GREYMOUTH PETROLEUM. RE: Greymouth Petroleum Limited Submission on the proposed South Taranaki District Plan

Transcription

1 GREYMOUTH PETROLEUM 12 th October 2015 South Taranaki District Council Private Bag 9002 Hawera 4640 RE: Greymouth Petroleum Limited Submission on the proposed South Taranaki District Plan This document constitutes Greymouth Petroleum Limited s submission on the Proposed South Taranaki District Plan ( the Plan ), which was publicly notified on 15 August Our contact details are as follows: Tanya Dickey Consenting and Land Manager Greymouth Petroleum Limited P.O. Box 3394 Fitzroy tanya.dickey@greymouthpetroleum.co.nz For the purpose of clause 6 (4) of part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act, we confirm that we could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. We do wish to be heard in support of our submission. Specific comments on objectives and policies and rules in the plan Objective/Rule 1.11 Definitions BUILDING HAZARDOUS FACILITY Support/Oppose Reasons amendments A drilling rig or a work over rig fall within the definition of a building. Suggest adding in a provision that if a rig is erected for less than 3 months, then it falls outside of the definition of a building. Support the exclusion of pipelines and seismic surveys from this section. G r e y m o u t h P e t r o l e u m 1 4 C o n n e t t R o a d W e s t, B e l l B l o c k / P O B o x , F i t z r o y N e w P L y m o u t h, N e w Z e a l a n d T e l : ( ) F a x : ( ) w w w. g r e y m o u t h p e t r o l e u m. c o. n z

2 MAJOR HAZARDOUS FACILITY Amendment The relationship of this definition to that of Major Hazardous Facility could be made clearer. Is for example a facility exempted from the definition of Major Hazardous Facility simply a Hazardous Facility? We support the exclusion of petroleum exploration and petroleum production where the Health and Safety in Employment (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2013 apply. We also note the extra coverage provided by the Health and Safety in Employment (Pressure Equipment, Cranes, and Passenger Ropeways) Regulations 1999 in terms of for example the inspection and certification of pressure vessels at production sites. We however consider this exclusion from the scope of Major Hazardous Facility should also apply to such facilities where they meet one or more of items (c) and (e) as follows: (c) The storage/use of more than 100,000L of petrol (d) The storage/use of more than 50,000L of diesel. (e) The storage/use of more than 6 tonnes of LPG. Otherwise the policy intent of excluding such facilities on the basis they are subject to the HSE (PEE) regulations would not be achieved. The planned April 2016 of introduction of the Health and Safety at Work (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations and for similar reasons would suggest that these facilities should for the same reasons be exempted from the definition of Major Hazardous Facility. Section 2 Objectives and Policies amendment We also note upcoming Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2015 may not be made until 2016 and so this date may need to be updated. Depending on when the plan and is finalised and these regulations come into effect the reference to the Health and Safety in Employment (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2013 may be able to be removed. This policy relating to Land Use Activities in the Rural Zone and states that it will Provide for the establishment and operation of new non-farming activities and the ongoing operation of existing lawfully established activities which are compatible and/or associated with - 2 -

3 farming activities in the rural environment. This is positive however it is unclear whether petroleum activities are compatible with farming activities. As it currently stands, this policy is open to interpretation and it is suggested to include wording regarding what is compatible with farming activities Support Support including this policy. There is often a reverse sensitivity issue when new subdivisions are located adjacent to oil and gas exploration or production sites. The District Plan needs to recognise this and it does so in this Policy. 2.6 Rural Industrial Zone Support We support this section that applies amongst other facilities to the petroleum production facilities at Maui and Kapuni. 2.8 Hazardous Substances Support We support the approach outlined in this section and the and Contaminated Land 2.9 Energy amendment. focus on avoiding regulatory duplications. We consider there should be some minor amendments to the text under Local Resources : It should logically refer to other petroleum facilities in the region, such as the substantial Kupe Petroleum Station. Development should be added to the following sentence - A significant issue for the district is a need to recognise the presence of existing oil and gas operations and provide for their ongoing efficient and effective functioning, as well as to provide opportunities for further exploration and development. The text under the heading Adverse Effects is arbitrary and could influence public perception of the oil and gas industry (or any other energy development). The RMA is an effects based piece of legislation, not impact based. Making a statement that energy infrastructure is often visible located in elevated positions is presumptuous. In terms of oil and gas development, we try locate our sites on flat land to avoid impacting view shafts. It is also cheaper to construct a site on a flat piece of land as opposed to somewhere elevated. Suggest changing the wording of the last sentence to be as follows: While, the energy sector can positively contribute to the social, economic, and cultural well-being of the District, energy developments also have the potential to generate a range of adverse effects. Particular issues include landscape and amenity effects when energy - 3 -

