ast

End

Min

e an

d B

ruce

Hig

hwa

y an

d al

so n

eeds

to

cro

ss th

e lim

esto

ne s

lurr

y pi

pelin

e an

d R

ockh

ampt

on

Bra

nch

Line

(g

as p

ipel

ine)

.

Unk

now

n.

Ou

t o

f co

rrid

or

fact

ors

Not

app

licab

leG

oes

into

coa

l te

nem

ent

Goe

s in

to c

oal

tene

men

tG

oes

into

coa

l te

nem

ent

Not

app

licab

leP

lace

s pi

pelin

es

into

rou

gh

terr

ain

with

in th

e

GS

DA

.

Not

app

licab

le

Red

sha

ding

und

er a

n op

tion

indi

cate

s th

at a

spec

t has

rul

ed th

e op

tion

out.

Page 21


5.3 Further investigations on short listed optionsThe investigation into the short listed options was undertaken in two stages due to constructability constraints in the Callide Range. This is described in detail below.

5.3.1 Route investigation in the Callide Range

An advantage of Options 1 and 2 is that they follow one or more of the proponents’preferred pipeline routes. As discussed in Section 2, during the preliminary field investigation, it was evident that due to the terrain constraints through the Callide Range, the constructability of all proposed pipelines would be reduced as a result of the characteristics of the pipe and its inability to bend at large angles to follow contours. Therefore, to co-locate two or more proponents within a narrow corridor through the range would be extremely difficult. For the proponents proposing future duplicate pipelines, it may be necessary at the time of initial construction to pre-blast rock and lay looping pipe at pinch points in order to reduce future construction impact on the operating pipeline.

Following consideration by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning of issues relating to the range crossing, a possible split corridor route through the Callide Range was determined by desktop, using the proponents’ routes that were available at the time as a guide (CIC Bifurcation Revision 0). It accommodates the existing pipeline proposals, commencing at two locations west and south of the Callide Range (refer to Figure 5-2). It is expected that at least one of the proponents will join the corridor from the west and at least two from the south. The two arms of the proposed corridor through the range come together at the eastern base of the Callide Range. The corridor then tracks north east through the Calliope Range.

It was agreed between RLMS and the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to focus on refining a CIC route from the Calliope Range to the GSDA and not include the Callide Range at this stage, therefore this portion of the corridor is not discussed further.

5.3.2 Refinement of the Preliminary CIC

The common section of Options 1 and 2 was investigated and refined separately to the corridor options in the Ranges. A preliminary CIC (Revision 0) from Options 1 and 2 was defined by desktop.

Revision 0

Revision 0 crosses the Dawson Highway and then tracks north of the highway to cross the Moura Short Line Rail near Duck Holes Road. It then crosses Calliope River at a 45° angle, stays on the north of the river through open country, and crosses Harper Creek, and Alarm Creek. This route then crosses the QGP and Sandy Creek in close proximity and tracks north crossing Mount Alma Road a few times. It crosses Gravel and Larcom Creeks and ends next to the Mount Larcom Meter Station.

Figures 5-3A and 5-3B shows the refinement of the CIC through different revisions as described below.

Page 22


Revision A

Revision 0 was refined slightly in a meeting with two of the proponents to become Revision A. The differences between Revision 0 and Revision A are the following:

The bifurcation through the Callide Range is not included.

The route changes between Harper Creek and Alarm Creek to pass to the north of a hill, bringing the route closer to Mount Alma Road.

Revision B

Revision A was then ground-truthed in the field on 26 May 2009 to become RevisionB. The changes made due to field observations include:

Commenced corridor at cadastre boundary on property next to the Dawson Highway road reserve. No route through the Callide or Calliope Range is included.

Ensured the route passed to the north of a cattle dip site found to be included in the Revision A corridor, in order to avoid potential contaminated soils.

Moved the crossing of the Moura Short Line rail approximately 200m to the east away from a cutting to minimise the depth of bore pits required to bore under the rail line.

Straightened the section between the Calliope River crossing and after Harper Creek crossing, bending before the Alarm Creek crossing, in order to minimise length of the corridor.

Slight directional change in the north-south section after the crossing of the QGP and Sandy Creek to minimise length of the corridor.

Crossing of Mount Alma Road changes to after the crossing of Gravel Creek and Larcom Creek, to minimise length of the corridor.

Corridor ends at Bruce Highway about 400m south of Revision A as there is a cultural heritage site within the GSDA which has to be avoided.

Between Harper Creek and Alarm Creek are pulpwood plantations owned by ITC. No consultation occurred with ITC, however, in the field, changing the corridor route to follow the fire breaks through the plantation was considered. Consequently, it was estimated that the increase in length of the pipelines would cost more than the compensation payable on the trees. Therefore the route goes through the plantation as originally proposed.

Revision C

Revision C resulted from recognizing that the corridor had to be widened at key locations, such as crossings, to accommodate certain construction issues. These construction issues are discussed in more detail in Section 7.2 and include widening the corridor to minimise interference between users of the corridor during construction activities and allowing more space for stockpiling of spoil.

Revision C has the same centerline as Revision B and the following changes in corridor width:

Approximately 1.2km wide section at the start of the corridor allows entry by all proponents into the corridor before the Calliope Range, at the boundary of the two local government authorities, at the boundary of the two native title claim areas, and at a cadastre boundary. (As discussed previously a common corridor through the Callide Range is not recommended).

600m width provided for the crossing of the Moura Short Line Rail.

500m length of the Calliope River provided for crossings.

Page 23


500m crossing point of Harper Creek provided and 300m crossing of Alarm Creek provided.

Larger area, considering cadastre boundaries and dissection of properties has been allowed at the location where the route bends to the north and requires the pipelines to cross the QGP and Sandy Creek.

300m crossing of Larcom Creek provided.

300m crossing of Bruce Highway provided.

Revision D

All proponents of pipelines that could potentially use the CIC came together to consider the proposed CIC route, based on Revision C. A proposed route for the CIC agreed between all proponents was presented to the Government on 19 June 2009. This is shown on Figures 5-4A and 5-4B as proponent corridor (revision G).

The proposal by the proponents was considered and the following conclusions made:

The western arm of the corridor was widened to 200m to accommodate more than one pipe. The eastern arm was also widened to 200m to allow some construction area coming down the Calliope Range. The proponents proposed three pipelines within this area.

Accept the widening of the eastern arm as it crosses the existing QGP and the Dawson Highway.

Accept lengthening the corridor at the rail crossing to allow construction area for the pipe to be pulled through the thrust bore under the rail. A slightly widened area to the cadastre boundary is provided as cathodic protection mitigation will be required at the rail crossing and requires additional area between pipelines.

Accept the Calliope River crossing as proposed as it reduces the area allowed for in Revision C for construction purposes. A slight adjustment to the cadastre boundary was made.

Accept the Harper Creek crossing as proposed as it allows a better angle of approach to the creek crossing.

Accept the pipelines have to spread out to cross the QGP, however after turning north, do not agree that the pipelines have to remain apart with some following Mt Alma Road and some deviating between the road and the QGP. Sufficient area for pipelines to pass either side of existing dam has been allowed, then the pipelines have been brought together to a single 200m wide corridor before it crosses Mount Alma Road.

Do not accept the deviations out of the 200m corridor at Wycheproof Road. The corridor has been slightly widened to allow some movement of pipeline alignment over small hill.

Accept slight widening at Larcom Creek crossing.

Accept corridor abutting the QGP easement at the Bruce Highway. However the cultural heritage site within the GSDA must be noted by users when aligning their pipeline. Corridor widens to approximately 500m at the Bruce Highway crossing.

The changes above were developed into Revision D as illustrated on Figures 5-4A and 5-4B for comparison with the proponents’ corridor.

Page 24


5.4 Refinement of corridor route with landholder engagementLandholder engagement commenced with Revision D as the base case. Representatives of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, RLMS and Rowland visited affected landholders to discuss the proposed CIC corridor route Revision D. A number of landholders were visited a second time to clarify issues and to refine the route.

In summary, issues that were raised by landholders included:

Potential impact on existing and future farm activities and farm activities during construction within the corridor. This was of particular concern where the corridor traverses through the middle of land parcels.

Understanding construction activities and reasons for widening corridor at certain locations such as rocky areas and some rail, road and watercourse crossings.

Impact of corridor on future potential subdivision for lifestyle blocks.

These issues and landholder requests were investigated as refinement options and were revised into Revisions E1 and E2. Further detail on landholder concerns and reassessment of the corridor route alignment is provided in Appendix B.

In summary, Revision F of the CIC route resulted from the following considerations:

Where landholder alternatives involved additional watercourse or road crossings, or greater number of bends in the alignment, these were considered disadvantages due to increased construction difficulty and additional area of land impacted.

Where alternatives involved diverting around the boundary of a land parcel, rather than through the middle, the benefits to the landholder’s farm management practices were weighed against the increased length of pipe and additional bends, which increase construction costs.

Opportunities for improved access were taken by aligning the corridor adjacent to a road reserve.

Potential adverse impact on the integrity of a permanent waterhole and potential cultural heritage issues were avoided by a realignment to another crossing location over Harper Creek.

It was noted that in certain areas, the overall impact from construction activities can be reduced by allowing more width in the corridor, rather than requiring difficult construction in a constrained area.

Realignment of roads was not considered desirable.

The progression from Revision D through to Revision F is shown on Figures 5-5A and 5-5B.

Page 25


5.5 Refinement of corridor route with constructability assessment

A constructability field assessment was undertaken with representatives of the pipeline proponents. The shape of the corridor was refined at three locations as follows:

Start of main CIC in Calliope Range: Entry widened to allow pipelines to enter from varying directions. Encompasses difficult terrain for construction so additional area provided over the Calliope Range to ensure construction options (such as directional drilling) are able to be achieved within the corridor. Crossing of first gully remains the same.

Moura Short Line crossing: Exit from Moura Short Line crossing moved to the north to avoid a small drainage gully on the southern side. Width remains much the same. Location of Duck Holes Road and Calliope River crossings remain unchanged.

Mount Alma Road section: Corridor was shifted to the west to avoid side slope construction. Change takes the corridor to the boundary of the property adjacent Mount Alma Road further south than the previous option. Corridor slightly wider to provide additional area to accommodate side slope construction.

Figures illustrating these refinements are included in Appendix C.

The final refinements are incorporated into Revision G which is the preferred CIC route alignment.

Page 26


6. RECOMMENDED CORRIDORThe recommended route for the Callide Infrastructure Corridor is Revision G. This recommended route was selected and refined based on the criteria discussed in Section 4 and the comparative analysis of route options provided in Section 5. This section of the report provides a detailed description of the recommended CIC route and map series.

6.1 Key statistics of recommended CIC routeFigure 6-1 shows the overall alignment of the preferred corridor and includes the centre line and kilometre posts for easy identification of locations within the CIC.

Table 6-1 presents in more detail the key statistics for the recommended CIC route.Many of the attributes are reported by length of corridor. For example, 43.7km of the total CIC length passes through freehold land, while 0.9km of the CIC passes through reserve land.

