Category Archives: Newspaper Articles

Simone Marsh’s expose of the Corrupt birth of the LNG industry in Qld

Source:,8547 downloaded 8/1/16.
[editors note: the original article included a number of Twitter grabs and videos which have been removed in the interests of brevity]

Courageous whistle-blower, Simone Marsh, shines a further spotlight into the murky and corrupt relationship between the Queensland gas industry and the politicians who are supposed to serve the interests of the public.

PETER GARRETT'S recent memoir Big Blue Sky has offered further insight into the entry of the Queensland CSG-LNG export industry in 2010.

Garrett, who at that time was the federal environment minister, had responsibility for decisions under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC). Referring to the British Gas (QGC) and Santos CSG-LNG projects, Garrett states that one of his final decisions was actually a non-decision.

According to Garrett, despite unambiguous advice from Geosciences Australia regarding inadequate assessment of groundwater impacts on the Great Artesian Basin, intense pressure was applied. Federal treasurer Wayne Swan and resources minister Martin Ferguson had been "acutely focused on the decision".

In Beijing on 24 March 2010, Ferguson witnessed the signing of the sales contract between the BG Group chief executive, Frank Chapman (now Sir Frank), and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) president, Fu Chengyu. Other witnesses at the ceremony included the Duke of York, Prince Andrew and the Vice Minister of China’s National Energy Administration (NEA), Lui Qi. Days earlier, on 12 March 2010, BG Group’s Frank Chapman, Catherine Tanna and Rob Millhouse had been invited guests of Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser and Deputy Premier Paul Lucas — at the government box at Suncorp stadium in Brisbane. Queensland’s Under-Treasurer, Gerard Bradley, and wife Imelda Bradley (Director of Special Projects at the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General) were also invited. Paul Lucas later (February 2011) moved into the position of Attorney-General of Queensland.

In his memoir, Garrett questions whether the Federal Attorney-General’s department had been monitoring his activities during 2010. Not long after Garrett’s "non-decision", he was moved out of the environment portfolio. Garrett had suspected that Swan wanted him out. Tony Burke was moved into the portfolio in Julia Gillard’s second ministry. Within a matter of weeks (22 October 2010), Burke approved the first two east coast CSG-LNG projects. Five months later (March 2011) Wayne Swan appointed BG Group’s Catherine Tanna to the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Garrett’s memoir adds weight to evidence given by me to a federal Senate Inquiry in 2014. Amongst one of several documents initially redacted by certain members of the Senate Select Committee, is an email sent to Queensland treasurer Andrew Fraser on 12 May 2010. The one-page email from Ian Fletcher, then Queensland director-general of the department responsible for issuing petroleum permits, outlines the status of QGC’s environmental impact assessment.

According to Fletcher, QGC’s David Maxwell claimed QGC were unable to provide "detailed engineering data for construction”. Presumably the missing detail would have shown the location of gas field infrastructure. Hence, the gas company had a major legal problem, as the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (QLD) required location information in order to undertake environmental impact assessments and approval decisions.

In fact, many elements were missing, including baseline studies describing existing environmental values (another legal requirement); however these were not mentioned in Fletcher’s email. Multiple CSG-LNG companies were lining up for approvals in the same leaky boats.

QGC’s David Maxwell had been an invited guest of Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser at the government box at the stadium a few months earlier (19 September 2009).

Fletcher outlines QGC’s proposal to appear in front of an LNG Committee to explain its position (i.e. problems following legal requirements) and suggests the proposal represents 'a degree of constitutional innovation'. Fletcher cautions: 'The LNG Committee as a Court of Star Chamber?'

The Coordinator-General forwarded Fletcher’s email to his deputies and assistant. The Assistant Coordinator-General forwarded the email onto my supervisors with the warning: ‘Under pressure!’

Santos’s Rick Wilkinson (whom later moved across to industry group, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association - APPEA) and Santos’ James Purtill (whom has now returned to Queensland Government – as director general of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) – from where he came) were invited guests of Treasurer Andrew Fraser at the government box at the stadium on 14 May 2010, i.e. two days after the "constitutional innovation" email. The Queensland Law Society President was also invited.

