Coal Seam Gas (CSG) (together with open cut coal mining) is “the single biggest environmental issue in Queensland’s history”. Mining threatens to turn the Darling Downs, one of Australia’s prime food bowls, into an “industrial wasteland”.
Thus spake Drew Hutton, a senior figure in The Greens in Queensland, who grew up in Chinchilla and who is resigning all his positions with The Greens to devote himself to working with some 20 groups in the area on the Downs and in the Surat Basin that are fighting mining projects. He has just completed a 1000km study tour of the region which extends from Toowoomba to west of Roma.
Some of the statistics are mind boggling.
Hutton told Steve Austin on local ABC radio that the area of concern was from Toowoomba to west of Roma. That’s about 400km, the distance from Sydney to Cooma, or half the distance between Melbourne and Adelaide. In this area there is going to be about $100 billion worth of mining investment in coming years. A minimum of 40,000 gas wells will be drilled in the area. But the number could be 100,000 or “almost anything”.
CSG extraction (image and even simpler explanation here) involves bringing water to the surface. Hutton says that miners expect to extract 10 million megalitres of water from the coal seams, much of which is salty and will be left to evaporate in ponds constructed on the plains.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s 10,000 gigalitres, or if you like 20 Sydharbs, a Sydharb being 500 gigalitres or 400,000 acre-feet or the volume of water in Sydney Harbour.
From what I can make out there are two types of aquifer – alluvial and sandstone. The Landline program Pipe Dreams (video there now, transcript here) said the the coal seams were mostly 300-600 metres down. The alluvial aquifers would be shallower, but so also should be the sandstone aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin, since the sandstone was laid down more recently than the Carboniferous period (see here and the cutaway profile in Figure 6.2 here).
In any case experience has already shown that the act of drilling can reduce or drain the levels of the aquifers accessed by farms. Obviously the process of production will do so even more. Presumably Part 2 of the Landline program will make all this clear.
The importance of underground water cannot be overstressed. Many farms rely entirely on underground water. It is said that 22 of 23 towns in the area use the aquifers for town water supply. This reference gives the allocations at 96,720 Ml/yr as against a sustainable yield of 71,960 Ml/yr (water allocations are being revised downwards). The figure going around is that CSG operators plan to extract up to 350,000 megalitres a year.
Obviously there are grounds to worry about the impact of CSG extraction not just on individual farms but on the viability of the whole aquifer system as a resource.
Under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, companies are supposed to document anticipated impacts their activities will have on underground water and the environment and to lodge monitoring and review reports after the first year of testing. So far no such reports have been lodged. The loophole is said to have been the failure of the state government to nominate “trigger threshold levels” where their activity becomes a concern. This will now been remedied from August when the State Government amends the Water Act 2000. As Gary Sansom, Queensland Farmers Federation President puts it:
to set in place trigger thresholds for different aquifers against which the impacts of CSG water extraction can be monitored. The trigger threshold values for impacts on bores will be a 5m drop for consolidated aquifers such as sandstone, and a 2m drop for shallow alluvial aquifers.
The legislative amendment will require CSG producers to investigate complaints from landowners that their bore water levels have dropped below the trigger thresholds, and the bore has suffered a significant reduction in its capacity to supply water for the intended purpose.
The bore owner will be required to provide information to the CSG producer in relation to the extent of reduction in water supply and information in relation to the construction of the bore.
If a significant reduction in a bore supply is found to have been caused by CSG operations, then the CSG producer will be obliged to negotiate ‘make good’ arrangements with the bore owner. Likewise trigger values will be established to monitor the impacts on springs with similar make good principles being applied.
Some aquifers have dropped more than that, and we’ve hardly begun.
Still there are concerns. Much will depend on the exact wording of the legislation. Farmers will be the watchdogs and will have to make a case against a giant multinational. Then how on earth can a damaged or dry aquifer be ‘made good’? As one farmer said – “a semi-load of water every day for the next 100 years?”
Also:
Mr Robertson said a $2 million CSG groundwater unit would be established within the independent Queensland Water Commission to oversee the monitoring and reporting of groundwater impacts from August.
Somehow there is a lack of confidence that farmers will be left a space in which to operate with Big CSG and Big Government chasing the big bucks on offer.
What the LNP under leader John-Paul Langbroek is offering is stated succinctly here. Of particular interest is the notion that some “top quality” agricultural land would be locked up and preserved for agricultural production in the way that high conservation value country is locked up in national parks.
I’m sure the definition of “top quality” would be contested.
This reference shows what Haystack Road farmers, clearly top quality land, are facing right now. Definitely worth a read. Mention is made of “the State Government’s decision in February to develop legislation to protect ‘strategic cropping lands’ from mining”. Another case of the CSG growth outrunning a necessary legislative framework, methinks.