4 development is visible from residential development or as energy resource infrastructure is often visible and/or located in elevated positions. Other Adverse effects can include issues associated with glare, noise, traffic, hazardous substances, ecological values, archaeological values and the values of tangata whenua. It is therefore important that the District Plan gives appropriate consideration to such effects and the mitigation measures proposed by an applicant to reduce adverse effects. Accordingly, the District Plan seeks to manage potential effects on the environment from oil and gas development Do not support. This policy should be refined to make clear it only relates to activities that have an adverse effect in those areas. Otherwise it could preclude important activities such as pipelines from offshore fields even those may have no adverse effect on the area of concern (because for example the pipeline has been directionally drilled under the coastal protection area) Support Support the inclusion of this policy Support We support this policy as it recognises the fact that petroleum resources are located where they are located and require certain activities to be employed to be identified and extracted. In this respect they are similar to many renewable energy resources This policy allows for the use of offset measures and / or environmental compensation in relation to renewable energy development. Suggest that this is something that the District Plan contemplates for both renewable and non-renewable energy developments. It is unclear why renewable is singled out in this regard (d) Support We support the recognition in this policy of the functional necessity for some infrastructure to be located in or near the waterbody. We note pipelines can be routed under waterbodies with potentially no effect on the waterbody Support. Support the inclusion of this policy. Sections We support the inclusion of a setback requiring a dwelling unit, home occupation or other sensitive activity to be located a distance away from petroleum exploration and production activities. We however suggest increasing the setback to be 300m instead of 150m. At 150m, it is likely that reverse sensitivity effects from noise will be present Suggest While the consideration of reverse sensitivity effects is - 4 -

5 changing activity status to Restricted Discretionary Support adopting NZS6801. Do not support the noise assessment position being at any point within the boundary of a Rural Zoned site. welcomed and a step in the right direction, the subdivision activity is still classified as a controlled activity which means the Council must grant consent regardless. This could make these provisions fairly toothless. Subdivision and development in the vicinity of petroleum exploration (e.g. well sites) and/or production activities or other similar activities would need to be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity for the provisions to have any weight. There would also need to be an agreed buffer zone of approximately 300m around the infrastructure so the rule was transparent, able to be applied consistently and able to be enforced. The adoption of the 2008 versions of NZS6801 and 6802, and with that the use of the Leq parameter in place of the previous L10, is a positive step. These versions of the standards are being used more and more commonly throughout New Zealand, either through resource consent conditions or as Plans are being revised. Both the Stratford District Council and the New Plymouth District Council are moving towards the 2008 Standard. The proposed noise rules still retain the rural zone assessment position as being at any point within the boundary of any Rural Zoned site. This assessment position is contrary to the guidance given in NZS6802:2008. In brief, the rationale is that the noise limits set are to protect people around their dwellings and not uninhabited tracts of land. Where the noise limits are to apply some distance from a rural dwelling, and this could be several hundreds of metres or more, then Council should consider a noise limit that reflects the absence of people to be potentially disturbed. 12 Hazardous Substances Rules It should be noted that Council has accepted the use of notional boundary concept in the Temporary Military Activity noise rules. Furthermore, the lighting rule in requires assessment at the notional boundary of an existing dwelling unit in the Rural Zone. We recommend the guidance given in NZS6802:2008 is implemented and require noise limits to be achieved within the notional boundary of any Rural Zoned site. This is consistent with other Councils in the Region. The scope of the definitions of Hazardous Facility and Major Hazardous Facility are unclear and therefore the application of this section is unclear, particularly whether things that are excluded from Major Hazardous Facility are nonetheless still Hazardous Facilities. We do however support the policy intent that is to - 5 -