Within days of Fletcher’s email (and presumably after QGC’s presentation to the LNG Committee), I was instructed to finalise sections of the Coordinator-General’s report for the Santos and QGC projects. I was not permitted to speak with the Coordinator-General, and draft text was altered and deleted without consultation. The Coordinator-General’s final conditions enabled gas field information to be submitted prior to construction, i.e. after the legislated assessment process. The rule of law had been thrown out on George Street.

People and events surrounding CSG appear to exist in a twilight zone. Ian Fletcher’s intriguing work history includes high-level British government roles. Fletcher worked as a director at UK Trade and Investment, where he worked with the Duke of York. The timing of his Queensland appointment is fascinating, coincidentally synchronising with BG Group entry. By late 2011, Fletcher had departed Queensland, to head the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) i.e. New Zealand’s spy agency.

Queensland executive officers copied into Fletcher's constitutional innovation email:

Colin Jensen — Coordinator-General and Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Jensen resigned after signing off the QGC project and was appointed to a lucrative position as CEO of Brisbane City Council. Campbell Newman was Lord Mayor at the time.

John Bradley — Director-General of the environment department and subsequently Director-General of Premier and Cabinet. Bradley later received a substantial payout (approximately $1M) from the Newman government and became CEO of the Energy Networks Association - the national lobby group for gas and electricity transmitters.

Mal Hellmuth — General Manager LNG Industry Unit within Ian Fletcher’s department (DEEDI).

Dan Hunt — Associate Director-General of Fletcher’s department (DEEDI), was later appointed by the Newman government as Director-General of the Department of Energy and Water Supply.

Mark Bermingham — Deputy Director-General of Fletcher’s department (DEEDI) later offered another position by the Newman government.

It is likely the Under-Treasurer, Gerard Bradley, received a copy of Fletcher’s email. Gerard Bradley later received a substantial payout (approximately $706K) from the Newman government, and was subsequently appointed, by the Newman government, as Chairman of Queensland Treasury Corporation — a government owned corporation. Gerard Bradley’s wife, Imelda Bradley remained within the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Queensland).

So the story of the setting up of the Queensland CSG/LNG industry is somewhat like former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s refusal to prove he has renounced his British citizenship before running as an MP, leaving us still unable to learn if he was even legally able to become an MP let alone prime minister.

Similarly here, under time pressure, senior bureaucrats and politicians pulled strings and shifted guidelines and rules to get the industry in place before the “drop dead” date it was allowed.

Thus, the Queensland gas industry was set up in corrupt fashion, and continues to operate in exactly that fashion to this day.

Simone Marsh was a former analyst with the Queensland Co-ordinator General, whose role included authoring a report on the environmental effects of the proposed LNG industry. Following the filing of the report in June 2010, she walked out of her job and was not heard of again in the media until she testified at the Queensland government parliamentary inquiry into Queensland government administration of Commonwealth government affairs in November last year.

QGC fined for LNG flare smoke incident on Curtis Island


QGC fined for LNG flare smoke incident on Curtis Island

23rd Oct 2015 10:50 AM

QGC has been fined $8538 for causing an environmental nuisance after a flare released a plume of black smoke at its Curtis Island LNG plant.

An infringement notice was issued to QGC following EHP's investigation into the release of smoke on March 10 from a flare near Gladstone.

Subsequent black smoke events are still being investigated.

Gas flares are designed to provide a safe means of dealing with gas that cannot be used in the process and is authorised under conditions in QGC's Environmental Authority.

The State Government operates a network of seven air quality monitoring stations across the Gladstone region to monitor contaminant levels at sensitive places such as residences, and measurements during the black smoke events have not exceeded the air quality standard.

Live air monitoring data is available online at the Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection website.

Any member of the community concerned about flares are encouraged to contact the department's pollution hotline on 1300 130 3721300 130 372.

Letter: QGC says flare emissions well within guidelines


Letter: QGC says flare emissions well within guidelines
Jeff Baillie, QGC | 15th Aug 2015 6:05 AM

Letter to the editor from Jeff Baillie, deputy asset manager midstream, QGC:

COVERAGE of allegations raised by the Gladstone Conservation Council in relation to flaring at our Curtis Island plant has disregarded the evidence and expertise of those people best positioned to manage this matter.

Reporting on the composition of our flare commenced with the approved QCLNG Environmental Impact Statement.

It has continued with the regulator, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, as appropriate under our Environmental Authority and as initial scientific studies are reviewed and updated.

We have also been transparent about the composition of the black smoke sometimes emitted in our flares through information freely available to the community online and in personal briefings to various community-based organisations.