But not to worry. Agforce is beavering away at the interface. I’m sure they are trying hard, but there is a reason that 20 other groups exist to fight the same cause.
There are many other issues with CSG exploration and production. For example the State Government has no idea what will happen in the longer term to the large quantities salt accumulated in evaporation ponds. The companies seem to be saying they’ll think of something eventually. There is more than salt as residue. With a bit of a downpour, known to happen in those parts, we could once again have toxic waste spreading across the land.
Another aspect is having land broken up by gravel roads and pipelines. City folks may not be aware of ‘control traffic farming’ where satellites are used to ensure that the tractor wheels follow exactly the same track each time. The purpose of this is that they don’t rip up what the tractor has just compressed, saving about 30% of the energy. In the future there will be driverless tractors.This becomes impossible with wells on a 600 metre grid and infrastructure cutting up your farm.
In the first part of the Steve Austin interview allegations are made about some pretty nasty health effects in CSG fields in America which are more fully developed. This needs to be checked out.
Some operators clearly behave badly, like cutting a hole in the fence and building a road without reference to the landholder, fouling dams etc.
For some in the Landline program it seemed that all could be well if companies behaved decently, as some no doubt try, and just compensation was paid, say $10,000 per well per annum instead of $1500 which seems to be the going rate. With income from say 30 wells at $10K that could be quite handy for 15 years or so. You do have to ask, though, what then? And what about the farm or town down the road whose water disappears?
Short term there is lots of economic activity in the area, house prices are escalating, rentals are hard to come by and some in small businesses and local government would no doubt be quite sanguine about the prospects.
Nevertheless you have to ask why Jim Baker cried when told:
his 18,000 hectare cattle property was earmarked for 32 wells, a 25-acre holding pond, a compression plant and a 300-man camp.
In part because the Valuer General tells him that just one hole would cause his property to lose 12% of its value.
The market is telling us that the farmers are not getting a fair deal.
The earlier post is here.
See also Mining the good earth for a discussion on Liverpool Plains.
Here to go is a graph of wells drilled:
Good posting Brian.
The issue of water & the salts brought up is a huge problem. There has been a mad scramble to get this industry going as quickly as possible that very little thought appears to be made in regards to water & salts.
In the post above you wrote
Long before coal seam gas appeared on the scene, back in the dim, distant past when there was a viable Dept of Primary Industries that were allowed to achieve anything, the quality of different soil types was interpedently evaluated & categorised. Therefore it is a simple matter of saying all Class A soils are off limits, Class B with restricted guidelines & current access for the remainder classes.
Good posting Brian.
The issue of water & the salts brought up is a huge problem. There has been a mad scramble to get this industry going as quickly as possible that very little thought appears to be made in regards to water & salts.
In the post above you wrote
Long before coal seam gas appeared on the scene, back in the dim, distant past when there was a viable Dept of Primary Industries that were allowed to achieve anything, the quality of different soil types was interpedently evaluated & categorised. Therefore it is a simple matter of saying all Class A soils are off limits, Class B with restricted guidelines & current access for the remainder classes.
Coal is a no no, alright fair enough. What about gas?; No, it is still not good enough on emissions; What about wind?; No, it kills birds; What about hydro? No, it kills trees; What about geothermal?; No, it creates muddy water; What about nuclear? No, we are too ideological to accept nuclear. We want solar!; No, it doesn’t work;
The conclusion: coal will continue to be burnt for at least 50 more years and exported for at least 100 more years.
Coal is a no no, alright fair enough. What about gas?; No, it is still not good enough on emissions; What about wind?; No, it kills birds; What about hydro? No, it kills trees; What about geothermal?; No, it creates muddy water; What about nuclear? No, we are too ideological to accept nuclear. We want solar!; No, it doesn’t work;
The conclusion: coal will continue to be burnt for at least 50 more years and exported for at least 100 more years.
That is rather scary stuff. Another way for the rich to prosper and a new nail for the planets coffin. Sometimes, I really wonder exactly how smart we really are. Thanks Brian
That is rather scary stuff. Another way for the rich to prosper and a new nail for the planets coffin. Sometimes, I really wonder exactly how smart we really are. Thanks Brian
Thanks, still@downfall and Debbieanne.
Rationalist, that’s a bit simplistic. BTW Barry Brook has a detailed look at gas as an energy source in a two part posting here and here, specifically in relation to spruiking from Santos. I’d be really pleased though, if we do not have yet another long thread on the merits or otherwise of nuclear power. Not here, not now. I’d consider that thread derailment.
Thanks, still@downfall and Debbieanne.