Table 6-1 : Key Statistics for Preferred CIC Revision G

Attribute Value

Length Main CIC 44.0km

Western lateral 5.1km

Total 49.1km

Width Nominal 200m

Land Parcels (total) 54

Cadastral Information

Freehold - By length 43.7km

Freehold - By number of parcels 30

Leasehold - By length 3.3km

Leasehold - By number of parcels 2

Reserves – By length 0.9km

Reserves – By number of parcels 1

Road reserves – By number of parcels 17 (crossings only)

Drainage reserves – By number of parcels 4 (crossings only)

Land Use

Production from relatively natural environments –By length

49.1km

Restricted areas – By length 20.0km

(proposed Castlehope dam site on

Page 27


Attribute Value

Calliope River, Rockhampton Branch Gas Pipeline)

Native Title

No. of Claims intersected 1

Coverage of NT Claims – By length 49.1km

Mineral and Petroleum Exploration and Mining

Petroleum Tenements – By length 0km

Mining Leases – By length 0km

Mining Development Leases – By length 0km

Exploration Permit Coal – By length 5.1km (EPC1507)

Crossings

Registered Easements 6 easements (including electricity transmission lines and QGP easements)

Infrastructure:

Pipelines

Power lines

Roads

Railway

QGP x 2

Double 275kV x 1

Single 275kV x 1

Sealed Principal Roads x 2

(Dawson Hwy, Bruce Hwy)

Unsealed Minor Roads x 5

Tracks x 2

1

Watercourses Major x 1 (Calliope River)

Minor x 5 (Harper Ck, Alarm Ck, Sandy Ck, Gravel Ck, Larcom Ck)

Unnamed minor x 12

Environmental

Protected Areas (e.g. National Parks) – By length 0km

Endangered REs – By length 0km

Of concern REs – By length 0.2km plus 0.5km on edge of corridor

Essential habitat – By length 1.7km (Cycas megacarpa)

Page 28


6.2 Detailed description of recommended CIC routeThis section provides a description of Revision G of the CIC. A map series illustrating the route is provided.

6.2.1 Bifurcation – KP000 to KP004 and KP000L to KP005L

This is the entry section to the CIC (refer to Figure 6-2). The eastern entry is considered the main CIC and the Kilometre Post numbering (KPs) reflect this. Up to three of the potential users of the CIC have nominated to enter using this 4km section of the CIC. The main CIC starts off approximately 500m wide to allow potential users to enter from varying directions. It commences at the Local Government boundary and immediately traverses the Calliope Range. It crosses a gully and skirts to the east of the Wyalla Homestead before crossing the Dawson Highway and Queensland Gas Pipeline. The western entry lateral joins the main CIC at this point. The western lateral also commences at the Local Government boundary and crosses the Calliope Range within one kilometre of its commencement. GLNG intend to use the western entry to the CIC.

Bifurcation: KP000 – KP004 and KP000L – KP005L

Land tenure Main CIC is all freehold except Dawson Highway road reservecrossing. 1.3km main CIC in coal exploration permit area. First 3.2km of western lateral is in leasehold and 3.8km of lateral length in the coal exploration permit.

Topographic features Initial 500m of main CIC in Calliope Range then becomes undulating terrain. Lateral has approx 3.5km in rugged terrain before becoming quite flat land.

Vegetation 500m of main CIC (within the Calliope Range) vegetated of which all is nominated essential habitat for the endangered Cycas megacarpa. 100m is of concern dominant (75%) regional ecosystem. 3.2km of the western lateral is vegetated with approx. 1km essential habitat (Cycas megacarpa) and of concern regional ecosystem.

Infrastructure crossings QGP and Dawson Highway at KP003.5 on main CIC.

Plate 1 Cycas megacarpa (ref: Scott Maclean, Palm & Cycad Societies of Australia)

Page 29


Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) and the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) have advised that the area of the Calliope Range crossed by the main CIC is being negotiated as an offset commitment under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. DTMR has identified the area as an offset because individual plants of the endangered Cycas megacarpa species will have to be removed and/or transplanted for the proposed Dawson Highway upgrade.

As noted in the summary table above, a portion of the main CIC and the western lateral are located within Of Concern regional ecosystem and essential habitat for the Cycas megacarpa species. This portion of the Calliope Range is also one of very few crossing points for infrastructure (road, rail and pipelines) from central west Queensland, through the ranges to the coastal plains and to the Port of Gladstone. All proponents have previously indentified routes through the Calliope Range in this vicinity.

It is recommended the Department of Infrastructure and Planning lead further consultation between DTMR, DERM and the individual proponents with the objective of coordinating negotiation and acquisition of suitable Cycas megacarpa habitat for conservation, in areas which do not compromise logical crossing points of the Calliope Range.

Plate 2 – Calliope Range, commencement of the CIC

Page 30


6.2.2 Calliope River – KP004 to KP018

This section of the CIC trends generally in a north easterly direction through cleared grazing land (refer to Figure 6-3). It passes through a camping and water reserve and runs adjacent the Dawson Highway to KP010. The CIC crosses the Moura Short Line Rail at KP011, Duck Holes Road at KP012.6 and the Calliope River at KP013.2.The alignment bends to the north to generally follow the Mount Alma Road.

Calliope River : KP004 – KP018

Land tenure Moura Short Line on leasehold property, Camping and water reserve at KP006.1 to KP007.1. Rest freehold.

Topographic features Relatively flat some gently undulating terrain, major watercourse crossing at Calliope River and a number of drainage lines.

Vegetation Significant riparian vegetation on Calliope River, some riparian vegetation on other drainage/creek lines, majority of corridor is through cleared grazing country.

Infrastructure crossings Single 275kV power line crossed at KP005.8, Moura Short Line rail crossed at KP011.

Plate 3 – Moura Short Line within CIC

Page 31


6.2.3 Alarm Creek – KP018 to KP030

In this section, the CIC leaves the Mount Alma Road to cross Harper Creek (refer toFigure 6-4). It crosses Harper Creek at KP021.2. The CIC is within the ITC Alarm Creek timber plantation from approximately KP021.2 to the Alarm Creek crossing at KP025.6. The CIC crosses Mount Alma Road at KP026.7, then crosses the QGP at KP029.1 and Sandy Creek at KP029.3. Immediately after the Sandy Creek crossing, the CIC turns almost due north following on the western side of Mount Alma Road. A number of the pipelines within the CIC may have to cross Mount Alma Road a couple of times in the vicinity of Sandy Creek due to the alignment of the road.

Alarm Creek : KP018 – KP030

Land tenure Freehold (except road reserves crossed).

Topographic features Undulating hills then hilly terrain between KP026.5 & KP030. Harper, Alarm and Sandy Creeks & minor drainage lines are crossed.

Vegetation ITC Alarm Creek Timber Plantation between KP021.2 & KP025.6, riparian vegetation on Harper Creek, mostly open grassland.

Infrastructure crossings Several unsealed road crossings, QGP crossing at KP029.1.

Plate 4 – Sandy Creek crossing

Page 32


6.2.4 Mount Alma Road – KP030 to KP044

In this section, the CIC heads north and north north-east (refer to Figure 6-5). At approximately KP033 the CIC passes within 110m of a residence with two more residences across the Mount Alma Road within 550m. It crosses to the east side of Mount Alma Road at KP031.7. The crossing of Gravel Creek occurs at KP036.6 and Larcom Creek is crossed at KP039. Mount Alma Road is crossed once more as the CIC heads towards the Larcom Creek Meter Station at KP043.8. The Bruce Highway is the last crossing before the CIC joins the GSDA at KP044.

Mount Alma Road : KP030 – KP044

Land tenure Freehold (except road reserves crossed).

Topographic features Hilly terrain KP030 to KP034 & KP040 to KP042, rest undulating. Number of drainage lines to be crossed.

Vegetation Significant of concern regional ecosystem vegetation on Larcom Creek, vegetated road verge on Bruce Highway, majority cleared.

Infrastructure crossings

Double 275kV power lines crossed at KP038.3, Mount Alma Road x 2.

Note the CIC crosses the catchment of the proposed Castlehope Dam and crosses the inundation area at the maximum full supply level.

Plate 5 – Constrained area between hilly topography and Mount Alma Road (KP032.8)

Page 33


The proposed Castlehope Dam Site (the dam) is located on the Calliope River. The Gladstone Area Water Board has ranked the proposed dam low on the list of primary water supply options for the Gladstone region for residential and industrial uses. In addition, the Calliope River is not identified in the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy as an option for meeting the regions water needs.

At the minimum full supply level (FSL) for the proposed dam the CIC is not inundated. At the maximum (FSL) proposed for the dam, approximately 4km of the CIC is affected. At maximum FSL, existing infrastructure, including the QGP, and parts of the Bruce and Dawson Highways are also affected. In addition, it is understood the Moura Link – Aldoga Rail project’s preferred option traverses the inundation area, although an alternative option which is less impacted by the proposed dam is also nominated.

The inundation area of a dam (at FSL) can impact on gas pipelines if the pipelines are not designed to accommodate this. Therefore, gas pipelines should either avoid inundated areas, be designed having regard to potential future impacts, or take measures at a later date to effect appropriate negative buoyancy allowing pipelines to safely operate in inundated areas.

Due to the uncertainty of the future of the Castlehope Dam site, it is recommended potential users of the CIC have due regard to the possibility a dam could be located on the Calliope River, however, it should be noted the FSL may or may not impact on the pipelines depending on the FSL chosen. The decision on how to accommodate this should be left to the individual proponents.

Page 34


7. CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT ISSUESManagement of the corridor must consider:

the type of infrastructure located within it (in this case gas pipelines);

the landowner needs and obligations;

the acquisition procedure used;

activities that may be undertaken at different phases of the pipeline’s life; and

the management of landholder and user relationships.

The phases for gas pipelines are pre-construction, construction and commissioning, operations and maintenance, expansion and decommissioning. The phases may be undertaken by different entities for the one pipeline and this should be considered in developing a management regime for the corridor.

This section discusses relevant corridor management issues in more detail in order to assist the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to identify issues that may need to be addressed through regulation (e.g. statutory planning processes), commercial arrangements or other means. A summary table is provided in Section 7.9.

7.1 Easements/licences within the CIC

Issue

The process that will be adopted to acquire the corridor and allow its use by third parties will be decided by the State Government. The options would be for the State Government to gazette a State Development Area over the CIC, acquire an easement for the CIC and then licence proponents as users or for users to berequired to acquire there own easement within the State Development Area. In general, the nominal 200m wide corridor will be split into narrower licensed corridorsfor each user.

Recommended action

It is recommended that the State Government consider all potential users whengranting an approval to build and operate a pipeline within the CIC. The width of each user easement should be regulated to ensure excessive area is not allocated to one user over another and that any rights are non-exclusive (i.e. rights to cross, place material on each others area etc, are not prohibited).

Further detail

The proponents have agreed on nominal positions within the CIC. The aim of nominating and agreeing positions is to minimise the number of times the pipelines cross each other. This issue becomes more important when entering the constrained infrastructure corridors of the GSDA. In addition to positions, the proponents have also nominated separation distances between their own pipes (each proponent isproposing duplicate pipes to increase capacity in the future) and neighbouring pipes.

50 20305050

132413132413 1481313 24 8

Nominal 200m

GLNG QCLNG APLNG SGP

Callide Infrastructure Corridor

Spare

Page 35


7.2 Access to CIC

Issue

Access to the pipelines within the corridor is needed in all phases of the pipeline’slife. Access across the pipelines for other pipeline owners and the property owner needs to be considered. Third party access to the corridor must be limited.

Recommended action

Suitable dedicated access routes to the CIC should be nominated by the State Government to allow access from public roads to the CIC. It is recommended that users of the CIC be required to use the nominated access routes through appropriate licence conditions.

Further detail

During the pre-construction phase for any pipeline in the corridor, access will be needed for land survey, geotechnical studies, environmental survey and cultural heritage survey. These activities are usually carried out by light vehicle or on foot.

During the construction phase, access is required for additional survey, the actual construction (clear/grade, trenching, pipe delivery/stringing/welding, backfilling, cleanup), commissioning, and re-instatement. During construction, it is sometimes necessary to turn vehicles and equipment including large trucks delivering pipe. Access points to the CIC need to be close enough such that large vehicles and heavy machinery do not need to turn around within the corridor areas. That is, they can enter at one location and exit at another that is not too far away, minimising the turn around and backtrack required. Also, temporary access to the CIC will be required close to the watercourse on both sides when constructing the crossing.

Temporary access to the CIC for construction activities is available where the CIC crosses an existing road (KP003.5; KP012.6; KP026.8; KP029.5; KP031.8; KP034.6; KP042), or is adjacent an existing road (KP001; KP006-KP010; KP016.4-KP018; KP030-KP031.5; KP035; KP037-KP042; KP044). Crossings of gazetted but not formed roads could also provide temporary access as necessary.