The truth is, the flare flow meters are just one part of a bigger network of technological resources and systems available to our highly trained team of environmental scientists in monitoring and managing our flaring activity.

The independent environmental assessment conducted earlier this year and referenced in your article, found that even under worst-case scenarios, the ground-level concentrations of emissions are well within relevant air quality objectives set by government.

The ambient air monitors positioned around the Gladstone region and managed by the department show no impact on the overall air quality in the region associated with emissions from the QCLNG plant.

Gladstone residents can be confident in these findings.

They can also be confident and proud that in establishing our world's first plant to produce LNG from natural gas in coal seams, we have used world-leading technology.

I assure you, the safe operation of the LNG plant is our highest priority. That includes ensuring the safety of the Gladstone community.

We encourage people with any concerns to call us free on 1800 030 443 FREE, email us at or drop in to our office at 72 Goondoon St.

Meters monitoring flares not fully functional: report

Original Source:

Meters monitoring flares not fully functional: report

Helen Spelitis | 14th Aug 2015 6:26 AM

BLACK SMOKE: An RTI document obtained by GREAN shows equipment used to monitor contents of flare smoke and gas flow was not fully operational between December 2014 and April this year.

FLARE flow meters at the QCLNG plant on Curtis Island, Gladstone had "potential defects" and couldn't be relied on for five months up to April this year, an official information request reveals.

The problems with the flare flow meters coincide with the most significant visible flaring activity of recent times.

The monitoring meters check for health and environment impacts, as well as the plant's productivity.

>> Letter: QGC says flare emissions well within guidelines

While government officials have in the past said they do not have any specific health concerns in relation to flare emissions, the fault has alarmed Gladstone green groups.

Gladstone Conservation Council president Jan Arens, who has a background in engineering and industry, said without the flow meters there was no way of being sure what chemicals were being released into the atmosphere.

"It feels as though concerns raised by the community have simply been pushed aside," Mr Arens said.

"If they've got nothing to hide, then produce the science. Tell us exactly what is in the black smoke."

On April 9 the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection ordered QGC to conduct an evaluation into flare emissions.

The company's fact sheet says the emissions are mostly carbon dioxide.

But the report, within the documents obtained under Right to Information, states the key pollutants at the QCLNG plants include methane, ethylene, acetylene, propane and propylene.

Mr Arens has repeatedly asked QGC to provide scientific data of black smoke samples including details on sampling, test methods and results.

So far his request has been denied.

The Environment Department confirmed it was aware the flow meters weren't working as designed.

However, the meters aren't a requirement under the Environmental Authority. Instead, the department relies on seven ambient air monitors to monitor air quality.

That is exactly the issue Gladstone Region Environmental Advisory Network has raised this week when it formally asked Gladstone Regional Council to approach State Government.

It says those air monitors and not sufficient.

The council is expected to make a decision during their meeting next Tuesday.

Sediment and Turbidity Associated with Offshore Dredging Increase Coral Disease Prevalence on Nearby Reefs

Authors: F. Joseph Pollock, Joleah B. Lamb, Stuart N. Field, Scott F. Heron, Britta Schaffelke, George Shedrawi, David G. Bourne, Bette L. Willis
Published: July 16, 2014
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102498

In recent decades, coral reef ecosystems have declined to the extent that reefs are now threatened globally. While many water quality parameters have been proposed to contribute to reef declines, little evidence exists conclusively linking specific water quality parameters with increased disease prevalence in situ. Here we report evidence from in situ coral health surveys confirming that chronic exposure to dredging-associated sediment plumes significantly increase the prevalence of white syndromes, a devastating group of globally important coral diseases. Coral health surveys were conducted along a dredging-associated sediment plume gradient to assess the relationship between sedimentation, turbidity and coral health. Reefs exposed to the highest number of days under the sediment plume (296 to 347 days) had two-fold higher levels of disease, largely driven by a 2.5-fold increase in white syndromes, and a six-fold increase in other signs of compromised coral health relative to reefs with little or no plume exposure (0 to 9 days). Multivariate modeling and ordination incorporating sediment exposure level, coral community composition and cover, predation and multiple thermal stress indices provided further confirmation that sediment plume exposure level was the main driver of elevated disease and other compromised coral health indicators. This study provides the first evidence linking dredging-associated sedimentation and turbidity with elevated coral disease prevalence in situ. Our results may help to explain observed increases in global coral disease prevalence in recent decades and suggest that minimizing sedimentation and turbidity associated with coastal development will provide an important management tool for controlling coral disease epizootics.