Rationalist, that’s a bit simplistic. BTW Barry Brook has a detailed look at gas as an energy source in a two part posting here and here, specifically in relation to spruiking from Santos. I’d be really pleased though, if we do not have yet another long thread on the merits or otherwise of nuclear power. Not here, not now. I’d consider that thread derailment.
$100 billion of mining investment is not to be sneezed at, unless one is inherently hostile to the mining sector.
$100 billion of mining investment is not to be sneezed at, unless one is inherently hostile to the mining sector.
Sam @ 5, whereas agricultural production in Qld is only worth about $14 billion pa. That’s directly and for the whole state, but such production could go on for 100 years and more.
I think no-one would argue that there should be no mining development. But clearly the balance has to be right. Also the Qld government is clearly behind the eight ball in providing the necessary regulatory environment and ensuring a proper reward/compensation structure.
On mining companies, I’ve been a direct investor on the stock market now for nearly twenty years. Sadly, it’s my view that you can’t count on mining companies behaving any better than they are forced to do. Legislation/regulation is not enough. It has to be enforced.
So I avoid all companies that operate overseas and am very limited in investments here, partly in the case of the latter because mining companies do not usually provide a good dividend stream for investors.
But mining as such is a necessary part of our civilisation and lifestyle.
Sam @ 5, whereas agricultural production in Qld is only worth about $14 billion pa. That’s directly and for the whole state, but such production could go on for 100 years and more.
I think no-one would argue that there should be no mining development. But clearly the balance has to be right. Also the Qld government is clearly behind the eight ball in providing the necessary regulatory environment and ensuring a proper reward/compensation structure.
On mining companies, I’ve been a direct investor on the stock market now for nearly twenty years. Sadly, it’s my view that you can’t count on mining companies behaving any better than they are forced to do. Legislation/regulation is not enough. It has to be enforced.
So I avoid all companies that operate overseas and am very limited in investments here, partly in the case of the latter because mining companies do not usually provide a good dividend stream for investors.
But mining as such is a necessary part of our civilisation and lifestyle.
Brian, I wasn’t think about you when I made that comment. Your posts are invariably very thoughtful and well researched. However, your numbers are not like for like. First, as you say, it’s the whole of Queensland’s agriculture that is worth $14 billion, not just the bits in the Bowen and Surat Basins where the coal seam gas is. Second, and more important, you’ve got to compare the the agricultural income per year with the returns per year on the mining investment, not the investment itself.
On the environmenal point, well of course there have to be environmental controls on any large mining project. I doubt that you would find a single serious mining company who would disagree. But I tire a little of the Green/green reflex that implicitly makes mining the moral equivalent of paedophilia (see Debbieanne, above.)
Brian, I wasn’t think about you when I made that comment. Your posts are invariably very thoughtful and well researched. However, your numbers are not like for like. First, as you say, it’s the whole of Queensland’s agriculture that is worth $14 billion, not just the bits in the Bowen and Surat Basins where the coal seam gas is. Second, and more important, you’ve got to compare the the agricultural income per year with the returns per year on the mining investment, not the investment itself.
On the environmenal point, well of course there have to be environmental controls on any large mining project. I doubt that you would find a single serious mining company who would disagree. But I tire a little of the Green/green reflex that implicitly makes mining the moral equivalent of paedophilia (see Debbieanne, above.)
Brian said:
I don’t see that it would be the least bit relevant here, so I’d endorse that.
Brian said:
I don’t see that it would be the least bit relevant here, so I’d endorse that.
Sam, that’s assuming a bit about debbieanne, I think.
We need economists to make the economic comparisons. I’d only note that Phil Ruthven in the current BRW says that mining contributes just 6.8% of Australia’s wealth, less than 5.8% of all business revenue and fewer than 1.5% of jobs in 2009. It tends to be overrated.
I know that income at the farm gate and agricultural employment are quite small in the economy also, but we process more food than we do minerals. Beyond that I would not venture but it is in part a matter of the shorter term and the longer term.
BTW I heard the other day that half the mining technology in all the world is Australian, which is quite a good effort on the face of it.
Sam, that’s assuming a bit about debbieanne, I think.
We need economists to make the economic comparisons. I’d only note that Phil Ruthven in the current BRW says that mining contributes just 6.8% of Australia’s wealth, less than 5.8% of all business revenue and fewer than 1.5% of jobs in 2009. It tends to be overrated.
I know that income at the farm gate and agricultural employment are quite small in the economy also, but we process more food than we do minerals. Beyond that I would not venture but it is in part a matter of the shorter term and the longer term.
BTW I heard the other day that half the mining technology in all the world is Australian, which is quite a good effort on the face of it.
The gas is going to be exported as LNG, so a discussion of nuclear energy is not only thread derailing, it is irrelevant.
The gas is going to be exported as LNG, so a discussion of nuclear energy is not only thread derailing, it is irrelevant.