The following additional temporary access points may be needed during construction of crossings: Moura Short Rail crossing – access along rail service road from Duck Holes Road; Harper Creek crossing – access from Mount Alma Road to CIC at KP022; Gravel Creek crossing – access from Mount Alma Road to CIC at KP036.7. These are shown on Figure 7-1. Proponents may wish to acquire these temporary access points themselves.

In the operations and maintenance phase, most of the activities are carried out by light vehicle or on foot. Very infrequently, when the pipeline needs to be exposed for maintenance purpose, similar equipment to that used during construction will require access to facilities in the corridor. Access provided by the public roads should be sufficient during operations.

One method of pipeline expansion is looping. Looping is laying a second pipeline parallel to the first. This requires the same level of access and the same type of equipment as during original construction. At this time, due to the existing pipeline and potentially other pipelines in the corridor, this equipment should only enter and leave the corridor at pre-determined engineered access locations and at public roadcrossings.

Page 36


7.3 Timing of construction

Issue

It is probable that each pipeline will be constructed at different times within the CICover a number of years. Arrangements will have to be made for access over other user’s easements, and each pipeline will have to be designed with this in mind.

Recommended action

It is recommended that conditions of use for the CIC be such that access over another user’s licensed area is regulated to specific locations.

Further detail

The various users’ pipelines and expansion loops will be constructed over a number of years as their LNG plants are constructed and expanded. Each user will be allocated a certain width of licence area within the corridor, and construction for each pipeline and any looping will be contained within this area. Certain access routes to the CIC will be designated as discussed above. In this way, interference between users of the corridor during construction activities will be minimised.

Some of the equipment used during construction is heavy and may require special arrangements at pre-determined locations when crossing existing pipelines in the corridor. These arrangements may include increasing the depth of soil above the existing pipe for protection, by mounding or trenching deeper, or providing a concrete cap over the pipe.

The preferred CIC route widens at certain points such as some watercourse crossings, some road and rail crossings, some sharper bends and at some pinch points that could require side hill construction. This allows more space during construction for the stockpiling of spoil, because at these locations, the pipelines must be buried deeper. If the construction method is by boring, a deep long pit is necessary to accommodate the boring machine. Stockpiling of spoil, onto another user’s easement within the CIC should be allowed with consultation, provided it is not over an operating gas pipeline.

Figure 7-1 shows recommended crossing points where the pipelines using the CIC would need to be designed to allow other users of the CIC to cross their pipeline with heavy machinery and equipment. These are indicative only as the proponents will have to coordinate their pipeline designs to accommodate the crossing points and ensure all risk assessment requirements of the Australian Standard AS 2885 are satisfied.

7.4 Reinstatement of corridor

Issue

After disturbance during the construction phase, land within the CIC needs to be reinstated appropriately to minimise erosion and subsequent impact on activities by the landholder and other users of the CIC.

Recommended action

Conditions requiring a certain level of reinstatement of land disturbed as a result of activities undertaken within the CIC, and regular monitoring of reinstatement, should be included to ensure complaints and disputes are minimised, and that long term responsibility for the rehabilitation of the CIC rests with the proponents.

Page 37


Further detail

Reinstatement of the land affected by the construction usually starts as soon as construction in the area is complete. This includes grading back, as close as possible, to the original contour, installing erosion control measures, seeding and spreading of brush for establishment of groundcover, and installation of marker signs. In most areas this reinstatement works very well. However, if there is an extraordinary amount of rain or other unforseen circumstances, some erosion may occur. Exposure of the pipe to third party interference or damage through erosion or other mechanisms is not desired because integrity of the pipe is paramount for safety and operational reasons. If this happens, similar earthmoving equipment as used during construction will be brought in to repair the damage and install additional erosion control measures.

7.5 Operational activities

Issue

For operational and safety reasons certain things are not allowed over a pipeline.

Recommended action

It is recommended that the State Government, through regulation of the CIC, prohibit permanent structures, impoundment of water and tree growth within the CIC.

Further detail

Most operational activities of pipelines in the corridor are for inspection, cathodic protection (CP) potential assessments or maintenance of CP test posts and signage. All of these activities require the ability to move along the corridor over the pipeline. Also in the case of emergency, access along the pipeline is required. In addition, activities on the pipeline that may damage the pipeline need to be restricted. Given the above needs, certain uses, developments and activities should not be permitted over pipelines. These include:

Permanent structures;

Impoundment of water;

Deep ripping or ploughing;

Fencing without gates; and

Tree growth.

The trees currently being farmed for pulpwood along the CIC preferred route will be removed as each pipeline is constructed. Ultimately the corridor may become a firebreak for the timber lot operators and some present firebreaks may be planted in the next cycle.

7.6 Cathodic protection and marker signs

Issue

Australian Standard 2885 provides standards for the safe design, construction and operation of gas pipelines. All pipelines using the CIC must be in compliance with this Australian Standard.

Recommended action

It is recommended that the State Government ensures potential CIC users are in compliance with AS2885 to ensure safe construction and operations. Particular issues include consideration of other users in the design of their CP systems. Any

Page 38


right to use the corridor should also include an obligation for cooperative CP systems.

Further detail

All pipelines require cathodic protection to keep pipeline steel from corroding. When pipelines are in close proximity their CP systems can interfere with each other. Wires for common test points and possibly cross bonds will need to be accommodated. Normally the pipeline designers select the locations of these points. These points would normally be located approximately every two kilometres along the corridor. In most locations these test points can be located with the location marker signs required by AS2885 or within fence lines. Consultation between pipeline operators is required to ensure CP systems don’t conflict.

AS2885 requires that pipelines be marked (or signed) to prevent damage from third parties. The signs should be installed at:

Both sides of road and rail crossings;

Both sides of significant watercourse crossings;

All fence lines;

All utility crossings;

Significant bends;

All above ground facilities; and

As otherwise required to be visible at any point along the pipeline.

7.7 Environmental management of the corridor

Issue

Appropriate management of activities within the CIC is required to minimise impacts to the environment and to minimise disruption to affected landholders.

Recommended action

It is recommended that the State Government ensure (through conditioning or other means) that the Environmental Management Plans required of the CIC users be prepared considering the principles of the APIA Code of Environmental Practice. The Environmental Management Plan must include implementation of effective weed control measures on all properties.

Further detail

The Australian Pipeline Industry Association (APIA) recently developed a second revision of its Code of Environmental Practice. The Code is intended to encapsulate the best techniques and methods presently available to mitigate or to eliminate the environmental impact of the pipeline industry’s activities (APIA, 2009). It includes options for action to be selected depending on the particular issues of each individual pipeline project. With the adoption of continual improvement, the highest standards of environmental protection will be ensured.

Of particular concern to landholders affected by the CIC is management of weeds. The APIA Code of Environmental Practice includes provisions for weed managementincluding completing an inventory of noxious and declared weeds along the easement, and developing and implementing effective weed control measures.

Page 39


7.8 Cultural heritage management of the corridor

Issue

Cultural heritage issues within the CIC or potentially impacted on by activities undertaken within the CIC need to be managed.

Recommended action

It is recommended that the State Government ensure users of the CIC appropriately engage Traditional Owners as required by provisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.

Further detail

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 states that it is the responsibility of the person carrying out an activity to ensure that the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. Further, because all potential users of the CIC are undertaking Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes to obtain their approvals, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 requires a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to be the primary process for managing Aboriginal cultural heritage.

7.9 Summary of corridor management issuesTable 7-1 provides a summary of the corridor management issues and recommendations associated with the issues.

Table 7-1 : Summary of corridor management issues

Corridor Management Issue Recommended Action

Location of users’ easements within the CIC. Ensure the location of users relative to each other and the width of easement requested is appropriate.

Temporary access during construction and permanent access during operations to the CIC is required by users.

Nominate suitable access points to the CIC. Users should be required to use nominated access points through licence conditions.

Access over other users easements will be required at times throughout the life of activities within the CIC.

Ensure access or crossing points of other users easements are nominated such that pipelines can be designed to accommodate it.

Land disturbed by activities within the CIC will need to be reinstated to an appropriate standard.

Conditions of user agreements should require an appropriate level of reinstatement of land disturbed. Regular monitoring should also be required as described in the APIA Code.

Certain activities such as permanent structures, impoundment of water and tree growth should be prohibited within the CIC due to potential for interference with integrity of the pipelines.

Ensure inappropriate activities are not permitted within the CIC by easement conditions, user licence conditions and by regulating land use under the development scheme and planning schemes.

Design, construction and operational standards need to be met by users of the CIC.

Ensure pipelines to be located within the CIC are designed, constructed and operated in accordance with AS2885.

Page 40


Corridor Management Issue Recommended Action

Impacts to environmental and cultural heritage values from activities associated with CIC use should be minimised.

Ensure appropriate environmental management plans and cultural heritage management plans are prepared and implemented by users of the CIC.

Page 41


8. REFERENCESABRS Flora of Australia Online Search, www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/online-resources/flora, June 2009

Australia Pacific LNG Limited, Australia Pacific LNG Project – Initial Advice Statement, March 2009

Australian Pipeline Industry Association, Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines, 2009

Banana Shire, Introducing Banana Shire and Profile of Banana Shire, website www.banana.qld.gov.au, accessed June 2009.

BG International Limited and Queensland Gas Company Limited, Queensland Curtis LNG Project – Initial Advice Statement, June 2008

Bligh, A., Gas Superhighway clears the way for LNG jobs, Election 2009 Media Release, 2009.

Connell Wagner, Environmental Assessment LNG - Production and Export Facility Site Selection Study for Department of Infrastructure, 18 March 2008.

Connell Wagner, Summary Report – Gladstone Land, Port, Rail & Road Infrastructure Study 2007, 16 May 2008

Day, RW, Whitaker, WG, Murray, CG, Wilson, IH and Grimes, KG, Queensland Geology – A companion volume to the 1:2,500,000 scale geological map (1975), Geological Survey of Queensland Publication 383, 1983.

Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Approved Conservation Advice for Cossinia australiana (Cossinia), Dec 2008.

Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Approved Conservation Advice for Quassia bidwillii (Quassia), July 2008.

Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Brigalow Belt South bioregion profile brochure, undated.

Futureye Pty Ltd, The Gladstone Region 2028 Community Visioning Project –Community Profile, 25 January 2008.

GHD Pty Ltd, Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor Investigation – Report 1 – The Surat Basin Rail Corridor, December 2008.

GHD Pty Ltd, Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor Investigation – Report 2 – Infrastructure Co-location Opportunities, February 2009.

Gladstone LNG Pty Ltd, Gladstone LNG Project – Fisherman’s Landing – Initial Advice Statement, January 2008

ITC Limited, Queensland Profile, undated

Palm & Cycad Societies of Australia, Cycas megacarpa profile, http://www.pacsoa.org.au/cycads/Cycas/megacarpa.html, website accessed 29 June 2009.

Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland’s Petroleum –Exploration and development potential, January 2009.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Giant rats tail grass –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007

Page 42


Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Mother-of-millions –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2008

Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Parthenium weed –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007

Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Rubber Vine – Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007

Queensland State Government, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

RLMS, Rockhampton to Gladstone Corridor – Infrastructure Corridor Investigation, prepared for the Coordinator-General, June 2006.

Santos Ltd, Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas Initial Advice Statement, July 2007

Santos Ltd, GLNG Project – Environmental Impact Statement, June 2009.

Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Initial Advice Statement - Shell Australia LNG Project, May 2009

Sunshine Gas Limited and Sojitz Corporation, Project Sun LNG Project, Gladstone –Initial Advice Statement, January 2008

Page A1


APPENDIX A – STUDY AREA FEATURES AND CONSTRAINTSThis section of the report describes the study area in terms of those aspects that may influence the corridor investigations, such as topography, soils, land tenure and environmentally and culturally sensitive areas. Unless otherwise stated, the regional constraints are described for the Investigations Study Area outlined in Figure 1-1.

