Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 11 June 2004:

(1) Was Woodside's original proposal for a single-hulled floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel.

(2) Did the final environmental approval require a double-hulled vessel; if so, why did the Government require a double-hulled FPSO vessel.

(3) Would a single-hulled FPSO vessel meet Australian environmental law requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1974 inside Australian Territorial waters

(4) Does MARPOL require all new FPSO vessels to be double-hulled; if so, why.

(5) Under normal operating conditions, will produced water and surplus gas at Enfield be re-injected into the oil reservoir.

(6) Would the discharge of produced water containing oil into Australian territorial waters be permitted under the EPBC Act or the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act; if not, why not.

(7) Did Woodside enter into an environmental bond or arrangement for compensation or financial reparation in the event of a spill at Enfield with the Government; if so, what are the details.

Senator Ian Macdonald (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Woodside Energy Ltd's original proposal as set out in its referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) for the WA-271-P (Enfield) Field Development identified a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel. The FPSO vessel was proposed as a possible development concept without specifying whether any such vessel would be single or double skinned.

(2) Woodside Energy Ltd committed to using a double-skinned FPSO in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the WA-271-P (Enfield) Field Development.

(3) Both the EPBC Act and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1974 allow for consideration of each proposal on its merits.

(4) The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Ships (known as MARPOL) does not require FPSOs to be double-hulled.

(5) As part of the conditions of approval for the development under Part 9 of the EPBC Act, Woodside Energy Ltd must submit a plan for managing the impacts of the operation on the environment that includes monitoring and management of produced formation water. Surplus gas will be disposed into a suitable geological formation.

(6) The EPBC Act considers each proposal on its merits. Under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999, an operator of a petroleum activity must ensure that the concentration of petroleum in any produced formation water discharged into the sea is not greater than 50mg/L at any time and averages less than 30mg/L during each 24 hour period.

(7) As part of the conditions of approval for the development under Part 9 of the EPBC Act, Woodside Energy Ltd must submit for the Minister's approval an oil spill contingency plan detailing the strategy to mitigate the environmental effects of any hydrocarbon spills. The plan must include details of the insurance arrangements that Woodside Energy Ltd has made or will make in respect of the costs associated with repairing any environmental damage arising from potential hydrocarbon spills.