Sam #7 I have a lot of problems with any proposition that because one sector earns much more than another per year we must give the red carpet to greater earner. You may not be advocating your argument to this extreme but there has been in an expediency exhibited by State Government through their actions or lack there of. The problem is one resource has roughly a 30-year lifespan and the other timeless given stewardship, research and a atuned mindset.
It’s just not a bright brilliant green reflex; these stories are coming from the people from these areas who view the land through dual lenses of agricultural production & conservation. Some in the early days thought they could work with these gas companies but have become frustrated with an unworkable co-existence and the development of long-term environmental problems.
Sam #7 I have a lot of problems with any proposition that because one sector earns much more than another per year we must give the red carpet to greater earner. You may not be advocating your argument to this extreme but there has been in an expediency exhibited by State Government through their actions or lack there of. The problem is one resource has roughly a 30-year lifespan and the other timeless given stewardship, research and a atuned mindset.
It’s just not a bright brilliant green reflex; these stories are coming from the people from these areas who view the land through dual lenses of agricultural production & conservation. Some in the early days thought they could work with these gas companies but have become frustrated with an unworkable co-existence and the development of long-term environmental problems.
I accept the need for mining (how could I not?), which unavoidably does some concentrated damage to areas. Generally recoverable with a bond to ensure decent rehabilitation. I don’t have much concern about the disruption of agricultural production, as long as the farmers are adequately compensated.
However, the draining of the aquifer, and leaving the salt pans lying there until they can think of something to do with them, horrifies me. This doesn’t sound like a transition across to mining and then back to agriculture, it sounds more like the creation of a wasteland and that nothing will be able to be done on that massive area of land for aeons to come.
Surely we’re not that idiotic?
I accept the need for mining (how could I not?), which unavoidably does some concentrated damage to areas. Generally recoverable with a bond to ensure decent rehabilitation. I don’t have much concern about the disruption of agricultural production, as long as the farmers are adequately compensated.
However, the draining of the aquifer, and leaving the salt pans lying there until they can think of something to do with them, horrifies me. This doesn’t sound like a transition across to mining and then back to agriculture, it sounds more like the creation of a wasteland and that nothing will be able to be done on that massive area of land for aeons to come.
Surely we’re not that idiotic?
One farmer found that nothing is growing three years after they dug a trench and buried a pipeline.
In an earlier thread we found that rehabilitation for farming purposes after open cut mining was in practical terms impossible.
One farmer found that nothing is growing three years after they dug a trench and buried a pipeline.
In an earlier thread we found that rehabilitation for farming purposes after open cut mining was in practical terms impossible.
Thank goodness for this exposure to CSG extraction. Next week’s will be even more interesting as it will cover associated water issues. NSW has similar projections for CSG and it is occurring on our most valauble farming lands – the Liverpool Plains. This area is not only our most drought resistant and fertile area but also part of the Namoi Catchment which feeds into the Murray-Darling Basin – which as we all know is in dire straits to say nothing of the lack of sighificant recharge into the Great Artesian Basin. Well said Brian, and I hope this next installment covers CSG extraction sufficently as it is an industry viewed by some as “the biggest environmental threat in our time”. Australia cannot afford to have our limited water supplies drained by this industry.
Thank goodness for this exposure to CSG extraction. Next week’s will be even more interesting as it will cover associated water issues. NSW has similar projections for CSG and it is occurring on our most valauble farming lands – the Liverpool Plains. This area is not only our most drought resistant and fertile area but also part of the Namoi Catchment which feeds into the Murray-Darling Basin – which as we all know is in dire straits to say nothing of the lack of sighificant recharge into the Great Artesian Basin. Well said Brian, and I hope this next installment covers CSG extraction sufficently as it is an industry viewed by some as “the biggest environmental threat in our time”. Australia cannot afford to have our limited water supplies drained by this industry.
Australia just cannot get it right.
Australia just cannot get it right.
wilful @ 12, what do you think of the notion of excluding mining completely from “top quality” agricultural land?
wilful @ 12, what do you think of the notion of excluding mining completely from “top quality” agricultural land?
I find this picture that appeared last year in the Brisbane times haunting – but I’m sure we won’t be happy until we’ve completely rooted this joint
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/blue-mine-booboo-has-farmers-seeing-red/2009/03/23/1237656821706.html
(Ta Brian for the yet again most informative post)
I find this picture that appeared last year in the Brisbane times haunting – but I’m sure we won’t be happy until we’ve completely rooted this joint
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/blue-mine-booboo-has-farmers-seeing-red/2009/03/23/1237656821706.html
(Ta Brian for the yet again most informative post)
Gas is a good *replacement* of thermal coal: not supplementing an otherwise unmineable deposit.