Land

Tenure

There is a total of 767 land parcels within the Investigations Study Area. The majority of the south western end of the study area is leasehold or timber reserve (Callide Range). The remainder of the corridor study area is freehold with small areas allocated as reserves to protect remnant vegetation (refer to Figure A-1).

Mining tenure

Anglo Coal’s Callide Mine is located in the central western area of the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-2). There are three major mining areas (Dunn Creek, Trap Gully and The Hut) contained within the following mining leases:

ML 5654

ML 80118

ML 6993

ML 80030

ML 80122

ML5653

ML5662

ML80117

Anglo Coal’s Boundary Hill Mine (ML5655, ML6994, ML80107, ML80115, ML80121, ML80151) is located in the north west of the Investigations Study Area. Mineral Development Leases 241 and 203 are also within the south western end of the study area.

An application for ML80156, part of the East End Mine development located to the south of the Mount Larcom township, is within the Investigations Study Area.

There are no petroleum tenures (Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004) within the Study Area.

Exploration tenure

The following exploration tenure, granted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, are located within the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-2).

EPM 15941, ACN Mining;

EPM 15671 and small portion of EPM 16411, Economite Pty Ltd;

EPC 1507, application by Clean Global Energy Pty Ltd;

EPM 17355, China Australia Mining P/L;

MDL 313, Neil Francis Stuart;

EPM 12778, Energy Minerals Pty Ltd;

Page A2


EPC 188, renewal lodged, Anglo Coal (Callide) Pty Ltd;

EPM 15705, Kelaray Pty Ltd;

EPC 909, EPC 1248, Linc Energy Ltd;

EPM 16849, EPM 16850, Rio Tinto Exploration Pty Ltd; and

EPM 13575, Cement Australia

Restricted areas

There are several restricted areas to mining (as defined under the Mineral Resources Act 1989) within the study area as listed below and shown on Figure A-3.

Callide Dam Ponded Area (223)

Callide Dam Catchment Area (217)

Proposed Castlehope Dam Site on the Calliope River (18)

Potential impact of constraint

Mines are a major constraint to selection of a corridor route. The mining lease often covers a larger area than that required to extract the resource and consultation should be undertaken with the holders of the tenements should any route options include mining areas.

Restricted areas and other tenure types have been identified to highlight potential constraint areas that should be considered during the route selection of a corridor for gas pipelines.

Land use

Figure A-4A illustrates the primary land uses in the Investigations Study Area, while Figure A-4B shows the Good Quality Agricultural Land Classifications. Soils west of the Callide Range include Class A and B Good Quality Agricultural Land. Dryland cropping and irrigation cropping are the major land uses in this area. The north eastern portion of the Study Area is mostly pasture land with some areas rated Class C1 Good Quality Agricultural Land (i.e. suitable for improved pastures). The land use in the majority of the study area is production from relatively natural environments. This involves beef cattle grazing and fattening.

The intensive uses highlighted on Figure A-4A in the south western portion of the Study Area correspond to the Callide and Boundary Hill Mining Areas, and the Callide Power Stations and cooling ponds. The Callide Power Stations produce approximately 20% of Queensland’s electricity. There is an Energy Park Industrial Area being developed adjacent to the Callide C Power Station.

ITC Limited has several pulpwood plantations in the Investigations Study Area. Different species of Eucalyptus and Corymbia are being grown for export to Japan as hardwood woodchips for the use in the production of premium high quality paper.


It would be preferable to minimise the length of corridor that intersects Good Quality Agricultural Land. However any impact would be temporary with the majority of agricultural activity able to continue post construction. It should be noted that the farming of trees (i.e. the pulpwood plantations) over the corridor would not be possible, due to the potential risk to the integrity of the pipelines.

Regional councils

The local government boundaries are shown on Figure 1-1 in Section 1. The south western portion of the Investigations Study Area falls within the Banana Shire

Page A3


Council area and the north eastern portion falls within the Gladstone Regional Council area.

Banana Shire has an area of 28,577 square kilometres and a population of 15,626. The main population centre is the town of Biloela with Moura and Taroom the other urban centres in the Shire. The Shire has a mix of larger service centres, rural villages and farms.

Biloela is the administration centre for Banana Shire. The Callide A, B and C Power Stations, Callide and Boundary Hill Coal Mines and Teys Bros Meatworks (third largest in Queensland) are located in the vicinity of Biloela. Moura serves the mining and rural industries and is home to the second largest Grain Depot in Queensland. Located close by is the Moura Coal Mine, Queensland Cotton Gin, and Queensland Nitrates Ammonium Nitrate Plant.

The Shire supports numerous facilities including public and private primary schools, secondary schools, a TAFE, hospitals, churches and various recreational and sporting groups. It has many natural attractions such as national parks, rivers and gorges. Major industries of the shire include coal mining, beef production, power generation, and cropping. It is rich in natural resources with newly developed coal mines in the Theodore and Baralaba areas.

The Nathan Dam Project is a future major development for the Banana Shire and is expected to generate over 1000 permanent jobs.

The Gladstone Regional Council area includes the major city of Gladstone and urban centres of Tannum Sands, Boyne Island, Calliope, Miriam Vale and Agnes Water. Major industrial facilities dominate Gladstone and Boyne Island however the region also features coastal towns and rural farming areas.

The population of Gladstone Regional Council area is 51,520. There is a variety of community organisations and facilities in the Gladstone Region. The region is a major centre for minerals processing and exports and supports the world-class Port of Gladstone. Existing major industries include one of the world’s largest alumina refineries - Queensland Alumina Ltd, Rio Tinto Aluminium’s Boyne Island and Yarwun facilities, Queensland Cement Ltd cement works, Orica ammonia nitrate plant, Transpacific Industries waste management and recovery facility, and NRG Power Station. Primary production such as beef cattle and timber production, tropical fruit, macadamia and flower crops are present in the greater Gladstone region. Tourism is becoming more important with a wide range of natural attractions located in the region. Significant development is likely to occur in the Gladstone region over the next 20 years.

To the north of Gladstone the State has identified a large area for major industrial development (GSDA). This dedicated area includes land on Curtis Island proposed for LNG plants.

Infrastructure

Major infrastructure within the Investigations Study Area are listed in Table A-1 and illustrated in Figure A-5.

Page A4


Table A-1 : Existing Infrastructure

Existing Infrastructure Constraints

Rail – Moura Short Line Rail crossings must be thrust bored. Electrified rail can result in cathodic protection issues which must be mitigated. Additional engineering controls are required near a rail line to protect the integrity of the pipeline.

Pipelines –

Rockhampton Branch Gas Lateral Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP) Callide Power Station Raw Water

Pipeline

Crossings of underground pipelines must be thrust bored. Minimise pipeline crossings to minimise construction costs and interference to the operation of third party infrastructure.

Electricity –

Callide Power Stations B and C Callide A substation, Calvale

substation 7 x 132kV transmission lines 6 x 275kV transmission lines Domestic low voltage network.

Power stations and substations may have unique construction constraints due to their potential to interfere with cathodic protection and due to safety concerns. Presence of high voltage transmission lines can also result in cathodic protection issues. It is recommended that pipelines avoid paralleling high voltage transmission lines for significant distances to minimiseinterference to the pipelines from existing third party infrastructure. No cathodic protection constraints are associated with domestic distribution lines.

Telecommunication – Domestic Telstra land lines and fibre optic cables.

These are not major constraints to the alignment of a pipeline but they need to be located accurately to protect their integrity. They require specialist teams to locate and hand-expose the underground cables during construction.

Roads – Bruce Highway, Dawson Highway

Numerous local roads both sealed and unsealed

Realignment of the Dawson Highway was identified as a future consideration for route selection. Crossings of sealed roads must be thrust bored while unsealed roads could potentially be trenched depending on the volume of traffic they carry. Minimise the number of crossings of roads to minimiseconstruction costs.


Infrastructure crossings should be minimised in corridor selection to minimise constraints to pipeline construction.

Native title

The Investigations Study Area includes the claim areas for the following registered Native Title Claimants:

The Port Curtis Coral Coast Native Title Claim Group (QC01/29); and

Gangulu Claim Group (QC97/036) (QUD6144/98).

Page A5


Figure A-6 shows the extent of the Native Title claims.

It should be noted that a number of the water courses in the Investigations Study Area (including the Calliope River) are boundary creeks which may have Native Title implications. Native title rights and interests are extinguished on certain land such as freehold property. There has been no detailed examination of land tenure history or an assessment of native title implications. This is a matter for the State Government once a preferred corridor is selected.

Environment

Queensland protected areas

Calliope Range State Forest and Callide Timber Reserve are protected areas located within the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-7).


State Forests are a constraint and should be avoided where possible to minimize disturbance to areas of known ecological value. The timber reserve should be avoided where possible to prevent conflict with development of the timber resource.

Protected vegetation and essential habitat

A Wildnet database search identified 14 sightings of protected flora species that have been recorded within the Investigations Study Area. Table A-2 describes the seven individual plant species these sightings represent and their biodiversity status.

Essential habitat are areas identified by the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management as essential habitat for species of wildlife listed as Endangered, Vulnerable, or Rare under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Data on the locations of essential habitat within the Investigations Study Area was obtained from the Department. The essential habitat occurs within the Callide and Calliope Ranges which is also the area in which the recorded protected species sightings are located (refer to Figure A-7).

Table A-3 provides a list of protected plant species for which essential habitat has been identified.


A detailed field study would have to be completed to determine if the protected flora species listed in Tables A-2 and A-3 are actually present within any preferred corridor identified as part of this investigation.

Regional ecosystems and remnant vegetation

There are 45 regional ecosystems (RE) within the Investigations Study Area. Twenty two of these are listed as No Concern at Present, 13 as Of Concern, and 10 as Endangered (refer to Figure A-7). In this study, biodiversity status of the REs is used as it is based on an assessment by the Queensland Herbarium of the condition of remnant vegetation, in addition to the pre-clearing and remnant extent used in the Vegetation Management Act 1999. All REs present in the Investigations Study Area are described in Table A-4.

The majority of the Endangered REs are small patches in the southern-most portion of the Investigations Study Area, around Mount Sugarloaf and surrounding hilly areas (11.9.5, 11.8.13, 11.9.4a, 11.11.14). A large patch of Endangered RE is contained in rugged vegetation to the south east of Callide Dam. The large area of dominant Endangered RE in the Mount Alma Range in the north eastern portion of the Study

Page A6


Area consists of 11.11.18. Other small isolated patches of Endangered REs are found around Anglo Coal’s mining areas and in the middle of the Study Area.

There are some larger areas of dominant and sub-dominant Of Concern RE within the Study Area. Many of the smaller patches are found along creek lines.

The majority of the mapped “No Concern at Present” REs are found through the Callide and Calliope Ranges, with more in the north eastern portion in the Mount Alma Range.


Clearing of remnant vegetation should be minimised to avoid disturbances to areas of known ecological value. Endangered and Of Concern REs are a major environmental constraint and should be avoided where possible.

Fauna habitat

A search of the Wildnet database identified five protected fauna species recorded in the Investigations Study Area (refer to Table A-5).

Table A-5 : Protected Fauna Species recorded in Investigations Study Area

Protected Flora Species Description Status

Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked stork. Rare, NC Act

Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey goshawk Rare, NC Act

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus

Spotted-tailed quoll (southern subspecies)

Vulnerable, NC Act; Endangered, EPBC Act

Chalinolobus picatus Little pied bat Rare, NC Act

Nettapus coromandelianus Cotton pygmy-goose Rare, NC Act

Essential habitat has been identified for the Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus) within the Callide Range.


Fauna habitats will generally coincide with areas of remnant vegetation however detailed field studies will have to be completed to be able to assess if any critical habitat will be impacted on by the planned gas pipeline corridor.

