The project's Social Impact Assessment (SIA) indicates that an estimated 80% of the construction workers will be expatriates, meaning a large influx of workers can be expected to pose the same risks as were manifested on other similar projects of this scale. The influx of thousands of mostly male workers who are necessary to construct the project can lead to an increase in violence and sexually transmitted diseases in local communities and an increase burden on community health, human services and other social infrastructure.

The impact of HIV/AIDS can be a two-way catastrophe, with increased exposure from expatriate workers to local people and from local people to expatriate workers who then move on to infect other people in other countries once they leave the project area.

Societal impacts of the project so far include an increase in destructive social practices. The influx of temporary workers and money has been linked to the exacerbation of existing social problems, including prostitution, gambling, drug abuse and alcohol abuse.

The PNG LNG project will result in involuntary resettlement, including resettlement of indigenous people. Up to date an involuntary resettlement plan and a draft Indigenous Peoples Resettlement Plan has been completed, despite the fact that irreversible project decisions may have already been made and construction is soon to commence, if not already started.

Onshore pipleline impacts
Construction of the onshore pipeline will have significant and irreversible environmental impacts on the existing environment. Environmental impacts from construction of pipeline Right of Way (ROW) include stripping of native primary forest and other vegetation of varying conservation value, exposure of top soil causing erosion and potential soil contamination from the construction process.

In order to install the onshore pipeline a total of approximately 2,809 ha of land will be cleared, half in areas not previously disturbed by oil and gas developments. A Right Of Way (ROW) of 30m to 60m will be required and the pipeline will cross 26 major water crossings, 138 minor water crossings and will cross the Kutubu Wildlife Management Area.

A 10m ROW will be retained for access road to the pipeline after completion of the pipeline. 1055 hectares of primary tropical forest will be cleared and an estimated 86% of primary tropical forest losses and 82% of losses in Classes A1 and A2 (1,220 ha) are concentrated in five broad vegetation groups.

Erosion is specifically an issue in areas of step grades (20%-50%) and may result in increased sediment in waterways and erosion.

The most significant environmental incident so far was the fatal mudslide at the Tumbi quarry in January 2012, which led to the death of at least 26 and as many as 62 people, mainly migrant workers, and the destruction of 42 homes. 

Offshore pipeline impacts
The PNG LNG project also proposes a 407 km offshore pipeline from Omati River Landfall to Caution Bay and a new LNG facility in Port Moresby. The pipeline will traverse the Gulf of Papua. Impacts from the laying, testing and operation of the pipeline include increased sedimentation rates resulting from trenching. Increased sedimentation reduces light penetration and stunts growth of marine biota.

Plant and Infrastructure impacts
LNG liquefaction plants typically rely on their own supply of gas as a source of power to supercool gas for export. The use of this gas as a power source results in pollution emissions of NO2, SO2 and PM10.

The PNG LNG project is anticipated to have significant greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.

Security concerns
Papua New Guinea (PNG) landowners and other non-state actors have increasingly expressed frustration over the PNG LNG project’s potential impacts and lack of adequate benefits sharing. The recent incident of landowners commandeering a gas plant obviously raises the potential for similar or more direct action aimed at PNG LNG that the company and the PNG government could perceive as a security risk. Invariably, under such circumstances private or public security services will be retained to protect perceived assets. Unfortunately, there is a long history of such security forces committing severe human rights abuses, especially on extractive industry projects, including by some of the corporate actors associated with this project. Such a potential for violence and human rights abuses also greatly increases a diverse set of risks for potential public and private financiers.

Regular instances of violence, disputes and unrest, some of which have turned deadly, have occurred over employment opportunities and political interference in the distribution of benefits. Inequalities have been exacerbated by the rising cost of food, since this may benefit those who have been able to capture revenues from the Project, while causing harm to those who have not been so lucky .  

Corruption concerns
Recently, a front end engineering and design contract was awarded to Eos, which is a joint venture of the Australian firm, WorleyParsons, and the US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR). On September 3, 2008, Mr. Stanley, a former CEO of KBR, pleaded guilty to helping orchestrate a scheme involving $182 million in bribes paid to secure engineering, procurement and construction contracts for the Nigeria LNG project, Bonny Island, Nigeria. In February 11, 2009, KBR pled guilty and agreed to pay jointly with Halliburton $579 million in penalties in the second largest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act criminal fine in history.

Now, KBR is playing a similar contractor role on PNG LNG. Potential funding of the project will benefit KBR and will send a message that corruption is being rewarded, rather than punished.

PNG is already one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and the oil and gas sector is, along with the forestry sector, beset with corruption. So far, the PNG government has steadfastly refused to sign the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the international standards that require signatory governments to publicly report revenues from oil, mining and gas ventures so as to decrease the opportunity for corruption and waste by state officials. By remaining a non-signatory of these standards, the PNG government officials are keeping themselves outside of any requirements to be transparent about how to spend the windfalls that will be coming to PNG.

Oversight for the LNG Project is in the hands of Arthur Somare, Public Enterprises Minister and son of the Prime Minister Michael Somare. In theory, the PNG Governement’s 19% stake in the deal is supposed to be controlled by the state-controlled oil and gas corporation Petromin.

However, control of the PNG LNG project has been handed over to the Independent Public Business Corporation (IPBC). The IPBC, it is alleged, is controlled by Arthur Somare, who will therefore be able to control be able to direct the dispersal of the revenues once they start to flow into the country. Somare was able to raise the PNG Government’s stake in the project by securing a billion-dollar loan from the Abu Dhabi Government, for which he has been criticised.

Economic concerns
The sharp increase in the size of the PNG oil and gas export sector will have dangerous distortional effects on the rest of the economy. The most recent economic indicators from PNG show that Dutch Disease is spreading, with the country's forestry, agriculture and fisheries industries worst affected by the inflationary effects and appreciating currency that have resulted since commencement of the PNG LNG Project. These non-mining, oil and gas export sectors are suffering from a sharp surge in manufacturing costs and increased competition from foreign imports.    

The government revenues received over the life of the Project will be very large, yet will not necessarily ‘spread throughout the economy' as predicted, nor provide long term improvements in the quality of life for the people of PNG.  The result of this may well be increased local opposition to the Project increasing risks to the Project and the banks that financed it.