Kate Jones is supposed to be protecting our rich farmland from mining – http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/croppingland – but I doubt she can hold off the “royalists”.
@2 For me it’s not about picking a winner, but taxing carbon and letting the market decide.
@7 Mining is essential – I simply regard thermal coal the same way I do tobacco: an addiction that leads to death. (Oil spills and ground-water contamination are terrible, but not as terrible as climate change tipping points).
Gas is a good *replacement* of thermal coal: not supplementing an otherwise unmineable deposit.
Kate Jones is supposed to be protecting our rich farmland from mining – http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/croppingland – but I doubt she can hold off the “royalists”.
@2 For me it’s not about picking a winner, but taxing carbon and letting the market decide.
@7 Mining is essential – I simply regard thermal coal the same way I do tobacco: an addiction that leads to death. (Oil spills and ground-water contamination are terrible, but not as terrible as climate change tipping points).
If there is effective, proven rehabilitation, and under fair access terms, then yes I can’t see a reason to exclude it. I don’t hold agricultural productivity as any particularly special category of economic activity. However, if it is lost for all time, then absolutely no way, jose.
If there is effective, proven rehabilitation, and under fair access terms, then yes I can’t see a reason to exclude it. I don’t hold agricultural productivity as any particularly special category of economic activity. However, if it is lost for all time, then absolutely no way, jose.
I was googling for something related to this issue and found that we’d been picked up by this mob. Isn’t teh internets wonderful?
Actually I was looking to see whether a Drew Hutton press release had been published anywhere. Here it is in full, for the first time in the whole wide world!
I was googling for something related to this issue and found that we’d been picked up by this mob. Isn’t teh internets wonderful?
Actually I was looking to see whether a Drew Hutton press release had been published anywhere. Here it is in full, for the first time in the whole wide world!
wilful @ 19, I see food production as special, in part because it is one of life’s necessities.
kuke @ 18, thanks for the link to the Bligh Govt’s “strategic cropping land” proposal. Generally speaking ministers for the environment are not high status in any government and usually get rolled by the economic ministers. The highest status environment minister we’ve ever had in this country is probably Richo.
But with CSG in the Government’s eyes there is not even a contest. This is from the discussion paper (pdf):
The paper also says mining production was worth $26.36 billion to Qld’s economy in 2006-7, whereas the “agriculture and agri-food system generated $22.7 billion dollars… and employed 272,471 Queenslanders.” Mining has probably forged further ahead since then in dollars, but I’ll wager is well behind in employment..
wilful @ 19, I see food production as special, in part because it is one of life’s necessities.
kuke @ 18, thanks for the link to the Bligh Govt’s “strategic cropping land” proposal. Generally speaking ministers for the environment are not high status in any government and usually get rolled by the economic ministers. The highest status environment minister we’ve ever had in this country is probably Richo.
But with CSG in the Government’s eyes there is not even a contest. This is from the discussion paper (pdf):
The paper also says mining production was worth $26.36 billion to Qld’s economy in 2006-7, whereas the “agriculture and agri-food system generated $22.7 billion dollars… and employed 272,471 Queenslanders.” Mining has probably forged further ahead since then in dollars, but I’ll wager is well behind in employment..
Drew Hutton’s media release #20
The Great Artesian Basin is an incredible natural resource for this Nation. Bores were drilled into it long ago & the water came to the surface without any pumping. Deep furrows in the ground, called bore drains were dug to take the water to many 10’s of kilometres away. Much later the pressure of these free flowing bores was dropping, so a scheme was develop to stop a very high percentage of water lost to soakage & evaporation. Over the last few decades these old bores have been capped, water fed through buried poly pipes and only the water need flows from the bore.
To cap a bore is very expensive. The cost was met by a third Federal Govt, third State Govt & a third the landowner. This scheme was very effective, returning the pressure at the bore heads but remember it costed to you also as a taxpayer. Now the State Govt is allowing water to be extracted at an unprecedented level. After return the system back to sustainable levels we will see it all thrown away in the haste to lay hands onto royalties. Hutton finishes his media release saying:
Drew Hutton’s media release #20
The Great Artesian Basin is an incredible natural resource for this Nation. Bores were drilled into it long ago & the water came to the surface without any pumping. Deep furrows in the ground, called bore drains were dug to take the water to many 10’s of kilometres away. Much later the pressure of these free flowing bores was dropping, so a scheme was develop to stop a very high percentage of water lost to soakage & evaporation. Over the last few decades these old bores have been capped, water fed through buried poly pipes and only the water need flows from the bore.
