# Coal Seam Gas - an unregulated, unmitigated environmental & economic disaster



## Whiskers (1 April 2013)

Why has the former Qld and NSW labor governments opened a pandoras box of enviornmental and social concerns with it's ill conceived and rushed Coal Seem Gas approvals?

It seems the answer was political expediency to expedite some cash flow into state revenue to ease the debt burden and create a few jobs to perk up their chances of getting re-elected... oh and I forgot, to help out a few mates too.

Fed labor apparently saw CSG through rose coulored glasses too... wow, this will be a quick money spinner and employment scheme.

If you didn't see tonight's four courners on ABC, get a look at it. It confirms bad government at it's worst.

I have to say Campbell Newman and Barry O'Farrell don't seem to be in a hurry to rectify the problem cos I suppose they would like the extra revenue and blame the problem on Labor. But apparently Newman is at least getting an enquiry going and O'Farrell has made some urban areas off limits. 



> CSIRO scientists have highlighted concerns that chemicals produced by hydraulic fracturing could be affecting ground and surface waters.
> 
> In a review published in the national science agency’s online Environmental Chemistry journal, researchers say fracking may be unlocking pollutants currently trapped safely in the ground and mixing them with substances injected by mining operations.
> 
> ...




What price the destruction of the great artesian basin water supply, prime agricultural land and our fresh water reseviors?


----------



## chops_a_must (1 April 2013)

I do agree.

But, I find it hilariously ironic that farmers are complaining about impacts on water quality.

How about we get cane growers to do an eia?


----------



## Country Lad (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> What price the destruction of the great artesian basin water supply, prime agricultural land and our fresh water reseviors?




You watched the 4Corners program?  Bloody disturbing.  I was involved in the industry early in its development so I had a sense of deja vous listening to the industry saying it is all safe and don't you worry about that.  Similar to cigarettes are good for you and asbestos is safe.

If you missed the 4Corners program grab it on iView.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## MrBurns (2 April 2013)

Country Lad said:


> You watched the 4Corners program?  Bloody disturbing.  I was involved in the industry early in its development so I had a sense of deja vous listening to the industry saying it is all safe and don't you worry about that.  Similar to cigarettes are good for you and asbestos is safe.
> 
> If you missed the 4Corners program grab it on iView.
> 
> ...




 Looks like corruption all over 
I really don't know how these people stay out of jail


----------



## DB008 (2 April 2013)

Not sure if this is the right doco, but Foreign Correspondent did a story on it back in Feb 2012.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3441606.htm

Video is there too, hit play.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2013)

I'm none too keen in this industry that's for sure, but what are the realistic alternatives?

Brown coal?

Black coal?

Nuclear?

Hydro?

Wind?

Drilling for oil in Alaska?

Drilling for oil and gas in Antarctica?

Gain global access to reliable gas supplies from both Iran and Russia (by whatever means)?

At some point humanity is going to have to face one very harsh reality. All power pollutes. *ALL* of it. All we get to choose is what we pollute, where, and how we pollute it. But it all pollutes something somehow.

For the record, personally I'd take hydro, wind and brown coal over oil or gas any day and see conventional nuclear fission reactors as an unacceptable risk. That just reflects my personal bias as to which form of pollution I'd prefer and others will disagree. 

Wind farms dominating the scenery I can live with, likewise a flooded valley is at most a temporary alteration of the environment which can be reversed at some future time if the power is no longer needed. But good luck cleaning up underground water pollution and we'll need even more luck to avoid serious nuclear leaks at some point going forward. Others will of course disagree and would rather deal with pollution problems underground than put the ground itself under water - it's a matter of opinion.

Or do we just accept that ultimately we're going to have to use less? A few are doing that but most people in society generally don't seem overly concerned (based on their actions) despite a bit of concern about the effects here and there.


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

To clarify, I'm not against development of natural gas resources per se, but I am against inequity in the application of enviornmental law. 

What we are seeing with CSG is the distruction of the enviornment in a way that the farming community and non-resource industry would be prosecuted for from here until kingdom come.

Even though these projects have been granted special status through the Coordinator-Generals office, they still have legal requirements to meet environmental standards as per the Queensland Curtis LNG Project below. So where are they and why are they not being enforced?

We've all heard labor and greens complaining about the methane contribution to global warming from the livestock industry and the implications for the carbon tax... so what about the methane and other gases used and escaping in the CSG industry? 

http://www.dlg.qld.gov.au/resources...uefied-natural-gas-project/curtis-lng-tor.pdf


----------



## nulla nulla (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> What price the destruction of the great artesian basin water supply, prime agricultural land and our fresh water reseviors?




This aspect is not getting the airplay it warrants. If we stuff up the great artesian basin water supply, we turn Australia into a dust bowl. End of story, no if but's or maybe's. 

State and Federal Governments really need to stop this practice before it is too late.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> To clarify, I'm not against development of natural gas resources per se, but I am against inequity in the application of enviornmental law.
> 
> What we are seeing with CSG is the distruction of the enviornment in a way that the farming community and non-resource industry would be prosecuted for from here until kingdom come.



Something I've noticed about environmental debates generally (and I'm aware that this was noted by others as far back as at least the 1950's) is that people get somewhat excited about smoke coming out of a factory, and they get really worked up about dams especially. But nobody worries too much about groundwater pollution, soil erosion, salinity, having a house full of toxic nasties and so on. It's as though anything goes, just as long as it doesn't involve a tall chimney or a dam.

Trying to be objective, I don't see a lot of logic in how the general population sees these issues. Rationally, I'd think that soil erosion, salinity, groundwater pollution etc would top the list since it's a direct threat to food production. Next would come issues like having toxic nasties in the home etc. Worldwide experience to date is that the general public certainly doesn't see it this way however.

