Bibliographic record
Abstract
The environmental review processes for major oil and gas projects vary significantly worldwide. Three LNG projects in WA (Gorgon, Browse and Wheatstone), one in NT (Ichthys), four in Queensland (Queensland Curtis LNG, Gladstone LNG, Australia Pacific LNG and Shell Australia LNG), and one in Commonwealth waters (Prelude) have all experienced—or are in the midst of—the Australian environmental review processes. The foundation of the environmental review of these projects is anchored in existing state and federal statutes and regulations, but the application to each project varies according to the specific characteristics of each proposal. Similar large scale LNG projects in other countries are subject to analogous processes. Some are as rigorous as those in Australia but there are also some with less well-developed environmental review processes. In the latter cases, either corporate and/or financial institution standards dictate the environmental review processes. This extended abstract reviews the processes that the present above-mentioned LNG projects have gone through or are going through and compares them to similar processes in other countries where large-scale oil and gas projects have been proposed or permitted. The authors compare both the strategic assessment approach taken for the Browse LNG project to the more traditional approach of environmental impact statement/environmental review and management plan used for other recent or present oil and gas projects. The authors also evaluate these reviews in relation to comparable multi-jurisdictional reviews taken in the US, Canada and the UK for their joint federal/state/regional environmental review processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".