An analysis of QWIPL testimony at the Senate Inquiry
For PDF transcripts from Senate Inquiry: Day 1
For PDF transcripts from Senate Inquiry: Day 2
For PDF transcripts from Senate Inquiry: Day 3
DAM LIES! - Gympie Times comment on QWIPL flood mitigation claims.
Some comments on QWIPL testimony from Day 2 of the Senate Inquiry
by Darren Edward
“Staging” the project
Day 2, page 114
Quote:
Senator IAN MACDONALD— …. Is the environment impact for both stages or only for the first stage?
Mr Smith—No, it is only for the first stage; 2035 would require an additional EIS; it would require additional approvals.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—But won’t the impact of what happens in the second stage be relevant in the first stage?
Interjectors—Yes!
CHAIR—Can I just bring this to a point of sharpness. There is a universal point from everyone that is just standing at the back of the courthouse on this that the EIS ought to include stage 2. Everyone but you fellows think that ought to happen.
Members of the audience applause—
Mr Newton—That is not correct in that in the referral to the Commonwealth we included that. We nominated what we were seeking approval for. We clearly stated that there was a stage 2. We actually put the issue to the Commonwealth—
CHAIR—You might be in for a surprise.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, the Commonwealth might have a change afoot.
Mr Newton—You made the statement that we were the only ones. We put the point across.
Mr Smith—I suppose the issue is: what are the impacts—
CHAIR—It seems bloody stupid not to do that.
( Darren E: It might just be wishful thinking on my part, but something tells me that the “surprise” the Commonwealth might have in store for QWIPL is not a rubber stamp marked “EIS approved”.)
How big is that dam?
day 2, pages 116/117
Mr Newton = Graeme Newton, CEO of QWIPL
Mr Dennien = Barry Dennien, Executive Director of Planning, Queensland Water Commission
Mr Spencer = Scott Spencer, Director General, Department of Natural Resources and Water
Quote:
Senator IAN MACDONALD—It has been suggested to me, and I believe there is documentary evidence of this, that the GHD report, on which you have done your costings, has a dam that is considerably bigger in size than the dam you are actually going to build.
Mr Newton—No. The full supply—
Senator IAN MACDONALD—That is not true, you are saying?
Mr Newton—My understanding is that the full supply level for the—
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Answer my question please. The GHD report, on which you base your costings, has a certain size. I am reliably informed that the dam you are building, on the basis of those costings, is notably less in size.
Mr Newton—The key point is—
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Is that right or wrong?
Senator JOYCE—Answer the question.
Mr Newton—I am attempting to answer the question.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is pretty simple: is it right or wrong?
Mr Spencer—Barry, could you—
Mr Dennien—Yes. Are we determining the size of the storage or yield? Those are two different things. Storage wise, it is less; from yield it is actually smaller. So the GHD report, from a volumetric size, is smaller and the yield in the GHD report is less than the yield we are now taking. GHD was a desktop study and applied a historical no-failure type, as we have talked about before. We have now applied a yield from this dam using the new approach, which takes a stochastic analysis et cetera.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Give us the figures on the original GHD. That is how you selected it: on the original GHD.
Mr Dennien—It was selected because it was such a standout. It was two and a half times better than any of the 80 sites selected. It was a standout by such a margin.
Quote:
”So the GHD report, from a volumetric size, is smaller and the yield in the GHD report is less than the yield we are now taking.”
Graeme Newton dissembles
Day 2, page 113
Quote:
Senator TROOD—My simple question, Mr Newton, is: what is the overall cost going to be of this project through all of its stages?
Mr Newton—The project that I am implementing at the moment is the construction of stage 1 of Traveston Crossing dam, which is $1.7 billion.
CHAIR—So the answer is that you really do not know.
Mr Newton—No, I do know. I am constructing stage 1. I will throw to the government to answer stage 2. You need to understand that my area of responsibility is the construction of stage 1, so that is where I focus my efforts, okay? I need to be very clear about that. If I pass over to— because it really is something that fits into the long-term process—
(Darren E: Of course, Mr Newton and his company (QWIPL) and it’s only shareholder (the Qld Govt) are not always so shy regarding Stage 2 of the dam…After all, QWIPL are aggressively acquiring as many properties in Stage 2 as they can. And when discussing water yield to Brisbane, or defending the shallow depth of the dam, Stage 2 is the comparative option of choice.)
(For example, the following “picture” (I hesitate to call it a “graph”, because engineers put scales on the axes of graphs) comes from page 22 of the Qld Govt submission to the Senate Inquiry. )
Perhaps a fairer comparison, though, is the following graph (compiled by the STMR from Sunwater, SEQ Water and local water authority data) showing average depths for all of Queensland’s dams. The big 4 (Somerset, North Pine, Wivenhoe and Hinze) are highlighted in green for easy comparison. Traveston (in red) doesn’t look quite so good anymore does it, in a comprehensive comparison?)