Weed management

Of particular concern to landholders is the introduction and spread of weeds. A desktop study identified four weeds that are common in the Investigations Study Area:

Rats Tail Grass – data shows this weed is common in the north eastern corner of the Study Area. It is an aggressive grass that can reduce the productivity of pasture and cause significant degradation of natural area. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Control measures include maintaining vigorous dense pastures and cleaning machinery and vehicles thoroughly after working in infested areas.

Rubber Vine – invades waterways and smothers riparian vegetation, decreasing biodiversity and impeding movement of stock and native fauna to

Page A7


and from waterways. Data shows Rubber Vine is common in the north east corner and far western corner of the Study Area and occasionally occurs throughout the rest of the Study Area. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and also a Weed of National Significance. Control of declared pests is required by landholders, and measures include a combined approach of different biological and chemical control methods integrated with land management practices.

Mother of Millions – this weed is highly toxic to stock, is adaptable to dry conditions and establishes if pastures are run down. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and is controlled with physical removal, fire and chemical methods combined with land management practices. The data indicates this weed is common in the north east corner and the far western corner of the Study Area and occurs occasionally throughout the rest of the Study Area.

Parthenium weed – A declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and a Weed of National Significance. Parthenium invades pastures and other disturbed areas such as heavily stocked areas, and along roadsides. It reduces pasture production. Data suggests parthenium weed is abundant in the north east corner and common through to the south west of the Study Area and is recorded as occasional in the far western corner. The recommended control measures are a combination of chemical, biological, mechanical and herbicide methods integrated with land management practices.


Weed management and control measures will have to be considered in areas identified as having weed problems. Areas of high weed occurrence should be avoided.

Matters of National Environmental Significance

The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ (DEWHA) protected matters search tool was used to determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) are likely to occur in the Investigations Study Area. The database search, completed on 4 June 2009, identified three threatened ecological communities, 28 threatened species and 15 migratory species as potentially occurring. It also noted the study area is within the same catchment as the Shoalwater and Corio Bays Ramsar site. Figure A-8 maps the locations of the threatened ecological communities, based on the relevant REs associated with them, and shows threatened species listed under the EPBC Act that have been recorded in the Wildnet database.

Threatened ecological communities

The three threatened ecological communities identified in the protected matters search include the following:

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant); listed endangered under the EPBC Act; community known to occur within area;

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions; listed endangered under the EPBC Act; community likely to occur within area; and

Weeping Myall woodlands; listed endangered under the EPBC Act;

Page A8


community likely to occur within area.

The REs associated with these threatened ecological communities are listed in Table A-6.

Threatened and migratory species

The protected matters search identified the threatened species and migratory species listed in Table A-7 and A-8 respectively as species or species habitat that may occur in the Investigations Study Area.

Other matters protected by the EPBC Act

The protected matters search identified one heritage place listed on the Register of the National Estate (Kilbirnie Homestead, also on the State Heritage Register) (refer to Figure A-8). It also identified 17 listed marine species (these are not listed in the report).


The potential to significantly impact on a matter of national environmental significance depends on the final location of the CIC. It is unlikely that impacts such as erosion and sedimentation that occurs in watercourses as a result of activities within the CIC will significantly impact the identified Ramsar site, due to the distance involved.

Potential users of the CIC should do their own determination as to whether a referral to the DEWHA is required to determine any necessary further assessment under the EPBC Act.

TopographyThe Investigations Study Area contains a number of major mountain ranges including the Callide Range, Calliope Range, and the Mount Alma Range.

Mount Kroombit and Mount Sugarloaf are located in the south western corner of the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-9). The southern and far western portion of the Investigations Study Area is generally hilly with the Callide and Calliope Ranges running generally north west to south east through the western half of the Investigations Study Area. The middle portion of the Study Area is gently undulating to hilly through which the Calliope River and tributaries run. Mount Alma Range and Mount Harper encroach on the Study Area near Mount Alma, while the north eastern portion of the Study Area is relatively gently undulating to the Bruce Highway.


The topography of the Investigations Study Area is such that the ranges and mountains present significant constructability constraints to the development of gas pipelines of the size proposed. Specialised construction techniques that may be required add a significant cost to the capital expenditure for any project.

Geology and soils

Geology

Figure A-10 shows the principal tectonic elements and the geological units that occur in the Investigations Study Area. The Investigations Study Area falls within the Yarrol Province. The Gogango Overfolded Zone, where previously deposited sediments of andesite and basalts have been intensively deformed during the Permian, lies to the west of the Study Area and to the east is the Wandilla Province.

Page A9


In the Yarrol Province, Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous deposition on the Yarrol Shelf was dominated by volcaniclastic sediments derived from the Connors-Auburn arc to the west, interbedded with varying proportions of primary volcanics. Oolitic limestone deposition formed in the Early Carboniferous on shallow banks. In comparison, Late Carboniferous sedimentation was very restricted. Late Carboniferous sediments contain more quartz and less volcanic detritus than the earlier deposits, and lack calcareous oolites. The Middle Permian tectonism affected the Yarrol block, with deformation characterised by open to moderately tight folding along north-northwest axes and high angle reverse faulting.

Table A-9 provides a detailed description of the geological units present in the Investigations Study Area.


Surface geology is usually noted during field reviews and geological constraints such as rocky outcrops are considered when assessing potential corridor route options. Geological constraints, such as the igneous and volcanic rock within the Investigations Study Area, will increase the difficulty and time to complete construction for the underground gas pipelines and are generally avoided if possible. Further detailed construction and geotechnical assessment will need to be completed by potential users of the corridor prior to construction.

Soils

Soils from the Digital Atlas of Australian Soils are mapped on Figure A-11. This soil mapping is at a relatively gross scale and is based on the Northcote Factual Key. The Investigations Study Area is dominated by yellow duplex soils and medium texture loams. To the west of the Callide Range are mainly cracking and non-cracking clays, some massive earths and small portions of red duplex soils. Table A-10 provides a description of the soil types within the Investigations Study Area.


No attempt has been made in this study to review previous regional soil surveys or other land management studies if available. The erodability of the soils in the Investigations Study Area has not been assessed, neither at a desktop level nor field level. This aspect is important as highly erosive areas can be both a construction and an environmental constraint due to potential for sedimentation of watercourses. Erosive soils are avoided if possible or appropriate erosion controls and rehabilitation measures are implemented during construction of pipelines.

WaterThere are no Ramsar wetlands within the Study Area. However the Study Area is within the same catchment as the Shoalwater and Corio Bays Area Ramsar site. The Study Area is in the same catchment as Port Curtis which is on the Directory of Important Wetlands.

Figure A-12 shows the watercourses within the Investigations Study Area. The western portion of the Investigations Study Area is within the Fitzroy River catchment while the eastern portion is within the Calliope River catchment.

Kroombit Creek, Callide Creek, Bell Creek and the Don River are major tributaries of the Fitzroy River in the Investigations Study Area. Callide Dam is located on Callide Creek and supplies water to the Callide Power Stations.

The Calliope River and its tributaries run through the eastern half of the study area. These tributaries include Alma Creek, Maxwelton Creek, Lost Spring Creek, Oaky Creek, Harper Creek, Paddock Creek, Alarm Creek, Sandy Creek, Boundary Creek,

Page A10


Gravel Creek, and Larcom Creek. Flooding events on major water courses have the potential to expose and damage buried pipelines. However, no information is available on the 100 year flood level of the Calliope River which is the major watercourse in the Investigations Study Area. Therefore the flood constraints withinthe Study Area have not been assessed.


Watercourse crossings are constraints to the construction of gas pipelines, therefore selection of crossing points and crossing methods are important considerations in terms of impact to environment and construction costs.

Cultural heritageA search of the Department of Environment and Resource Management’s Cultural Heritage Database was undertaken. Figure A-13 shows the results of the search. In summary, within the Investigations Study Area there is recorded:

Artefacts: general – 56; grindstone/muller – 1; isolated find – 5; tree – 1;

Isolated finds – 19;

Cultural – 2;

Cultural Land feature – 1;

Land feature – 2;

Painting/Engraving – 1;

Quarry – 1;

Quarry artefact – 5; and

Storyplace – 1.

These records have been identified as a result of previous investigations. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 establishes a duty of care for ensuring any person carrying out an activity (such as pipeline construction) undertakes such measures to ensure the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. Consultation with the relevant traditional owners will be required to determine the extent of cultural heritage sites within the selected corridor. Until further investigations are carried out specifically within the corridor, it is not possible to know the extent of cultural heritage sites.

Kilbirnie Homestead (located on Figure A-13) is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register in addition to the Register of National Estate.


The purpose of identifying and listing cultural and heritage values is to preserve them for future generations. Known cultural heritage sites should be avoided in the selection of the CIC route.

Page A11


Table A-2 : Protected Flora Species recorded in Investigations Study Area

Protected Flora Species Description Status

Acacia pedleyi Endemic to the Callide and Calliope Ranges. Grows in red loamy soil on slopes and ridge tops, in open eucalypt forest or woodland.

Rare, NC Act

Grevillea hockingsii Grows in shrubby understorey in eucalypt woodland or open forest. Known to occur in three disjunct areas in Queensland: Coomingbah State Forest, Callide Range and Razor Back Range.

Vulnerable, NC Act

Cossinia australiana Known from fragmented relict patches of Araucarian vineforests or vine thickets on fertile soils in central and southern Queensland.

Endangered, NC Act and EPBC Act

Acacia pubicosta Confined to rocky slopes. Rare, NC Act

Quassia bidwillii Endemic to Queensland, commonly in lowland rainforest or on rainforest margins. Known to occur in several localities between Mackay and Gympie. Found in areas adjacent to both temporary and permanent watercourses in locations up to 510m altitude.

Vulnerable, NC Act and EPBC Act

Eucalyptus decolor Also known as Castletower ironbark, found in open forest to woodland.

Rare, NC Act

Polianthion minutiflorum Also known as Trymalium minutiflorum

Vulnerable, NC Act

EPBC Act – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

NC Act – Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland)

Page A12


Table A-3 : Identified Essential Habitat for Protected Flora Species

Essential HabitatSpecies

Description Status

Desmodium macrocarpum Large-podded trefoil, known from Poplar Box woodland with sparse shrub layer.

Rare, NC Act

Cycas megacarpa A medium sized, aborescent cycad to 6m tall with a relatively narrow stem. Found in hilly areas from near Mount Morgan south to near Goomeri in central Queensland, usually in eucalypt or rainforests.

Endangered, NC Act andEPBC Act

Cerbera dumicola Shrub or small tree growing on ridge tops in lateritic soil.

Rare, NC Act

Acacia pedleyi Refer Table A-2 Rare, NC Act

Acacia pubicosta Refer Table A-2 Rare, NC Act

Alyxia sharpei Grows in araucarian microphyll vine forest on dark brown soil or complex notophyll vine forest on alluvium adjacent to mangrove swamps.

Rare, NC Act

Grevillea hockingsii Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act

Polianthion minutiflorum Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act

Melaleuca groveana Paperbark small tree to 5m tall. Widespread scattered populations growing in heath and shrubland, often in exposed sites at high elevations and in dry woodlands.

Rare, NC Act

Quassia bidwillii Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act and EPBC Act

Cossinia australiana Refer Table A-2 Endangered, NC Act and EPBC Act

Page A13


Table A-4 : Regional Ecosystems (RE) present in the Investigations Study Area

RE Biodiversity Status

Vegetation Management

Status

Description

11.3.1 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristataopen forest on alluvial plains

11.3.2 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains

11.3.4 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus tereticornis and/or Eucalyptus spp. tall woodland on alluvial plains

11.3.6 Of concern Not of concern

Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on alluvial plains

11.3.11 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket on alluvial plains


Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. camaldulensiswoodland fringing drainage lines

11.3.26 No concern at present

Not of concern

Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpawoodland to open forest on margins of alluvial plains

11.4.2 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus spp. and/or Corymbia spp. grassy or shrubby woodland on Cainozoic clay plains

11.4.3 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristatashrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains

11.4.8 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus cambageana woodland to open forest with Acacia harpophylla or A. argyrodendron on Cainozoic clay plains


Not of concern

Acacia spp. woodland on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust. Scarp retreat zone


Not of concern

Eucalyptus decorticans and/or Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., Acacia spp., Lysicarpus angustifolius on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust


Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks.