6 12.2.4(c) Suggest amending. The current wording is unclear. provide that hazardous facilities are permitted activities and major hazardous facilities are a discretionary activity requiring resource consent subject to the fact that definition of major hazardous facility excludes amongst other things petroleum exploration and production facilities which comply with the Health and Safety in Employment (PEE) regulations and that pipelines are separately excluded. Should this read by more than 20%? It is unclear what the basis of the increase is on. If the hazardous effects ratio increases by more than 20% of the previously consented hazardous effects ratio? Support. Support including petroleum prospecting, including Do not support, suggest including a differentiation between petroleum exploration and production. seismic exploration as a permitted activity. There is a significant difference in effects between petroleum exploration sites, such as a wellsite connected to a production station via pipeline, and a production station. This has not been considered in the Energy Rules. Suggest consideration is given to differentiation between petroleum activities of varying scale as is done with renewable energy. A large production station (e.g., Oaonui or Kupe) is fundamentally different in scale from wellhead production facilities or a single well exploration site. For renewables it is only large scale activities that are classified as discretionary with lesser scale renewable activities classified as permitted or limited discretionary and we consider a restricted discretionary approach would be equally appropriate for petroleum exploration and small scale production. The features of these activities that need to be considered are well understood and so are amendable to this classification. Effects are usually short term being approximately 3 months during drilling and well testing (a) (b) Do not support this blanket rule. Do not support including petroleum exploration and production as non-complying activities in the Coastal Protection Area. There are currently offshore developments that are connected to onshore production stations along the coast line via pipeline. This needs to be recognised in the District Plan and suggest including these activities as Discretionary Activities. Do not support the non-complying status of petroleum prospecting in the Residential, Township, Commercial and Industrial Zones

7 Suggest amending this to read Petroleum prospecting, exploration and production Do not support Do not support requiring a consent for any pipeline exceeding 2000 kilopascals as a restricted discretionary activity. Pipelines are currently regulated by Worksafe under the Pipeline Regulations. It is unclear what effect the STDC are trying to mitigate here, however given pipelines are already regulated, Greymouth request this be removed Pipelines above 2000 kilopascals pressure are treated similarly as under the current plan and on this basis I don t intend to comment on this. Please let us know if you disagree and we should push for permitted activity status for such pipelines or for a different threshold to be used. The undergrounding requirement should recognise the reality that in some cases it is necessary for pipelines to come above ground briefly such as to cross streams or come above ground for practical reasons (e.g. local gas gates) Do not support. As above, Greymouth submit that Petroleum Exploration and Production in the Coastal Protection Area should be classified a Discretionary Activity with strict criteria for assessment. This is a blanket rule and we submit that petroleum exploration or production within the Coastal Protection Area should be considered on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the nature and scale of the development and any proposed mitigation measures (a) Lighting Do not support. The ability/extent to which light spill may disturb sleep of residents on the adjoining site is arbitrary. Suggest including a lux measurement that is permitted and a lux measurement that would require sign off (i) Landfarming Suggest amending or deleting. The e.g. should include hydrocarbon pipelines in the list of utilities and activities that should be recognised as having a functional requirement to be located within the Coastal Protection Overlay Area as any pipeline from offshore will need to cross this area to reach an onshore production station. There is nothing in the plan that recognises land farming. Land farming is a land use activity that is prevalent in South Taranaki and provision for this should be made within the District Plan

8 If you have any questions or require any additional information feel free to call me. Kind Regards, Tanya Dickey - 8 -