News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Not enough known on CSG: experts 

Not enough known on CSG: experts

08 Jan, 2011 04:00 AM
FEDERAL and State water experts are backing calls by landholders for an urgent study of the potential impacts of coal seam gas (CSG) development on the nation’s water resources.

The focus is largely on the potential $35 billion industry in south-east Queensland, where up to 40,000 wells could dot the Surat and Bowen Basins over the next 20 years – and where there have already been water contamination incidents.

Last month, Arrow Energy confirmed benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylene – together known as BTEX – had been found in wells at a Bowen Basin gas site.

In October, BTEX was discovered in eight wells at drill sites run by Origin Energy about 300 kilometres west of Brisbane, while earlier this year a coal gas project near Kingaroy was shut down when benzene and toluene were detected.

While 95 per cent of known reserves are in Queensland, increasing exploration in NSW by companies, including Santos and Metgasco, is expected to uncover more reserves.

Companies are testing for CSG using hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking”.

Rules regulating this practice, which involves injecting a mix of water, sand and chemicals underground to force gas to the surface, are not clear cut, as specific approval for fracking is not required.

NSW Natural Resources Commissioner, John Williams, has warned there could be potentially catastrophic impacts on State water resources if CSG projects go ahead unchecked.

He supported a call by National Water Commissioner, Chloe Munroe, for a precautionary approach.

The National Water Commission released a position paper earlier this month identifying a variety of risks, saying cumulative impacts were not well understood, and that there could be “substantial consequences”.

“If not adequately managed and regulated, the industry risks significant, long-term and adverse impacts on surface and ground-water systems,” Ms Munroe said.

She said mining should operate under the same rules applied to other water users.

Dr Williams said it was vital that mining and natural resources were integrated before mining activity occurred.

“We need a plan of action to minimise harm to water resources if coal seam gas extraction takes place,” he said.

“We do need to mine, but we need to know where we can do it without harming natural resources, and the best time to do this work is before the development happens so the community knows where it can be harvested without damaging their future and the mining industry has some security.”

He said legislation, including the Mining Act, needed to be brought into line with sustainable development principles.

Dr Williams, a member of the Wentworth Group, said taking CSG should not interfere with the viability of water resources and agricultural land, but there was no process yet to prevent this.

Ms Munroe’s report said extracting large volumes of low-quality water would have an impact on connected surface and groundwater systems.

Dramatic depressurisation of coal seams could reduce pressure to nearby aquifers, reducing flows and causing land subsidence.

A report by JP Morgan said the coal gas seam industry had significant water risks, including a reduction in the water supply to towns and landowners, reduced quality, gas migration to water bores and the safe storage of salt.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is more than just a random piece of terminology!
Posted by cant drink money, 8/01/2011 11:42:07 AM, on Queensland Country Life
The East End Mine Action Group applauds the call for mining & CSG to PROPERLY comply with NWI.

For this to happen loopholes will have to be closed, otherwise the call is hollow

eg Queensland DERM do not accord groundwater levels environmental value status and thus do not recognise mine-caused depletion as an environmental impact or environmental harm

From experience we consider science used for IAS/EIS Reports lacks integrity and can be shaped to exempt a mine from compliance with The Water Act 2000 and NWI via an inadequate Environmental Authority.

Section 251(4) of Qld's EP Act protects an inadequate, original EA from public objections when an amendment is approved

Our experience is "make good" conditions sound fine, but do not work equitably and promptly

Under significant project status an EIS may not be required and public objections may not be allowed

Affected landholders are disempowered in Consultation processes that have no intent to resolve disputes over science

An independent and affordable merits appeal should be established to give landholders avenue to appeal disputes over equity and science used for "make good" and NWI decisions.

Posted by Heather, 8/01/2011 11:49:48 AM, on Queensland Country Life
The amazing thing about CSG is the wealth of information proving the dangers involved with this industry, the number of reputable groups, individuals, the reports by legitimate news services such as BBC, ABC, 60 minutes.

But all the CSG industry needs to do is pull the puppet's strings and they turn a blind eye, they sell out governments modify legislation to allow this disgrace.

Why is any landowner signing these contracts with the industry, why are they selling out the future of their children/grandchildren, don't sign, don't sign.

When enough don't sign this industry is dead in the water, flood waters as it is at present, but product water as it will be in the future. Landowners "Lock your Gates", don't sell our future out please.

Posted by brianmonk, 8/01/2011 12:49:58 PM, on Queensland Country Life
What is known, is that lots of money can be made.

It seem that is enough to enable pollies to find all sorts of reasons and ways to facilitate the avoidance of the truth.

They have been doing it for Coal industry for a long time so they have had plenty of practice.

Posted by SPARKS, 10/01/2011 12:32:24 PM, on Queensland Country Life
Someone in the NSW Govt is backing CSG mining as safe because they have approved exploratory drilling in Warragamba within the Sydney Water Catchment.

The safety of Sydneys drinking water cannot be guaranteed and yet this project has been given the go ahead. There must be a lot of money involved here.

Posted by Suzie Wright, 10/01/2011 4:29:28 PM, on Queensland Country Life
The Qld Government's "adaptive management" regime is the exact opposite of the Precautionary Principle.

When there are potentially irreversible risks, 'learning from our mistakes' is nowhere near good enough


Posted by carolinem, 18/04/2011 10:01:20 AM, on Queensland Country Life

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...