See Also:

Who pays the real price for dredging along the coast?

Original source here

Who pays the real price for dredging along the coast?

Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour have been the subject of criticism since a bund wall leakage in 2011.
Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour have been the subject of criticism since a bund wall leakage in 2011. Australian Marine Conservation Society

CASTING aside the agendas of politicians and activists, the true, long term implications of dredging spoil material along the Queensland coast are difficult to calculate.

Industry has breathed life into the once-quiet town of Gladstone in the form of booming economic activity, employment and high-visibility wear.

When Gladstone Harbour was subject to dredging in 2011, leakage at the Fisherman's Landing bund wall cast a shadow over the entire project.

Gladstone Harbour was recently used as a case study presented by senior engineers Bill Service and Warren Hornsey to Griffith University students, as to what can go wrong in dredging operations.

Fish health and water quality were compromised during 2011, and although a direct link between sediment leakage, heavy metals and aquatic health is yet to be confirmed, it is a substantial factor in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's decision on whether or not to allow dredging in other parts of the coast.

Calls for an independent federal inquiry into the inadequacy of containing toxic substances within the bund wall are being echoed throughout the country.

The amount dredged during 2011 was enormous, as Dr Jim Stoddart, marine biologist working with various LNG projects around Australia, admits.

A total of 25 million cubic metres was removed from the waterways of our harbour.

By comparison, the Abbot Point expansion proposal, approved by Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt, is seeking to dredge 3 million cubic metres, under strict regulations - about an eighth of what was carried out in Gladstone.

Are we gambling on one of the Earth’s greatest assets with dredging operations?
Are we gambling on one of the Earth’s greatest assets with dredging operations? Achim Wetz

Dr Stoddart agreed that when undertaking dredging, environmental damage to some degree was inevitable.

"Dredging is a high-impact activity that cannot be carried out without some sort of footprint," he said.

"There will be some broken eggs, as seen in Gladstone."

Referring to the leakage of heavy metal sediment from Fisherman's Landing as a "broken egg" infuriated environmentalists.

"It's devastating news to millions of people around the world, when the Minister for the Environment, responsible for its stewardship, approves these projects," said Felicity Wishart, Great Barrier Reef campaign director.

"We've seen in Gladstone one of the worst examples of environmental management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

"It was so poorly managed that local fishers are still seeking compensation from the damage caused to their industry.



Dredging is a high-impact activity that cannot be carried out without some sort of footprint. There will be some broken eggs


"And if recent revelations about the substandard work on the bund wall are true, it makes a mockery of environmental standards."

On the other side of the spectrum are mining advocates such as Viv Forbes, an applied science geologist and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, who says the robustness of corals is largely underestimated.

In a post on Gina Rinehart's Facebook page on December 18, Dr Forbes was named a "heroic Australian" for his article Corals - The Great Survivors.

The post, which has since been removed, refers to the article as a purveyor of "simple science", nullifying environmental damage imposed by dredging, mining and the resource industry.

The article states:

"Corals are among the greatest survivors on Earth and have been here for about 500 million years.

"No matter what the future holds, corals are more likely than humans to survive the next major extinction."

Ms Wishart responded to the article by saying it was written by a geologist, not a coral reef scientist.

"It is deeply troubling that people may consider its findings anything more than convenient to serve their short-term interests," she said.

"It ignores the already-massive threats to the reef from poor water quality and the imminent threat faced by plans for further industrial developments along the reef."

An aerial view of Gladstone Harbour before the LNG projects at Curtis Island.
An aerial view of Gladstone Harbour before the LNG projects at Curtis Island. Australian Marine Conservation Society

But in his article, Mr Forbes countered by labelling opponents "green extremists".

"(They) would like to sacrifice all of Queensland's coastal industry on the coral altar - exploration, mining, farming, land development, tourism, forestry, fishing and shipping," he wrote.

"They need reminding, it is only rich societies who can afford to care for their environment."

But what makes us rich, says Dean Fillgram, a marine biologist specialising in coral reef biodiversity, is having one of the largest and most diverse marine ecosystems in the world.