To cap a bore is very expensive. The cost was met by a third Federal Govt, third State Govt & a third the landowner. This scheme was very effective, returning the pressure at the bore heads but remember it costed to you also as a taxpayer. Now the State Govt is allowing water to be extracted at an unprecedented level. After return the system back to sustainable levels we will see it all thrown away in the haste to lay hands onto royalties. Hutton finishes his media release saying:
Donald Rumfeld’s memorable comments about the dangers of “unknown unknowns” in Iraq have prophetic currency in the CSG dabate. Anna Blight’s reckless CSG money grab conveniently ignores any application of the precautionary principle in regard to the CSG industry’s devastating impacts on the surface environment as well as below ground on the Great Artesian Basin and associated aquifers.
The uncontrolled use of hydraulic fracking has endless unknown destructive environmental outcomes. These include the destruction and pollution of adjacent aquifers with very toxic chemicals and may even cause sciesmic activity when water extracted with CSG is forciably re-injected underground in previously “fracked” production areas.
Please check a recent article in the Dallas Post on this alarming possibility
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9EC45281.html
Donald Rumfeld’s memorable comments about the dangers of “unknown unknowns” in Iraq have prophetic currency in the CSG dabate. Anna Blight’s reckless CSG money grab conveniently ignores any application of the precautionary principle in regard to the CSG industry’s devastating impacts on the surface environment as well as below ground on the Great Artesian Basin and associated aquifers.
The uncontrolled use of hydraulic fracking has endless unknown destructive environmental outcomes. These include the destruction and pollution of adjacent aquifers with very toxic chemicals and may even cause sciesmic activity when water extracted with CSG is forciably re-injected underground in previously “fracked” production areas.
Please check a recent article in the Dallas Post on this alarming possibility
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9EC45281.html
If you were looking at a yearly production figure, mining would win in Queensland currently. Let the CSG wells start going ahead on the floodplains in the Darling Downs (a large part of the Surat Basin) using the 6 wells in a 250m grid pattern (which one company is currently trialling), then agriculture will drop way behind very sharply.
It would not be feasible under the current terms of trade for farms (cropping & cotton, irrigated or dryland) in these areas to exist. Ignoring the ground and waste water issues, which have been well covered, the amount of piping, powerlines, roads, wells, pumps, compressors stations (working at 120 decibels 24/7 in a flat uninterrupted environment), reverse osmosis treatment plants, mini power stations, holding dams and any other infrastructure I may have missed is going to be enormous.
Much money and time has been spent by government, community and landholders controlling surface water on these floodplains and once this infrastructure is being built and completed, who knows what will happen. I’d like to also pose, what happens when the gas is fully extracted?
Cropping in these areas will go backwards, some will be put back to grass (which turns it into B or C-class grazing country). The productivity drop will be massive, and felt all the way through the local food and fibre supply chain. Not to mention the banks baulking at the drop of land value and the worsening debt/equity ratio for those in debt.
Of course if people are willing to pay double or triple the price of your food & fibre staples, and see all the towns that rely on this business (and incidentally most use bore water for supply) slowly die, then so be it.
Sam @ 7. FYI, I am no greenie, I have been part of earthmoving contracting business for many years, and I’m very happy on a dozer, just as much as a spray rig. However, having an exploration drilling rig working 200m from your family home tends to change your focus. If you’re willing to pay more for your food, be my guest.
If you were looking at a yearly production figure, mining would win in Queensland currently. Let the CSG wells start going ahead on the floodplains in the Darling Downs (a large part of the Surat Basin) using the 6 wells in a 250m grid pattern (which one company is currently trialling), then agriculture will drop way behind very sharply.
It would not be feasible under the current terms of trade for farms (cropping & cotton, irrigated or dryland) in these areas to exist. Ignoring the ground and waste water issues, which have been well covered, the amount of piping, powerlines, roads, wells, pumps, compressors stations (working at 120 decibels 24/7 in a flat uninterrupted environment), reverse osmosis treatment plants, mini power stations, holding dams and any other infrastructure I may have missed is going to be enormous.
Much money and time has been spent by government, community and landholders controlling surface water on these floodplains and once this infrastructure is being built and completed, who knows what will happen. I’d like to also pose, what happens when the gas is fully extracted?
Cropping in these areas will go backwards, some will be put back to grass (which turns it into B or C-class grazing country). The productivity drop will be massive, and felt all the way through the local food and fibre supply chain. Not to mention the banks baulking at the drop of land value and the worsening debt/equity ratio for those in debt.
Of course if people are willing to pay double or triple the price of your food & fibre staples, and see all the towns that rely on this business (and incidentally most use bore water for supply) slowly die, then so be it.
Sam @ 7. FYI, I am no greenie, I have been part of earthmoving contracting business for many years, and I’m very happy on a dozer, just as much as a spray rig. However, having an exploration drilling rig working 200m from your family home tends to change your focus. If you’re willing to pay more for your food, be my guest.