I'm no Green, at least not in the traditional sense, but the constant ramping up of resource use has to stop at some point. It's somewhat sobering to realise that of all oil (for example) ever used by man, literally two thirds of it has been used since 1980.

It puts man's energy addiction into perspective that we're even contemplating trashing a vast aquifer and our food supply just to generate electricity. Think about that for a while.....


----------



## chops_a_must (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> To clarify, I'm not against development of natural gas resources per se, but I am against inequity in the application of enviornmental law.
> 
> What we are seeing with CSG is the distruction of the enviornment in a way that the farming community and non-resource industry would be prosecuted for from here until kingdom come.
> 
> ...




Kind of a silly argument.

Agriculture is the number 1 polluter of water resources in Australia. Both groundwater and surface water. Do they continue to monitor their damage?

Have farmers in the south west been required to pay back damage done to their land and subsequent widespread salinisation?

No. In the most part they're given subsidies and handouts.




Smurf1976 said:


> Something I've noticed about environmental debates generally (and I'm aware that this was noted by others as far back as at least the 1950's) is that people get somewhat excited about smoke coming out of a factory, and they get really worked up about dams especially. But nobody worries too much about groundwater pollution, soil erosion, salinity, having a house full of toxic nasties and so on. It's as though anything goes, just as long as it doesn't involve a tall chimney or a dam.
> 
> Trying to be objective, I don't see a lot of logic in how the general population sees these issues. Rationally, I'd think that soil erosion, salinity, groundwater pollution etc would top the list since it's a direct threat to food production. Next would come issues like having toxic nasties in the home etc. Worldwide experience to date is that the general public certainly doesn't see it this way however.
> 
> ...




Indeed.

The hypocrisy and irony is astounding in this debate.


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2013)

Ultimately we need a technological breakthrough in how we harness energy from the materials at our disposal to satisfy our growing demand.

In its absence, we'll suffer the same fate as every other species that has outgrown its resources.


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Kind of a silly argument.
> 
> Agriculture is the number 1 polluter of water resources in Australia. Both groundwater and surface water.




Maybe, but how do you define number 1 polluter... by aggregate quantity or toxity? 

Is the cocktail of fracking chemicals as easily removed or treated as nitrate and phosphates? 



> Do they continue to monitor their damage?




Actually, yes.

Modern agriculturists stopped using Potassium Chloride, the main cause of salinity, (other than over clearing) over a decade ago. Similarly, nitrate and phosphate fertilizers are being used more sparingly and combined with natural and EDTA chelating and biological agents for better uptake and less leeching, resulting in smaller applications of sustainable products.

Modern farms now measure their value in terms of organic carbon content of the soil. Earth worms and other biological activity is promoted to facilitate better production and less chemical inputs.



> Have farmers in the south west been required to pay back damage done to their land and subsequent widespread salinisation?




Not sure whether you mean Qld or WA. The massive government promoted land clearing early last century in the wheat belt of WA and to some degree in western Qld was stupid and short sighted. I presume you refer to the problem of salinity mainly. Salinity can be reversed by selective replanting pushing the water table back down to where it was. 



> No. In the most part they're given subsidies and handouts.




That used to be the case, but our agricultural subsidies have been substantially reduced over time. The US and Europe subsidise agricultural production much heavier than Aus now. 


BUT, the main point here is outside companies with a job plan of maybe 10 to 20 years and no consideration for the current and future land use, only their goal to extract as much gas for the least expense are coming onto our farmers land and destroying their livelihood and their neighbours in many cases with uncontrolled fracking chemical and methane escaping into the local environment.

Are you suggesting that a once poor, but significantly improving farming enviornmental activity being snuffed out by a much worse and regressing enviornmental activity like CSG is OK?


----------



## chops_a_must (2 April 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Maybe, but how do you define number 1 polluter... by aggregate quantity or toxity?
> 
> Is the cocktail of fracking chemicals as easily removed or treated as nitrate and phosphates?




It isn't just that though. Herbicides, pesticides, edc's et al.

And any pollutant once in the groundwater can do extensive damage, and will continue to.

These are all costs borne by the environment or society.

There is no doubt that fracking has the potential to be more harmful, but just finding the hypocrisy hilarious.


----------



## DB008 (2 April 2013)

Barnaby Joyce on Lateline now. Some very good points. 

CSG Licenses granted by State/Federal ALP and their fruits are coming to fruition now (i.e.- their stuff ups)


----------



## Whiskers (2 April 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> It isn't just that though. Herbicides, pesticides, edc's et al.
> 
> And any pollutant once in the groundwater can do extensive damage, and will continue to.
> 
> ...




Hypocrisy is hardly the correct word. Ignorance certainly in the past for farmers, but total contempt for the environment in the case of the CSG industry now.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2013)

Hypothetically, this one could get really interesting if it turns out that there are indeed serious problems with CSG.

A fortune has been spent building LNG production and export facilities in Qld on a scale which, combined with that state's policy of using more gas to generate electricity, basically assumes that pretty much all presently known (and some assumed) CSG reserves will actually be extracted within the lifespan of the facilities.

Meanwhile we have practically all NT reserves committed to export, WA reserves committed to either export or use within WA, and the construction of a number of new gas-fired power stations in Vic and NSW ensuring that what remains of Bass Strait and conventional Cooper Basin reserves won't last long.

In short, it's all based on the assumption that a large portion of total Australian gas reserves, including CSG, will actually be extracted over the lifespan of this infrastructure. To decide that the gas is staying in the ground means $ billions worth of LNG facilities and power stations becoming essentially useless.

I'm not saying that we ought to make a mess environmentally due to the $, just noting that the situation exists.


----------