"One instance of dredging gone wrong in Gladstone may not be pivotal in the future of the Great Barrier Reef," he said.

"Unfortunately, it is opening the floodgates for a future where the government and the Australian people have no value for World Heritage protected sites - a world where we reflect upon vibrant corals and unique marine wildlife as something of an urban legend."

The dramatic turn of political parties, from a Labor government that imposed a tax on carbon emissions to a conservative Coalition government vehemently opposed to a price on carbon, has left Australians confused about the environmental priorities of our country.

Furthermore, with mining magnates now holding seats in parliament, the proposed expulsion of the price on carbon will be an interesting indication as to where our government stands on profitability versus sustainability.

"No-one visits Australia to see the massive amounts of industry and huge holes in the ground," Mr Fillgram said.

"We need to remember, as humans, we are part of an ecosystem that will only sustain so much."

The Great Bund Wall Debacle

Whatever my thoughts on the necessity for the dredge program, nevertheless it was governmentally approved and therefore legal. Except...

We knew it wasn't right. We knew they were lying to us. All the evidence showed that there was something wrong with the way that dredging program operated. After all, in spite of the scale, dredging is nothing new in Gladstone Harbour and the risks of dealing with acid sulfate soils are well known. It required a well engineered solution and careful handling of day to day operations.

The truth will out and what started as a trickle is now becoming a flood. Ironic isn't it? 'Blame it on the rain' was never a valid excuse for the ecological impacts on Gladstone Harbour. Such an ecological collapse has never happened yet, no matter how much rain we have had and for it to occur several months after the floods was never scientifically credible.

Firstly, we have this leaked report which shows that the bund wall was constructed with sub-standard materials, and that the geo textile filter which should have been installed within the wall was simply laid on top. This caused the bund wall to leak and toxic materials to leach into the surrounding water.

Someone profited from the sub-standard installation - the question is who? I know who didn't - the local fishing industry and the local people.

Secondly, we have this from the Australian: GLADSTONE Ports Corporation was forced to seek urgent permission to breach its environmental approvals in a race to plug a leaking bund wall before it ran out of space to store potentially toxic acid sulphate soils from dredging associated with the $33 billion Curtis Island LNG export terminals.

We knew that the Ports Corporation had applied to get the rules on turbidity testing changed just for them, but we didn't know the exact reasons. They certainly weren't forthcoming on the exact reasons themselves. If they had just come out and said at the time that the process wasn't working, that there was urgent need to fix the bund wall, if they had just stopped what they were doing to take a deep breath and re-assess the situation. But no, when there is money involved it is full steam ahead and damn the dugongs and turtles.

Thirdly, there is this from the Gladstone Observer: THE Gladstone Ports Corporation has refused to answer questions about whether its Western Basin bund wall failed to meet its environmental commitments.

Too right it is refusing to answer questions. You see, there is a huge liability issue which you can read about here. I believe the Gladstone Ports Corporation failed us on many levels. They failed to choose the correct contractors. They failed to monitor the actions of those contractors. They failed to adequately monitor water quality. They failed to ensure no environmental harm, and most of all, they have failed to acknowledge their mistakes.

The people of Gladstone at the very least deserve an apology.

There are now strident calls for an enquiry: FEDERAL Environment Minister Greg Hunt has called for an urgent review of claims that the failure of a bund wall may have been a major factor in the collapse of water quality and marine health in Gladstone Harbour.
Environment groups have called for a royal commission-style inquiry into dredging in the Queensland port -- as part of the $33 billion Curtis Island LNG developments -- to establish what went wrong and whether state and federal regulators had acted responsibly.
and we really hope that it won't deliver the same ridiculous result as the so called 'Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone' which found ... dredging and dumping of dredge spoil in the ocean is environmentally acceptable..

As painful as it may be, the truth must and will come out, as people become ex-employees and have nothing to lose. There will be more whistles blown, there will be more leaked documents.

Because if you think the debacle of the bund wall is the only corruption of process in how business is done in Gladstone, you'd better think again.

Coal for Christmas

Right. So now I'm thinking that the current government is personally targeting myself. It's as though they are a 6 year old, pushing random emotional buttons to see if they can get mummy to explode. (Yes, yes I did, but that's another story).

So I'm making a list. In keeping with the season, it's a naughty list. You (government of every level) have been very very bad.

Here are the bad things you have done which affect me personally.