Wheatman, @ 21 I quoted from the Government’s draft “strategic cropping land” proposal”
I guess that’s not saying much when the comparison is with open cut coal mining.
I didn’t know about the acoustic pollution. Sounds nightmarish, and possibly worse than the SE freeway noise that drove nearby residents mad.
Wheatman, @ 21 I quoted from the Government’s draft “strategic cropping land” proposal”
I guess that’s not saying much when the comparison is with open cut coal mining.
I didn’t know about the acoustic pollution. Sounds nightmarish, and possibly worse than the SE freeway noise that drove nearby residents mad.
On a crisp winters night on the flat darling Downs multiple compressor stations, as wheatman said @25, 120 decibels 24/7 would definitely be worse than the SE freeway.
On a crisp winters night on the flat darling Downs multiple compressor stations, as wheatman said @25, 120 decibels 24/7 would definitely be worse than the SE freeway.
As well as my academic and green political work I have spent the last 20 years researching the mining industry and being an advocate for better environmental management of the industry. I had leave to appear at a CJC inquiry in the early 90s and brought the environmental record of the mining industry to that inquiry. I was given 3 days to do this and this time was described by the Mining Council’s Michael Pinnock as “the worst three days in the history of Queensland mining” because, for the first time, the veil was lifted on this industry’s awful record on environmental management and rehabilitation of sites. In a nutshell there is not one hectare of land disturbed by mining in the state that has been properly rehabilitated despite claims by the industry that “We can put it back better than it was before.” The mind boggles at what they could do to those beautiful 5 metre deep soils of the Darling Downs. The gas industry’s uncontrolled experiment with the state’s underground water resources is also a nightmare in the making. In all of this Queensland’s environmental regulator has played a totally compromised role. The commissioner at the aforementioned CJC inquiry referred to it as the “departmental dilemma”. Other writers refer to the phenomenon as “regulatory capture”. I prefer to think of it as the impossibility of social democracy in an economy dominated by massive players in the resource extraction sector. These corporations – some of the biggest in the world – are too big and powerful to regulate and so, in an era when natural resource management is the most pressing that we face and social democracy (and the preservation of the public interest) are dependent on the government’s preparedness to regulate, then governments simply ask the coal and gas companies “How high” when told to jump.
As well as my academic and green political work I have spent the last 20 years researching the mining industry and being an advocate for better environmental management of the industry. I had leave to appear at a CJC inquiry in the early 90s and brought the environmental record of the mining industry to that inquiry. I was given 3 days to do this and this time was described by the Mining Council’s Michael Pinnock as “the worst three days in the history of Queensland mining” because, for the first time, the veil was lifted on this industry’s awful record on environmental management and rehabilitation of sites. In a nutshell there is not one hectare of land disturbed by mining in the state that has been properly rehabilitated despite claims by the industry that “We can put it back better than it was before.” The mind boggles at what they could do to those beautiful 5 metre deep soils of the Darling Downs. The gas industry’s uncontrolled experiment with the state’s underground water resources is also a nightmare in the making. In all of this Queensland’s environmental regulator has played a totally compromised role. The commissioner at the aforementioned CJC inquiry referred to it as the “departmental dilemma”. Other writers refer to the phenomenon as “regulatory capture”. I prefer to think of it as the impossibility of social democracy in an economy dominated by massive players in the resource extraction sector. These corporations – some of the biggest in the world – are too big and powerful to regulate and so, in an era when natural resource management is the most pressing that we face and social democracy (and the preservation of the public interest) are dependent on the government’s preparedness to regulate, then governments simply ask the coal and gas companies “How high” when told to jump.
Thanks, Drew.
That’s depressing, but has the ring of truth about it.
Saw the article about your new venture in the QCL today. A pity it’s not online.
BTW, you comment was moderated, which happens automatically as a first time contributor. Should go through OK next time.
Thanks, Drew.
That’s depressing, but has the ring of truth about it.
Saw the article about your new venture in the QCL today. A pity it’s not online.
BTW, you comment was moderated, which happens automatically as a first time contributor. Should go through OK next time.
Australia’s ecological integrity is under attack from these corporations. There is an opportunity to mend the city/bush rift by forming a united defensive front to protect food production and water resources. The attack on the Hunter Valley is an assault not only on the ecological integrity of the bio-region but on the health and welfare of the residents as well. The fight back around the Liverpool plains has been exemplary. In the struggle against giant capital this particular issue (gas extraction, open cut and even long wall mining that impacts on aquifers and surface watr) has great strategic potential. If we cannot protect water resources in Australia we are not worth a fig as Australians.