Geotechnical reports
Day 2, page 118
Quote:
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Similarly, have you done a study on geological faults in the area?
Mr Newton—Yes.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—Is that publicly available?
Mr Stewart—The reports are on the website; the geotechnical reports are currently available.
Senator IAN MACDONALD—All I need is yes. We were told it was not. Obviously our other witnesses are wrong and you are right, but that is good because they can look it up on the website.
Day 2, pages 128/129
Quote:
Mr Dennien—We highlighted earlier—and I will draw your attention to five and six—that we looked at a series of dams. No other site can meet the yield of the Traveston dam. No other combination of sites or dams can meet that yield. That was very clearly the reaction to the report and it has been clear since then in subsequent work. Even using the new hydrological approaches, no other combinations can meet the yield.
Quote:
Senator BOSWELL—The dams are at Whyalla, Amamoor Creek, Borumba and Glendower.
Those are the ones that will yield, I believe, more water than Traveston but certainly as much water as stage one.
Mr Smith—With all due respect, we deal with that in detail in the submission, and the yield estimates from each of those dams in comparison, and it does not—
Senator BOSWELL—What does it get to? What yield do you get out of those—
Mr Dennien—If I could draw your attention to the report we circulated earlier today, page 5—
Senator BOSWELL—Just tell me the yield out of those four dams.
Mr Dennien—One hundred and nineteen.
Senator BOSWELL—Isn’t that more than 70?
Mr Dennien—That is using the historical no failure approach.
Senator BOSWELL—You said 119 and know you are telling us that you get 70 out of—
Mr Dennien—No—out of stage 1.
Senator BOSWELL—But you are only building stage 1.
Mr Dennien—We are building the—
Senator BOSWELL—What are we building? Be careful! You nearly put your foot in it then.
Mr Dennien—The EIS has made reference to stage 1 and stage 2.
Senator BOSWELL—You told me that you can get 119 megalitres out of these four dams—
Mr Dennien—These are the other dams.
Senator BOSWELL—and now you are telling me—
Mr Newton—It is a long-term—
Senator BOSWELL—Hang on. You are telling me you can get 119 megalitres out of those four dams but that that is not more than the Traveston dam. The Traveston dam will yield 70 megalitres. One hundred and nineteen is more than 70. You went to great pains to tell us that you are only building stage 1. It is a long time since I went to school, but 119 is more than 70.
Mr Newton—No, I do know. I am constructing stage 1. I will throw to the government to answer stage 2. You need to understand that my area of responsibility is the construction of stage 1, so that is where I focus my efforts, okay? I need to be very clear about that.
stevem
Unit cost comparisons
This post is not related to one specific part of the Qld Govt testimony at the Senate Inquiry, but several. Their justification for the dam almost always seemed to come back to a single document - the infamous GHD desk-top study.
In several instances in their testimony and their submission, the Qld Govt referred to the GHD report having ranked the various dam options in terms of yield. This is not quite true. The only ranking within the GHD report was in terms of unit cost per yield.
Keep in mind that the scope for the GHD report only included dams - the Qld Govt did not ask for any other alternative options to be explored. Within those terms of reference, the Traveston Crossing Dam ranked 4th. That was with an estimated yield of 215,340 ML per year and an estimated cost of only $1.01 billion. As we now know, the projected yields have dropped dramatically and the projected costs have sky-rocketed.
In the GHD report, the estimated unit cost for Traveston was $4,695 per ML per year. For Stage 1 today (from official govt. figures) the cost is $24,286 per ML per year. At that rate, it would have ranked dead last in the GHD report. Also note, in the GHD report the following options: Cedar Grove Dam, Coomera Dam, Glendower Dam, and Zillman’s Crossing dam were all rejected based on high unit cost (with costs ranging from $8,717 to $19,837 /ML/yr).
Here is a graph ranking all of the dams from the GHD report in terms of unit cost (data taken directly from the report) versus the current cost estimates (supplied by the Queensland Government), together with a comparison with desalination (Kwinana plant in WA).
Many people still subscribe to the antiquated idea that new dams are the solution to Queensland’s water needs. Some don’t care a scrap for the environment or sustainability or the destruction of prime agricultural land, and tell themselves that climate change is a myth. But surely even they would reach protectively for their wallets, if only the Qld Govt had the honesty to present to them the true costs of Traveston Crossing Dam.
View Printer Friendly Version