1. You allowed dredging of Gladstone Harbour, ruining a fishing industry and refusing me my Australian right to queue for 2 hours in the December sun to buy locally caught prawns for Christmas.

2. You allowed great big bulldozers to clear a great swathe of Curtis Island so that as I drove over the hill, I no longer caught sight of a sweeping blue vista with a green island, but felt sick at the sight of bare earth, tanks and pipelines. I don't go that way any more.

3. You absolutely refuse to do anything about renewable energy, causing me to have to go out and spend my hard earned dollars on buying my own solar panels so that you might get the message.

4. You refuse to subsidise public transport so that it is cheaper for me to drive to Brisbane than to take the train, which I love to do.

5. You removed the schoolkids bonus. Do you know how fast my son is growing at the moment? I buy Weet-bix and milk by the case. At Aldi. I'm thinking of getting a truck to deliver and bypass the supermarket altogether. Every cent of that bonus last year was spent in a local store on school uniforms. I have no idea how I'll afford his man-size clothes this year.

6. You won't deal with climate change. I live on a flood plain. Most of the time it rocks. Sometimes it sucks (about every 20 years). Unless you start dealing with climate change, I might have to deal with a flood every year. That would take the fun out of summer.

7. I cringe every time I look at the news. All levels of government are embarrassing. You know I have German relatives, right? They do love organisation and efficiency. How can I hold my head up in international relations on Facebook when their country has its s*** together and we appear to have accidentally elected several levels of government that has no idea what it is doing.

8. You treat refugees appallingly. Aforesaid German relatives were refugees at one point. So was my mother. Where is your humanity? More to the point, who looks at your books? It's cheaper to put all refugees on the dole than to house them in sub-standard conditions on some god-forsaken island. So where is the money going? Bring them all to Australia, put them up, put them on the dole while they find their feet and then let them loose to cause all sorts of wonderful food and businesses to appear in our cities and towns. On the boat my mother arrived on in the 1950's (yes, a boat, go and arrest her, I dare you) was a man who started the first delicatessen in 'Sydeney'. So stick that up your pastrami.

9. You appear to be taking brown paper bags from any business at all.

10. You seem to have forgotten that you are our employees. I have no idea how you passed your last employment review (otherwise known as an election), but expect a pineapple at the next one unless you mend your ways toot suite - that's french for sort it out before we get a chance to all vote 'none of the above' at the next election.

Yours Sincerely,
Anna (and about 20 million other Australians)

Dredging given nod before crucial sediment tests completed



  •  14th Dec 2013 9:26 AM


An aerial view of the Gladstone Harbour.
An aerial view of the Gladstone Harbour.Brenda Strong

CRUCIAL sediment testing in Gladstone Harbour demanded by the Environment Department was not completed before the Federal Government approved the controversial Western Basin dredging project in 2010.

The sediment tests were requested after regulators found initial 1000-borehole testing provided by Gladstone Ports Corporation was lacking in several areas.

The revelation comes just days after the Federal Government approved Arrow Energy's LNG project, and follows news that the State Government is investigating a private lease of the port.

A key area of the Environment Department's request for additional testing was near the RG Tanna Coal Terminal - where molluscs were experiencing the rising effects of a highly toxic chemical (TBT) in 2009. The GPC did not give that information to authorities at the time.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information revealed the port filed an "exemption from further sediment testing" in July 2010.

Regulators found the initial testing regime was incomplete the next month.

But despite the concerns, and without the data requested, the Federal Government still approved the largest-ever dredging project in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, in October that year.

Additional results were not provided until April 4, 2011. They were not released.

But a GPC spokeswoman said the results were within national dredging guidelines, and that no contaminants exceeded the guidelines, with the exception of locally occurring metals.

She said GPC applied for the exemption as the port "believed that sufficient evidence existed to evaluate the footprint".

But APN Newsdesk has obtained correspondence that shows regulators knocked back the exemption application, over concerns that the distribution of tests were "uneven and not representative of the whole dredge phase area".

Despite the omission of the study on TBT from the EIS potentially breaching federal environment laws, the department said it did "not consider an investigation into this matter is warranted".

A port spokeswoman said the GPC applied for an exemption, "which was not granted by the Federal Government".

"GPC then undertook the additional sampling required to meet the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging, the regulatory guidelines mandated by the Federal Government," she said.