Not of concern

Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on Cainozoic igneous rocks. Hillsides

11.8.9 Of concern Of concern Callitris spp. ± vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks.

11.8.13 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks.

11.9.1 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageanaopen forest to woodland on fine-grained

Page A14




Status

Description

sedimentary rocks

11.9.4a Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket generally dominated by a low tree layer (5-10m) which is floristically diverse. Vines are frequent. Occurs on steep slopes where heavy clay soils have formed.

11.9.5 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristataopen forest on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.7 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus populnea, Eremophila mitchelliishrubby woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.13 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpa open forest on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.10.1 No concernat present

Not of concern

Corymbia citriodora open forest on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks


Not of concern

Eucalyptus decorticans, Lysicarpus angustifolius ± Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., Acacia spp. woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks.


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks

11.10.8 Of concern Of concern Semi-evergreen vine thicket in sheltered habitats on medium to coarse-grained sedimentary rocks


Not of concern

Eucalyptus spp. and/or Corymbia spp. open forest on scarps and sandstone tablelands


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra ± Acacia rhodoxylonwoodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding


Not of concern

Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra, E. acmenoides open forest on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Coastal ranges


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra woodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Coastal ranges

11.11.5 No concern Not of Microphyll vine forest ± Araucaria cunninghamii on old sedimentary rocks with

Page A15




Status

Description

at present concern varying degrees of metamorphism and folding


Not of concern

Eucalyptus populnea or E. brownii woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics

11.11.10 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics

11.11.14 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla open forest on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics.

11.11.16 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus cambageana, Acacia harpophyllawoodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Lowlands

11.11.18 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding.


Not of concern

Eucalyptus crebra woodland on igneous rocks


Not of concern

Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on igneous rocks


Eucalyptus crebra, E. tereticornis, Angophora leiocarpa woodland on igneous rocks especially granite


Not of concern

Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on igneous rocks


Not of concern

Corymbia citriodora open forest on igneous rocks (granite)

11.12.17 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus populnea woodland on igneous rocks. Colluvial lower slopes


Not of concern

Open forest complex with Corymbia citriodoraon sub coastal remnant Tertiary surfaces. Usually deep red soils


Not of concern

Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra open forest on metamorphics ± interbedded volcanics

Page A16




Status

Description


Not of concern

Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra open forest on Mesozoic to Proterozoic igneous rocks

Table A-6 : Description of Threatened Ecological Communities present in Investigations Study Area

Threatened Ecological Community

Description Status

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

RE 6.4.2 - Casuarina cristata ± Acacia harpophylla open forest on clay plains,

RE 11.3.1 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on alluvial plains,

RE 11.4.3 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata shrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains,

RE 11.4.7 - Open forest of Eucalyptus populnea with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata on Cainozoic clay plains,

RE 11.4.8 - Eucalyptus cambageana open forest with Acacia harpophylla or A. argyrodendron on Cainozoic clay plains,

RE 11.4.9 - Acacia harpophylla shrubby open forest with Terminalia oblongata on Cainozoic clay plains,

RE 11.4.10 - Eucalyptus populnea or E. pilligaensis, Acacia harpophylla, Casuarina cristata open forest on margins of Cainozoic clay plains,

RE 11.5.16 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest in depressions on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant surfaces,

RE 11.9.1 - Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageana open forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,

RE 11.9.5 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,

RE 11.9.6 - Acacia melvillei ± A. harpophyllaopen forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,

Endangered, EPBC Act

Page A17


Threatened Ecological Community

Description Status

RE 11.11.14 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics,

RE 11.12.21 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on igneous rocks; colluvial lower slopes,

RE 12.8.23 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks,

RE 12.9-10.6 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on sedimentary rocks, and

RE 12.12.26 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on Mesozoic to Proterozoic igneous rocks.

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions

RE 11.2.3 - Microphyll vine forest ("beach scrub") on sandy beach ridges

RE 11.3.11 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on alluvial plains

RE 11.4.1 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket ± Casuarina cristata on Cainozoic clay plains

RE 11.5.15 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant surfaces

RE 11.8.3 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks

RE 11.8.6 - Macropteranthes leichhardtiithicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks

RE 11.8.13 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks

RE 11.9.4 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks

RE 11.9.8 - Macropteranthes leichhardtiithicket on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks

RE 11.11.18 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding.


Weeping Myall woodlands

RE 11.3.2 – Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains

RE 11.3.28 – Casuarina cristata ± Eucalyptus coolabah open woodland on allu+vial plains.


Page A18


Table A-7 : Threatened species listed under the EPBC Act

Threatened Species Status Type of Presence

Birds

Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Geophaps scripta scriptaSquatter Pigeon (southern)


Neochmia ruficauda ruficaudaStar Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern)

Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe

Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Turnix melanogaster Black-breasted Button-quail


Mammals

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat


Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll

Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Hipposideros semoni Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosed Horseshoe-bat

Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Nyctophilus timoriensis (South-eastern form) Eastern Long-eared Bat


Reptiles

Denisonia maculata Ornamental Snake


Egernia rugosa Yakka Skink


Furina dunmalli Dunmall's Snake


Paradelma orientalis Brigalow Scaly-foot


Rheodytes leukops Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Turtle


Plants

Page A19


Threatened Species Status Type of Presence

Acacia grandifolia Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Bosistoa selwynii Heart-leaved Bosistoa


Bosistoa transversa Three-leaved Bosistoa


Bulbophyllum globuliforme Miniature Moss-orchid


Cadellia pentastylis Ooline


Cossinia australiana Cossinia


Cupaniopsis shirleyana Wedge-leaf Tuckeroo


Cycas megacarpa Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Dichanthium queenslandicum King Blue-grass


Digitaria porrecta Finger Panic Grass


Leucopogon cuspidatus Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Polianthion minutiflorum Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Quassia bidwillii Quassia


Taeniophyllum muelleri Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid


Table A-8 : Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act

Migratory Species Status Type of Presence

Migratory Terrestrial Bird Species

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle

Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail

Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area

Page A20


Migratory Species Status Type of Presence

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow


Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater


Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch

Migratory Breeding may occur within area

Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch

Migratory Breeding likely to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher


Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail

Migratory Breeding may occur within area

Migratory Wetland Bird Species

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret


Ardea ibis Cattle Egret


Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe


Nettapus coromandelianus albipennisAustralian Cotton Pygmy-goose


Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel


Rostratula benghalensis s. lat. Painted Snipe


Migratory Marine Bird Species

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret


Ardea ibis Cattle Egret


Migratory Marine Reptile Species

Crocodylus porosusEstuarine Crocodile, Salt-water Crocodile


RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Pag

e A

21

Tab

le A

-9:

Geo

log

ical

Un

it D

escr

ipti

on

s (G

eosc

ien

ce A

ust

ralia

)

Map

Sym

bo

lU

nit

Nam

eG

eolo

gic

al d

escr

ipti

on

Qa,

Qrc

, Qs

Und

iffer

entia

ted

qu

ater

nary

sed

imen

tsC

hann

el a

nd f

lood

pla

in a

lluvi

um; g

rave

l, sa

nd,

silt

, cla

y. C

ollu

vium

and

/or

resi

dual

dep

osits

, tal

us, s

cree

, she

et

was

h; b

ould

er,

grav

el, s

and

; ma

y in

clud

e m

inor

allu

vial

or

sand

pla

in d

epos

its

Czb

Maf

ic v

olca

nic

rock

s V

olca

nic

rock

s, p

redo

min

antly

maf

ic; b

asal

t, tr

achy

te,

trac

hyba

salt,

trac

hya

ndes

ite, l

euci

tite,

bas

ani

te,

neph

elin

ite, l

imbu

rgite

, rh

yolit

e, tu

ff an

d hi

gh le

vel i

ntru

sive

s; r

are

vol

cani

clas

tic s

edim

ents

Czl

Fer

rugi

nous

dur

icru

st

Fer

rugi

nous

dur

icru

st, l

ater

ite; m

ay

incl

ude

mas

sive

to p

isol

itic

ferr

ugin

ous

subs

oil,

mot

tled

clay

s

Czs

Und

iffer

entia

ted

C

aino

zoic

sed

imen

tsS

and

plai

n, m

ay in

clud

e so

me

resi

dual

allu

vium

; san

d do

min

ant,

grav

el, c

lay

Czo

biB

iloel

a F

orm

atio

nM

udst

one,

silt

sto

ne, o

il sh

ale,

sa

ndst

one,

min

or li

gnite

, coa

l and

lim

esto

ne

Jspr

Pre

cipi

ce S

ands

tone

Thi

ck-b

edde

d, c

ross

-bed

ded,

peb

bly

quar

tzos

e sa

ndst

one,

min

or li

thic

sub

labi

le s

ands

tone

, silt

sto

ne,

mud

ston

e

Pgg

bB

ocoo

lima

Gra

nodi

orite

Dee

ply

wea

ther

ed,

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed b

iotit

e-ho

rnbl

ende

gra

nod

iorit

e

Pgg

dD

umgr

ee T

onal

iteP

ale

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed le

ucoc

ratic

bio

tite-

horn

ble

nde

tona

lite;

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed h

ornb

lend

e qu

artz

di

orite

Pgg

rR

ocky

Poi

nt

Gra

nodi

orite

Gre

y to

pin

kish

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed b

iotit

e-ho

rnbl

ende

gra

nod

iorit

e, lo

cally

with

poi

kilit

ic K

feld

spar

Pgg

sR

edsh

irt G

rani

teP

ink

med

ium

to c

oars

e-gr

aine

d ho

rnbl

ende

-bio

tite

gran

ite w

ith m

inor

tour

mal

ine

pegm

atite

Pgg

wW

yalla

Gra

nite

Pin

k m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed b

iotit

e gr

anite

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Pag

e A

22

Map

Sym

bo

lU

nit

Nam

eG

eolo

gic

al d

escr

ipti

on

Pgm

aM

anne

rsle

y G

rano

dior

iteP

ink

to g

rey

porp

hyrit

ic b

iotit

e-ho

rnbl

ende

qua

rtz

mic

rodi

orite

with

abu

ndan

t sec

ond

ary

biot

ite a

long

join

ts

Pgm

zZ

ig Z

ag T

onal

iteP

ale

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed h

ornb

len

de-b

iotit

e to

nal

ite, l

ocal

ly w

ith p

atch

es o

f epi

dot

e al

tera

tion

P-R

gfe

lsic

intr

usiv

es

Fel

sic

intr

usiv

e ro

cks;

incl

udin

g to

nalit

e, d

iorit

e, g

rano

dior

ite, g

rani

te, m

onzo

gran

ite, r

hyo

lite,

mic

rogr

anod

iorit

e

-Rgv

oV

oew

ood

Gra

nite

Pal

e pi

nk to

gre

y m

ediu

m-g

rain

ed b

iotit

e gr

anite

, loc

ally

with

pyr

ite a

long

join

t pla

nes

-Roc

lC

allid

e C

oal M

eas

ures

Poo

rly s

orte

d po

lym

ictic

pe

bble

to b

ould

er c

ongl

omer

ate,

san

dsto

ne, s

iltst

one,

co

al s

eam

s, fe

lsic

tuff

Pw

smS

mok

y be

dsA

ndes

itic

cong

lom

erat

e an

d sa

ndst

one,

mud

ston

e, m

inor

and

esite

lava

Pw

yoY

oula

mbi

e C

ongl

omer

ate

Gra

nule

to b

ould

er p

olym

ictic

con

glo

mer

ate

com

mon

ly w

ith a

bund

ant g

rani

te a

nd r

hyo

lite

clas

ts, f

elsi

c vo

lcan

icla

stic

san

dsto

ne, t

uffa

ceou

s an

d ca

rbon

aceo

us s

iltst

one

and

mud

ston

e, d

aciti

c to

rhy

oliti

c ig

nim

brite

, br

ecci

a, m

inor

coa

l

Pai

nIn

vern

ess

Vol

can

ics

Dar

k gr

ey tr

achy

te to

dac

ite, v

olca

nic

brec

cia;

