Anatomía de Trill House

Categories Assessment criteria Criteria meaning Legislative /

Regulatory requirements

Minimises complexity of legislative changes required and regulatory approvals.

Regulatory approvals and potential need for legislative change will vary according to scheme options. Preferred options (rated higher by this criterion) are those which minimise the extent of legislative changes required.

Potential changes include regulations for schemes, legislation, institutional arrangements, land planning and environmental approvals.

The Baseline Substitution Option was considered by the group as likely to require fewer legislative changes than the other options because it is managed by Arrow Energy and can be delivered within the existing regulatory framework. It therefore received a score of 3 (adequate).

The group noted that all other options involving injection potentially require a number of legislative or regulatory changes. They were assigned a lower score of 2 (partly adequate).

9.2

Summary of qualitative assessment results

Table 11 provides a summary of all of the qualitative assessment results discussed previously in this section. The relative ranking of the results is then provided in Table 12.

Table 11 Summary of qualitative assessment results

Categories of

criteria Assessment criteria Baseline Substitution Option

Option 1

Injection to 5 sites Option 2 Injection +

substitution abutting pipeline Option 3 Injection + substitution network to meet a minimum peak delivery period of 20 yrs

1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C

Technical /

Engineering Is easy to design and construct _{Adapts easily to changes required to} 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

accommodate varying co-produced CSG water flows in the medium – long term

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Minimises need for 3rd party dependencies 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2

Strategic Aligns with the Murray-Darling Basin Outcomes 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Is aligned strategically with industry in relation to

co-produced CSG water issues 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3

Environmental /

Sustainability Supports the long term sustainability of the CCA 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4

Minimises impact on the environment during

construction and operation 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3

Social /

Stakeholders Minimises risk of negative public perception by irrigators 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimises risk of negative public perception by

the community 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2

Meets the needs of CSG operators 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3

Management /

Categories of

criteria Assessment criteria Baseline Substitution Option Option 1 Injection to 5 sites Option 2 Injection + substitution abutting pipeline Option 3 Injection + substitution network to meet a minimum peak delivery period of 20 yrs

1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C

Minimises the need for third party governance /

control (external) 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2

Legal / Regulatory requirements

Minimises complexity of legislative changes and

regulatory approvals 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Weighted Score (/4) 1.88 2.94 3.14 3.39 2.76 2.86 3.11 2.66 2.70 2.95

9.2.1

Observations on the findings of the qualitative

assessment

Table 12 and Figure 33 describe the relative ranking of each of the options based on the qualitative results. It should be noted that options from the qualitative assessment were ranked from highest to lowest, with the highest score (ranking) indicating that this option was strongest in meeting the environmental objectives of the project.

Table 12 Ranking the options based on qualitative results

Comparative ranking of

scheme

options Options Score

1 1C

Injection only scheme, water supply profile C 8.5

2 1B

Injection only scheme, water supply profile B 7.9

3 Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution abutting 2C

injection pipelines), water supply profile C 7.8

4

1A and 3C

1A – Injection only scheme, water supply profile A 3C – Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution to meet peak delivery period of at least 20 years), water supply profile

C

7.4

5 Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution abutting 2B

injection pipelines), water supply profile B 7.2

6 Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution abutting 2A

injection pipelines), water supply profile A 6.9

7 _{Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution to meet peak} 3B

delivery period of at least 20 years), water supply profile B 6.8

8 _{Hybrid scheme (injection + water substitution to meet peak} 3A

delivery period of at least 20 years), water supply profile A 6.7

9 _{(Indicative water substitution scheme)} Baseline Substitution Option 4.7

The results of this ranking have been graphed by water option and water supply profile to identify trends. These results are shown in Figure 33.

Figure 33 Qualitative results comparing options and water supply profiles

Based on the full qualitative results shown in Table 12 and Figure 33, the following observations have been made:

Observation 1 Regardless of the water supply profile, Option 1 is always shown to be qualitatively superior. This outcome reflects the objective of a scheme to restore water levels in the CCA and the lower administrative burden for implementing a pure injection scheme.

Observation 2 Apart from the Baseline Substitution Option, all scores are within a relatively limited (albeit high) range of 6.7 to 8.5.

This means that all options are potentially qualitatively ‘acceptable’ (i.e. meet the goal of the project, the long term sustainability of the CCA).

Observation 3 The main differentiator between Option 1, 2 and 3 is the level of management and administration necessary to operate the scheme.

Any scheme requiring substitution is considered administratively more complex (greater number of parties involved) and therefore Options 2 and 3 regardless of water supply profiles consistently score less than Option 1.

Observation 4 The Baseline Substitution Option has a much lower score than the other options considered. This indicates that based on the chosen evaluation criteria, it is qualitatively the least preferred option.

The Baseline Substitution Option score is lower than the other options because the objectives of this option are not driven by the requirements of the Basin Plan and consequently does not generate an assured net benefit for the CCA.

Observation 5 Within the same option, water supply profile C is always superior to water supply profile B, which is superior to water supply profile A.

This outcome is driven by the larger benefit to the CCA driven by a larger water supply volume.

Observation 6 Option 1C which involves the direct injection of the largest volume of water has the highest score (8.5) and is 7.6 per cent higher than the next most beneficial option (Option 1B). Option 1C is considered qualitatively superior to the other options. This outcome reflects the objective of a scheme to restore water levels in the CCA and the lower administrative burden for implementing a pure injection scheme. - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3