Council ignores landowner opposition to Hunter Gas Pipeline

LAST night, the majority of Upper Hunter Shire Councillors voted to support the Hunter Gas Pipeline project, despite the clear opposition shown by affected landowners.

At the March ordinary meeting, Council resolved to consult with potentially affected landholders before supporting or opposing the pipeline.

A letter was sent to 111 affected landowners on May 10, inviting them to complete a survey about their views on the project and the suitability of the proposed route. 

Landowners were given until May 31 to complete the survey online or in writing, with 35 responding within the short timeframe. 

Thirty-three of the 35 respondents (94 percent) stated they do not approve of the proposed route and 28 (80 percent) said they do not support the project at all.

At last nights meeting, Council had two options; to note the survey results and consider opposing the project or to note the survey results and not adopt a position.

Councillors Abbott and Fisher attempted to move an amended recommendation, which opposed the project in line with the majority of affected landholders, due to its environmental impacts.

However, the recommendation was lost after Mayor Collison and Councillors Driscoll, Burns and Campbell voted against it.

Councillors Campbell and Burns then moved a foreshadow motion, which “deleted” the option of not adopting a position and replaced it with Council “supporting the pipeline project being located on public land to minimise private land disturbance.”

The motion was passed, with Councillors Collison, Campbell, Burns and Driscoll voting for and Councillors Abbott, Fisher and Watts voting against.

Here’s how Councillors debated their decision:

During the meeting, Hunter Gas Pipeline Manager of Environment and Community, Barbara Campany, told Council the company had been in contact with less than half of the 46 Upper Hunter landowners, who it considers directly impacted by the pipeline.

“We’ve personally engaged with 22 of the 46 impacted [Upper Hunter] land holders, so they’re the landholders where the pipeline currently directly intersects,” Ms Campany said.

“We have 46 total immediately affected landholders. I understand there’s a lot of other areas in the community that when and if we get to construction, there will be much broader consultation. This is about finding the right route alignment on the properties that are affected,” she said.

“Most of the landholders we have met with have been respectful and tolerant . . . there’s a lot of uncertainty around the project and theres a lot of rumour and speculation that doesn’t help from our perspective, but we are certainly trying very hard to work with those land holders,” she said.

“We have been working with local solicitors from Scone who have been approached to represent landholders or they’ve approached land holders to represent. In a way, our focus there has been stalled for the last few months, but we’re hearing the feedback that you’ve had.

“We’re now very concerned that the wrong messages are out there. We see Council’s consideration [recommendation] to extend any decision you make about supporting or opposing the pipeline for at least six to twelve months so Hunter Gas Pipeline respectfully ask Council to consider extending that decision if possible,” said Ms Campany.

Councillors Campbell and Abbott asked Ms Campany for clarification on some aspects of the pipeline project.

“I wonder just how well you’ve been able to explain to the landowners their concerns of how its going to affect their particular land, how deep this pipeline is going to be and after, if the gas pipeline goes ahead, the restoration work, can you guarantee that it’s going to be put back in the same position or in a position of condition that will no inhibit any of the farming or grazing applications?” asked Cr Campbell.

Ms Campany explained the minimum depth of the pipeline is 750 millilitres to top cover, however depth is negotiable depending on the landowner.

“We know in the Scone area, the sensitivities around the horse farming in particular and high-yield agriculture, that’s negotiable. We can bury the pipeline as deep as we need, we can bury it to two and a half metres,” Ms Campany said.

“It’s really about trying to make sure the project has no long-term impact. The construction is the biggest impact, it’s short, it’s six weeks to three months depending on the area we have to cut through and the geographic challenges like rock or soft soil,” she said.

“The actual restoration, the soil is put back in the same way it’s taken out, so they build the same layers of soil back and rehabilitate the same way, if not the same, better. Then there is a two-year weed management in place,” she said.

Cr Abbott asked if the pipeline would remain underground after it’s decommissioned and how the company would measure soil erosion or detect possible leakages.

“Once they finish bringing gas through and I don’t know how long that would be, they’re estimating 20 years, it is left in situ . . .  they don’t want to take it out of the ground again,” Ms Campany replied.

“That is a problem for the next generation, with these pipelines buried forever on their properties,” said Cr Abbott.

“I cant answer what the next generation issues are going to be only that I’m sure that whatever regulation is around decommissioning, they would be upheld. It’s not designed to be non-compliant at all,” said Ms Campany.

“I know that in other areas there has been some issue with some respect to soil degradation and erosion. What does the company have to say about soil erosion? Also the fugitive emissions because the gas pipelines are known to leek and thats obviously a concern given that methane is one of the toxic green house gases. How does the company plant to keep track of any possible leaks?” questioned Cr Abbott.

“There are measures you can put in place . . . there are ways to negate those impacts during construction,” Ms Campany said.

“The actual pipeline is made of three layers of carbon steel. It’s regularly inspected by what is called a PIG, which is launched from a pigging station built 100 kilometres apart, that’s where you can shutdown the gas pipeline. These pigs are the intellectual equipment, checking the integrity of the pipeline,” she explained.

“For instance, if for some reason a heavy piece of equipment was to bump the pipeline, it would never penetrate the pipeline. . . it might indent the pipeline and that intelligent PIG would be able to tell whether or not there’s been any even slight damage to the pipeline. It would never rupture unless there was some natural disaster, god forbid, but these pipelines are designed to go and move with earthquakes,” she said.

Cr Abbott and Cr Fisher reiterated the landowners opposition to the project, with Cr Fisher speaking on some of the public comments received in the survey.