num

erou

s sm

all h

ornb

lend

e qu

artz

mon

zodi

orite

intr

usio

ns

Psy

rY

arro

l For

mat

ion

San

dsto

ne, s

iltst

one,

lim

esto

ne, c

hert

, min

or a

ndes

ite

Csr

Roc

kham

pton

Gro

upD

ark

grey

mud

ston

e, s

iltst

one,

fels

ic v

olca

nicl

astic

sa

ndst

one,

po

lym

ictic

con

glo

mer

ate,

ooi

d-be

arin

g sa

ndst

one

and

cong

lom

erat

e w

ith m

udst

one

rip-u

p cl

asts

; ool

itic

and

pis

oliti

c lim

esto

ne a

nd m

inor

ske

leta

l lim

esto

ne; r

are

rhyo

litic

igni

mbr

ite

Dsa

mM

ount

Alm

a F

orm

atio

nT

hinl

y in

terb

edd

ed fi

ne-g

rain

ed s

ands

ton

e an

d si

ltsto

ne a

nd th

ick

beds

of

cong

lom

erat

e w

ith a

ndes

itic

to

daci

tic c

last

s an

d si

ltsto

ne r

ip-u

p-cl

asts

Dw

tmT

hree

Moo

n C

ongl

omer

ate

Gre

en-g

rey

to p

urp

le, g

ranu

le to

cob

ble

ande

sitic

to b

asal

tic p

oly

mic

tic c

ong

lom

erat

e, li

thof

elds

path

ic to

fe

ldsp

atho

lith

ic s

ands

tone

, si

ltsto

ne, m

udst

one,

and

esite

, min

or f

elsi

c tu

ff, f

ossi

lifer

ous

limes

tone

; rar

e b

asal

tic

pillo

w la

va a

nd

hyal

ocla

stite

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Pag

e A

23

Map

Sym

bo

lU

nit

Nam

eG

eolo

gic

al d

escr

ipti

on

SD

fer

Ere

bus

beds

Dac

itic

to r

hyo

litic

vol

cani

clas

tic s

ands

tone

and

co

nglo

mer

ate,

min

or s

iltst

one,

foss

ilife

rous

lim

esto

ne a

nd

mar

ble

Dw

mw

Mar

ble

Wat

erho

le

beds

Gra

nule

to c

obb

le a

ndes

itic

brec

cia,

fine

to m

ediu

m q

uart

z-be

arin

g lit

hof

elds

path

ic s

ands

tone

, silt

ston

e, m

inor

fe

lsic

igni

mbr

ite; g

ranu

le to

peb

ble

poly

mic

tic li

mes

tone

-bea

ring

brec

cia;

loca

lly p

orph

yriti

c a

nd a

myg

dalo

idal

an

desi

te; s

ome

limes

tone

Dw

loLo

chen

bar

beds

Gre

en-g

rey

to p

urp

le g

ranu

le to

cob

ble

and

esiti

c br

ecci

a an

d le

sser

con

glom

erat

e, fi

ne to

med

ium

-gra

ined

fe

ldsp

atho

lith

ic s

ands

tone

, fin

e to

med

ium

loc

ally

am

ygda

loid

al lo

cally

por

phyr

itic

ande

site

, silt

ston

e

Tab

le A

-10

: D

escr

ipti

on

of

So

ils in

Inve

stig

atio

ns

Stu

dy

Are

a u

sin

g N

ort

hco

te F

actu

al K

ey.

Map

Un

itS

ho

rt

des

crip

tio

nD

etai

led

so

il u

nit

des

crip

tio

n

CB

5C

rack

ing

clay

Gen

tle to

mod

erat

ely

undu

latin

g an

d ro

lling

land

s w

ith s

ome

broa

d pl

ains

and

low

hill

s an

d ri

dges

: ch

ief s

oils

are

gre

y cl

ays

with

loca

lly im

port

ant a

reas

of d

ark

clay

s or

bro

wn

cla

ys. S

ome

gilg

ai m

icro

relie

f may

be

pres

ent a

nd a

lso

som

e lo

cal a

ccum

ulat

ions

of s

ilcre

te (

bill

y) g

rave

l may

occ

ur. D

eep

er g

rey

and

brow

n cl

ays

occu

r on

the

broa

der

pla

ins.

V

ario

us lo

amy

dupl

ex s

oils

are

pre

sent

loca

lly.

CC

22C

rack

ing

clay

Gen

tly u

ndul

atin

g pl

ains

: dom

inan

t soi

ls a

re d

eep

cla

ys w

ith a

mod

erat

e (1

-2 ft

) gi

lgai

mic

rore

lief.

Chi

ef f

orm

s ar

e gr

ey c

lays

with

less

er b

row

n cl

ays

. Clo

sely

ass

ocia

ted

are

non-

gilg

aied

are

as w

ith lo

amy-

surf

aced

dup

lex

soils

. T

hese

occ

ur e

ither

on

slig

htly

hig

her

land

scap

e si

tes

or

as s

mal

l allu

vial

pla

ins

frin

ging

dra

inag

e lin

es. A

lso

occu

rrin

g ar

e sm

all a

reas

of f

riabl

e ea

rths

and

occ

asio

nal a

reas

of l

oam

y re

d ea

rths

.

Fz1

0Lo

ams

Ste

ep h

illy

to m

ount

aino

us c

ount

ry w

ith s

ome

smal

l pla

teau

rem

nant

s an

d na

rrow

va

lleys

. Chi

ef s

oils

are

sha

llow

lo

ams

with

man

y ro

ck o

utcr

ops.

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Pag

e A

24

Map

Un

itS

ho

rt

des

crip

tio

nD

etai

led

so

il u

nit

des

crip

tio

n

Fz1

1Lo

ams

Ste

ep r

idge

s w

ith s

ome

flat c

rest

s; a

den

se d

rain

age

pat

tern

with

mod

erat

e ar

eas

of lo

w s

purs

. Chi

ef s

oils

are

sh

allo

w lo

ams

with

roc

k ou

tcro

ps.

HG

4B

lack

dup

lex

Allu

vial

pla

ins:

the

chi

ef s

oils

are

har

d al

kalin

e da

rk s

oils

.

Ii4N

on-c

rack

ing

clay

Gen

tly u

ndul

atin

g pl

ains

: dom

inan

t soi

ls a

re v

ery

deep

cla

ys, o

ccas

ion

ally

with

line

ar g

ilgai

on

slop

es. O

ccas

iona

l ar

eas

of v

ery

deep

bro

wn

cla

ys m

ay o

ccur

, and

als

o sh

allo

w h

ighl

y ca

lcar

eous

so

ils. N

ear

the

mar

gin

of th

e un

it lo

amy

dupl

ex s

oils

occ

ur.

Kb1

4C

rack

ing

clay

Rol

ling

to lo

w h

illy

basa

ltic

upla

nds

with

som

e st

ony

rises

, low

sto

ny s

carp

s ab

ove

long

gen

tle s

lope

s to

nar

row

dr

aina

ge f

lats

: chi

ef s

oils

are

sha

llow

dar

k cl

ays

in a

lluvi

al d

epre

ssio

ns.

Mm

11M

assi

ve e

arth

sR

ollin

g to

rou

nde

d lo

w h

illy

plat

eaux

on

deep

ly w

eath

ered

mix

ed p

aren

t roc

ks in

clud

ing

lithi

c sa

ndst

one

s an

d ba

salts

; so

me

low

hill

y di

ssec

ted

area

s w

ith s

mal

l mes

as a

djac

ent t

o h

ighe

r la

terit

ic p

late

aux:

dom

inan

t soi

ls a

re a

lkal

ine

dark

fr

iabl

e ea

rths

with

neu

tral

and

aci

dic

red

fria

ble

eart

hs.

Ass

ocia

ted

are

dar

k, b

row

n, a

nd g

rey

crac

king

cla

ys.

Mo1

4M

assi

ve e

arth

sR

ollin

g to

hill

y co

untr

y: c

hie

f soi

ls s

eem

to b

e ne

utra

l fria

ble

eart

hs.

Mp1

3M

assi

ve e

arth

sS

tron

gly

to m

oder

atel

y hi

lly c

ount

ry o

n m

ixed

and

var

iabl

e ba

sic

to a

cidi

c ro

cks;

slo

pes

are

stee

p to

mod

erat

e an

d cr

ests

rou

nded

; som

e m

argi

nal r

idge

s: c

hief

soi

ls a

re a

cidi

c re

d fr

iabl

e ea

rths

.

Mz5

Mas

sive

ear

ths

Und

ulat

ing

to g

ently

und

ulat

ing

elev

ated

pla

ins

ofte

n b

ound

ed b

y st

eep

late

ritic

sca

rps,

sm

alle

r re

sidu

al o

ccur

renc

es

of th

e un

it of

ten

occu

r as

sca

rp-b

orde

red

low

mes

as: d

omin

ant s

oils

are

slig

htly

aci

d lo

amy

red

ear

ths

whi

ch m

ay

occa

sion

ally

con

tain

nod

ular

gra

vels

. Ass

ocia

ted

are

smal

ler

area

s of

loam

y ye

llow

ear

ths

cont

aini

ng n

odul

ar g

rave

ls.

The

late

ritic

sca

rps

have

a r

ange

of s

hallo

w s

ton

y so

ils. I

n br

oad

valle

y flo

ors

and

on

som

e lo

wer

slo

pes

loam

y m

ottle

d du

plex

soi

ls o

ccur

. S

mal

l str

eam

floo

d-pl

ains

als

o ha

ve lo

amy

dupl

ex s

oils

.

Qa6

Red

dup

lex

Low

hill

y to

gen

tly r

ollin

g co

untr

y w

ith v

ery

narr

ow v

alle

y pl

ains

: har

d n

eutr

al r

ed s

oils

occ

ur in

ass

ocia

tion

with

cr

acki

ng c

lays

sho

win

g lin

ear

gilg

ai fo

rmat

ion.

RLM

S |

CA

LLID

E IN

FR

AS

TR

UC

TU

RE

CO

RR

IDO

R S

TU

DY

Ι A

UG

US

T 2

009

Pag

e A

25

Map

Un

itS

ho

rt

des

crip

tio

nD

etai

led

so

il u

nit

des

crip

tio

n

Qa7

Red

dup

lex

Mod

erat

ely

high

hill

s w

ith r

ound

ed c

rest

s an

d st

raig

ht o

ften

gen

tle s

ide

slo

pes;

nar

row

val

ley

plai

ns:

the

hard

neu

tra

l re

d so

ils c

over

ing

the

hills

are

dom

inan

t.

Tb1

08Y

ello

w d

uple

xLo

w h

illy

to r

ollin

g to

pogr

aph

y w

ith n

arro

w to

mod

erat

ely

wid

e va

lleys

: har

d ac

idic

yel

low

mot

tled

soils

on

the

wid

er

plai

ns a

re a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith v

ario

us c

rack

ing

clay

s on

hill

slo

pes

and

red

eart

h so

ils o

n th

e ar

eas

of r

ollin

g re

lief.

Dat

a ar

e lim

ited

for

this

div

erse

are

a.

Tb8

8Y

ello

w d

uple

xS

teep

hill

y to

mou

ntai

nous

cou

ntry

on

met

ased

imen

ts:

chie

f soi

ls a

re h

ard

acid

ic y

ello

w m

ottle

d so

ils w

ith h

ard

aci

dic

red

soils

all

ofte

n s

ton

y. A

ssoc

iate

d ar

e sh

allo

w lo

ams

on th

e st

eepe

r sl

opes

.

Tb9

0Y

ello

w d

uple

xLo

w r

ound

ed h

ills:

chi

ef s

oils

are

har

d ac

idic

yel

low

mot

tled

soils

with

har

d ac

idic

red

soi

ls o

n m

etas

edim

ents

.

Tb9

1Y

ello

w d

uple

xG

ently

rol

ling

gran

itic

terr

ain

with

slo

pes

not

exc

eedi

ng

6 de

g (e

tch

basi

ns in

gra

nite

): c

hie

f soi

ls a

re h

ard

acid

ic

yello

w m

ottle

d so

ils.

Tb9

2Y

ello

w d

uple

xT

erra

ced

valle

y pl

ains

: chi

ef s

oils

are

har

d ac

idic

yel

low

mot

tled

soils

whi

ch o

ccur

on

the

third

terr

ace.

Ub7

0Y

ello

w d

uple

xG

ener

ally

low

hill

y co

untr

y on

gra

nitic

roc

ks w

ith lo

ng m

oder

ate

to g

entle

slo

pes

to d

rain

age

lines

, som

e ge

ntle

low

er

slop

es; n

arro

w r

idge

cre

sts

with

roc

k ou

tcro

ps: c

hief

soi

ls a

re h

ard

neu

tral

yel

low

mot

tled

soils

.

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page B1

APPENDIX B – CIC ROUTE REFINEMENT FROMLANDHOLDER ENGAGEMENTLandholder engagement commenced using Revision D as the base case. Refinements requested by landowners were considered as discussed below.

Landholder 1After crossing the Calliope River, the CIC passes centrally through large property blocks, owned by one landholder. This land is used for raising cattle and the CIC dissects the paddocks. The impacts of construction on farm activities were discussed and the landholder held a view that the corridor would have to be fenced to protect his stock. The landholder offered two alternative routes which skirted his land, rather than running through the centre. These are shown on Figure B-1. In the landholder’s opinion, the alternative routes reduced the impact as the CIC activity was near the boundary of his land holding. In addition, access could be gained from the external public road (Mount Alma Road) without a requirement for travel across his land. The landholder would still require the corridor to be fenced, however, rather than a fenced corridor through his property, the alternatives would require a single fence along the inside boundary of the CIC on his property.

Alternative Option 1

Alternative Option 1 veers to the east after crossing the Calliope River and crosses the river again before turning to the northeast to track between the Calliope River and the Dawson Highway. This option then crosses the Calliope River again to rejoin the CIC Revision D route just before the Harper Creek crossing.

The benefits of this option are that it addresses the landholder’s concerns about going through the centre of his land and it potentially provides better access from the Dawson Highway. However, it adds approximately 2km to the length of the CIC, which increases the construction cost of each pipe to be located within the CIC. Also, two Calliope River crossings and one creek crossing are added, increasing potential impact on riparian vegetation and water quality. This option may result in impacts to a larger area of land due to the construction limitations and the need to spread the pipelines apart from each other at the additional watercourse crossings and two additional direction changes in the alignment.

Note that it is not practical to hug the road easement as requested by the landholder as the road easement has minor direction changes not readily followed by the pipelines. The width of the CIC would become much greater than 200 metres.

Alternative Option 2

Alternative Option 2 veers to the north after the Calliope River crossing, meets the Mount Alma Road and tracks a similar line to the Mount Alma Road until it rejoins CIC Revision D prior to the Harper Creek crossing.

The benefits of this option are that it takes the CIC alignment away from the centre of the land holding and it has more direct access from Mount Alma Road. The construction conditions are similar to the CIC Revision D alignment, however it is approximately 1km longer, potentially adding to the construction costs. Two additional direction changes will be required for this option, increasing the area of land that may be impacted on.


Assessment and conclusion

Option 2 is preferred over Option 1 as a viable alternative for the CIC alignment between the Calliope River crossing and the Harper Creek crossing (Revision E1). Although the landholder requested the alignment to follow the Mount Alma Road, it can only track close to it due to constructability issues with the pipeline designs. Option 1 is not practicable owing to three additional watercourse crossings, additional length and its proximity to the Calliope River in general.

Further consultation with the landholder revealed that the location where CIC Revision D crosses Harper Creek was a permanent waterhole. Construction within a 200m wide corridor at this location could significantly impact on the permanent waterhole and its ability to retain water. Also, there is potential for cultural heritage issues at this location. Therefore, Alternative Option 2 was realigned to generally follow Mount Alma Road, with a Harper Creek crossing point upstream of the original. This realignment will be adopted as Revision F.

Landholders 2 and 3The landholders questioned the width of the corridor in the vicinity of Sandy Creek, where the CIC has a direction change and tracks north (refer to Figure B-2). The CIC was widened in this location to allow for the direction change, the crossing of the existing Queensland Gas Pipeline and the crossing of Sandy Creek, which occur within a few hundred metres of corridor length. The approximate 500m width was maintained after the direction change to allow potential pipelines to track either side of the large farm dam located to the west of Mount Alma Road. The CIC was brought back to the 200m width prior to crossing the Mount Alma Road again.

Landholders requested the Government consider bringing the CIC back to 200m width within 250m of the direction change, and to keep the CIC to the west of the farm dam, with the aim of decreasing the impact to the land and property activities. A realignment of Mount Alma Road, as shown on Figure B-2, was suggested at this location to negate the need for two crossings within a short length of corridor.

This refinement was considered not feasible due to the need for the pipelines to have additional construction area to negotiate the crossings and direction change. In addition, it appears the ground conditions are not favourable for construction due to the presence of rock. If the pipelines were brought together into a 200m wide CIC soon after the Sandy Creek crossing, there is potential for the construction impact to be higher on these properties than if the wider CIC was adopted and allowed a little flexibility in the pipe alignment through this area.

Realignment of Mount Alma Road is not necessary as the pipeline construction across it is not difficult. A slight change was made to not include the Mount Alma Road road reserve in the CIC boundary. This change is adopted into Revision F.

Landholder 4The Landholder to the immediate south of Larcom Creek raised concerns about the CIC Revision D alignment impacting on future potential subdivision for lifestyle blocks. The Landholder noted the QGP has this impact on land west of Mount Alma Road and he would like to avoid similar constraints on land to the east of Mount Alma Road.

Original route selection and refinement for the CIC attempted to follow the QGP through this area, however Mount Alma Road parallels the QGP easement within 90m and therefore a 200m wide CIC could not be allocated. Realigning Mount Alma Road in two locations would allow the CIC to follow the QGP for 9.5km rather than


cross Mount Alma Road to an alternative route (Revision E2). This would affect the landholder to the north of Larcom Creek also.

One of the benefits of the CIC realignment option shown on Figure B-3 is that the CIC follows the QGP easement for approximately 9.5km, keeping together all gas pipelines, both existing and future. This is the case on two landholdings both to the north and south of Larcom Creek.

A constraint on the option is the realignment of the Mount Alma Road in two locations to allow the CIC to be aligned with the QGP. The same landholders own the land on either side of Mount Alma Road, therefore the road realignment will not affect other landholders. The road is a formed gravel road maintained by the Gladstone Regional Council and further consultation with the local authority will be required. In addition, it involves two significant bends to cross Mount Alma Road which are major construction design issues.

Considering both the positives and negatives of this option, it is recommended that the original Revision D alignment be adopted into Revision F.

Landholder 5During assessment of re-alignments requested by landholders, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning recognized that there may be an opportunity to realign the CIC between the Dawson Highway crossing and the Moura Short Line rail crossing (refer Figure B-4). An alignment adjacent to the Dawson Highway was assessed in an attempt to minimise the impact on farm activities by construction.

This realignment keeps the CIC away from the unnamed creek and closer to Dawson Highway. It also provides direct access from Duck Holes Road near the rail crossing, and potentially the Dawson Highway, rather than gaining access via the rail service road. However, it shifts the rail crossing area to land which has a significant drainage gully running through it and under the rail line through culverts. A safe minimum working distance needs to be maintained at the rail crossing for all pipelines (Revision E1).

The presence of an old cattle dip on Lot 4 on CTN406 needs to be considered in this section of the corridor. The option described above was slightly realigned to keep the corridor between the Dawson Highway road reserve and the disused cattle dip and yards. This realignment reduces the impact of the corridor on farm activities however careful management of construction in the vicinity of the cattle dip will be required. This will be adopted into Revision F.

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page C1

APPENDIX C – CIC ROUTE REFINEMENT FROM CONSTRUCTABILITY FIELD ASSESSMENT

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page C2

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page D1

APPENDIX D – MEETING RECORDS

Date Meeting subject Attendees

17 April 2009 Project briefing/scoping meeting DIP, RLMS, Rowland

28 April 2009 Discuss RLMS proposal DIP internal meeting

15 May 2009 Information briefing with Surat Gladstone Pipeline (SGP) Pty Ltd (Arrow Energy)

DIP, RLMS, SGP

18 May 2009 Information briefing with Australia Pacific LNG Project

DIP, RLMS, Origin Energy

20 May 2009 Joint LNG proponent meeting to discuss CIC and issues

DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, GHD

20 May 2009 Information briefing with Queensland Curtis LNG Project

DIP, RLMS, BG Group

2 June 2009 Update on preferred CIC route and selection criteria used

DIP, RLMS

2 June 2009 Information briefing with Jemena DIP, RLMS, Jemena

3 June 2009 Information briefing for Brisbane-based State Agencies

DIP (State Development Areas), RLMS, Dept Premier & Cabinet, Qld Treasury, DERM, DEEDI (Industry & Development), DEEDI (Mines & Energy), DEEDI (Qld Primary Industries & Fisheries), DIP (LNG Industry Unit), Dept Transport & Main Roads.

5 June 2009 Project update meeting DIP, RLMS, Rowland

9 June 2009 Discussion on corridor acquisition strategies

DIP, RLMS

10 June 2009 CIC update and selection criteria briefing to LNG proponents

DIP, RLMS, SGP, BG Group (incorporating QGC), Origin Energy, GLNG

11 June 2009 Draft report DIP, RLMS

12 June 2009 Follow up meeting regarding land acquisition issues and landholder consultation

DIP, RLMS, Rowland,

17 June 2009 Briefing to Coordinator-General on preferred CIC route and selection criteria

DIP, RLMS, Coordinator-General

RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page D2

Date Meeting subject Attendees

19 June 2009 Update on CIC route and issues with LNG proponents. Proponent-derived route presented.

DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, BG/QGC,Origin Energy

23 June 2009 Discussion on merits of proponent-derived CIC route

DIP, RLMS

30 June 2009 Preparation for landholder consultation visit to Gladstone

DIP (State Development Areas and Land Acquisition), RLMS, Rowland

6-10 July 2009 Consultation with affected landholders (see Rowland report for further information)

DIP, RLMS, Rowland

8 July 2009 Information briefing for region-based State Agencies

DIP, RLMS, DERM, Qld Rail, DEEDI (Qld Primary Industries & Fisheries), DEEDI (Mines & Energy)

15 July 2009 Follow up meeting with LNG proponents regarding landholder feedback and CIC realignment options

DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, BG/QGC, Origin Energy

27-28 July 2009

Further engagement with affected landholders

DIP, RLMS, Rowland

30 July 2009 Pipeline corridors within the GSDA with update on CIC field work by RLMS and landholder consultation.

DIP, RLMS, QER Limited, Aurecon, Origin Energy, Shell Australia, Coffey Environmental, SGP, BG/QGC, GLNG

17-18 August 2009

Field survey of affected properties for CIC.

DIP, RLMS, Origin Energy, SGP, BG/QGC, GLNG

DIP – Department of Infrastructure and Planning

SGP – Surat Gladstone Pipeline Pty Ltd

GLNG – LNG Project proponent for Santos

DERM – Department of Environment and Resource Management

DEEDI – Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation

Date post:	08-Jul-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lenguyet
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Callide Infrastructure Corridor Study Investigation Report fileThe Queensland LNG industry, centred...

Documents