“This project has been been approved for years, several, many years, well over a decade. It has a 200 metre [wide] approved corridor on which to build this pipeline and yet there are people here who responded to us who have never heard of it. That is absolutely astonishing,” Cr Fisher said.

“Other land owners who have been contacted by the company and have, as one landowner put it, cooperated with the pipeline, they’re saying they’ve been fed half truths and misinformation, disingenuous, tardy in their response, that the relationship has soured . . . the company has no idea of public relations,” he said.

“It seems to be one side is saying one thing and yet the survey is absolutely comprehensive, 94 percent opposed. To me it absolutely beggars belief that something has been approved for so long, that a landowner through whose property this is to be built on, still hasn’t heard and that to me is absolutely disgraceful,” he said.

Cr Abbott moved an amended recommendation for Council to “note the survey and council oppose the project in line with the majority of landholders, due to its environmental impacts.” This was seconded by Cr Fisher.

Cr Burns opposed the amended recommendation, saying Council’s opposition towards the project would be premature.

“To say that it’s overwhelming [opposition], it’s just not true. Thirty people out of 42 (35) respondents, out of 111 asked. It’s not overwhelming . . . I think we re being a bit hasty to oppose it. I think we need to hold community consultation,” Cr Burns said.

“Whether or not we like it and I’m not saying I’m necessarily for it, the Australian Federal Government and its own chief scientists have said gas is a transitional fuel. That’s what we’re working with here. We take away the gas pipeline, we won’t get the transitional fuel. Liddell is closing down in two years, Bayswater is not going to be far away from it,” he said.

“We don’t have the green energy yet to make this gap transition. Everyone is working on it we know that, but we need to have the transition,” he said.

Cr Fisher made a rebuttal by re-stating that Council should listen to it’s landowners.

“I think we have to listen to what our landowners and ratepayers are telling us and they are strongly opposed . . . if that’s not overwhelming, I don’t know what is,” Cr Fisher said.

“Council has met with the Hunter Gas Pipeline on two or three occasions, we’ve been promised, I think, a heat map on where resistance was, that hasn’t come about,” he said.

“To see the comments of those landowners and how strong they were, the strength of language that was used, this is something that we need to fall in behind them and give them support,” he said.

Cr Campbell said the landowner opposition came down to a lack of understanding.

“A lot of those objections were, they didn’t understand, they haven’t been contacted, so clearly theres a responsibility on the gas pipeline to go and talk to them and understand that their farming operations will not be impacted. Thats up to you to do [Ms Campany], that’s not for Council to do, that’s up to the gas pipeline. I think that once that happens, people will understand,” Cr Campbell said.

“By all means, go and have a look at the ones already in the pipeline. The one that comes in from South Australia, right alongside the Dunnedoo road, Coolah Road, you don’t know they’re there,” he said.

Cr Abbott addressed Cr Burns’ comments about gas being a “transitional fuel.”

“In fact in relation to energy, wind, solar, pumped hydro, battery storage, they’re already won the race and gas is not a transitional fuel. It’s not renewable, it’s not transitional. New gas is an unnecessary and dangerous step in Australia’s effort to tackle climate change,” she said.

Cr Campbell then moved his foreshadow motion to delete point two: “not adopt a position on the project given that Council has no role in the approval or regulation of the project” and replace it with, “Council support the project with the pipeline located on public land to minimise private land disturbance.” This was seconded by Cr Burns.

Naturally, Cr Abbott and Cr Fisher opposed the foreshadow motion. 

“This [decision] was delayed so we could wait for the community consultation to come back, it has come back and people have written to us within the timeframe and they have said they don’t want to see this pipeline. This is called playing gymnastics now,” objected Cr Abbott.

Cr Burns said the community has either not been fully informed or misinformed about the project and Hunter Gas Pipeline should be given the chance to consult more with landowners.

“Thirty of the respondents, 84.7 percent want more information from the proponent, so I’m not sure how they could have come to an informed decision,” Cr Burns said.

“If the banks don’t like it they won’t fund it. All we’re doing is not opposing it, we’re not creating more angst in the community, which has actually been rabble-roused out there, there has been people out there telling mistruths,” he said.

“The 111 land owners, it’s faulted, there’s only 46 landowners that have to be contacted at this point. Further down the track, and thats only pending if they [Hunter Gas Pipeline] get financed, then they’re going to have to do a lot more, but at the moment, through their own admission, they’ve had trouble getting there,” he said.

Cr Fisher, who attended the meeting via zoom link, attempted to voice his opposition to the foreshadow motion but was told by Mayor Collison his raised hand was not seen on the screen.

The foreshadow motion was voted in, with Mayor Collison and Councillors Campbell, Burns and Driscoll voting for and Councillors Abbott, Fisher and Watts voting against.

“How can councillors support routing this onto public land, when you don’t know what that public land is?” said a defeated Cr Fisher.

“You don’t know what the impacts are going to be on that public land, we might be wanting to put a sports facility, a swimming pool, any amount of public structure and now you’re going to say councillors support routing the Hunter Gas Pipeline through public land, which we could well be the manager of? I do not understand it,” he said.

“It seems very foolhardy to commit to supporting this project, such as it is, it seems to me to be a shamozzle, but anyways you’ve voted on it now and it’s gone,” he said.

Before Council moved onto the next agenda item, Cr Watts asked Mayor Collison to “pull up” Councillors who were whispering amongst themselves during the pipeline debate.

“The comments, the whispering, it’s hard enough to listen as it is, but if we have comments and whispering . . . if the Mayor could pull Councillors up please,” Cr Watts said.

Mayor Collision took Cr Watts’ comment on notice.