Australia’s ecological integrity is under attack from these corporations. There is an opportunity to mend the city/bush rift by forming a united defensive front to protect food production and water resources. The attack on the Hunter Valley is an assault not only on the ecological integrity of the bio-region but on the health and welfare of the residents as well. The fight back around the Liverpool plains has been exemplary. In the struggle against giant capital this particular issue (gas extraction, open cut and even long wall mining that impacts on aquifers and surface watr) has great strategic potential. If we cannot protect water resources in Australia we are not worth a fig as Australians.
Filmed at a public meeting at Chinchilla roughly a month ago 60 minutes is running a story on the coal seam gas industry.
In an email sent out for wide distribution, Jeff Bidstrup, one of the regions leading farmers from Warra and founder and Chairman of Coal 4 Breakfast, said:
Filmed at a public meeting at Chinchilla roughly a month ago 60 minutes is running a story on the coal seam gas industry.
In an email sent out for wide distribution, Jeff Bidstrup, one of the regions leading farmers from Warra and founder and Chairman of Coal 4 Breakfast, said:
AN@29:
Daily Terror:
This is despite the usual boilerplate industry huffery and blackmail: (“Bickham Coal Company director John Richards said the proposal complied with government planning and the decision would cost almost 400 jobs and $3.7 billion in revenue.”) which normally gets recycled as Teh Minister’s press release, when he/she cuts the ribbon on the latest jobs creation bonanza.
What’s different here?
It’s which community’s business and lifestyle interests was going to be affected.
These are no simple dirt scratchers and cow cockies up there in the hunter who were a bit iffy about having yucky coal types for neighbors : try yesterdays grand poohbahs Bob Hawke & ex-GG Jeffries, the otherwise unlikely bedfellows Alan Jones and Phillip Adams, business doyens John Singleton and Gerry Harvey, and even Jack Thomson to spruik … oh and a budget of over a mill. All pointed at “not in OUR backyard!!!” They had an economic claim that “the mine would affect water quality in the Pages River and Kingdon Ponds, vital sources for the region’s $2.4 billion thoroughbred industry” to fall back on, not to mention those Hunter vineyards, to counter the 3.7 billion contribution the dirty diggers would make…. but whats a billion or two between them friends, …when it’s not theirs.
What part of plutocracy don’t we understand? The problem is the darling downs only grows boring stuff, like food, not sexy, big ticket speculative gear like bloodstock, and unbelievably expensive reds, and so it’s not attracting Teh Right Sort of People, like can stump up a cool mill or so for a campaign.
AN@29:
Daily Terror:
This is despite the usual boilerplate industry huffery and blackmail: (“Bickham Coal Company director John Richards said the proposal complied with government planning and the decision would cost almost 400 jobs and $3.7 billion in revenue.”) which normally gets recycled as Teh Minister’s press release, when he/she cuts the ribbon on the latest jobs creation bonanza.
What’s different here?
It’s which community’s business and lifestyle interests was going to be affected.
These are no simple dirt scratchers and cow cockies up there in the hunter who were a bit iffy about having yucky coal types for neighbors : try yesterdays grand poohbahs Bob Hawke & ex-GG Jeffries, the otherwise unlikely bedfellows Alan Jones and Phillip Adams, business doyens John Singleton and Gerry Harvey, and even Jack Thomson to spruik … oh and a budget of over a mill. All pointed at “not in OUR backyard!!!” They had an economic claim that “the mine would affect water quality in the Pages River and Kingdon Ponds, vital sources for the region’s $2.4 billion thoroughbred industry” to fall back on, not to mention those Hunter vineyards, to counter the 3.7 billion contribution the dirty diggers would make…. but whats a billion or two between them friends, …when it’s not theirs.
What part of plutocracy don’t we understand? The problem is the darling downs only grows boring stuff, like food, not sexy, big ticket speculative gear like bloodstock, and unbelievably expensive reds, and so it’s not attracting Teh Right Sort of People, like can stump up a cool mill or so for a campaign.
Coal seam methane is another fossil fuel – so we shouldn’t be using it for that reason. Let alone the environmental impacts unleashed due to saline water extraction. This proposal treats Australia as a mine and a waste pit. Not good at all.
Coal seam methane is another fossil fuel – so we shouldn’t be using it for that reason. Let alone the environmental impacts unleashed due to saline water extraction. This proposal treats Australia as a mine and a waste pit. Not good at all.
60 Minutes story transcript arrives on Monday. It begins:
Gerald Stone once said that 60 Minutes was like a Western novel. You ride into town, find out who the baddies are, shoot them up and move on.
Sounds fun if it wasn’t so serious.
60 Minutes story transcript arrives on Monday. It begins:
Gerald Stone once said that 60 Minutes was like a Western novel. You ride into town, find out who the baddies are, shoot them up and move on.
Sounds fun if it wasn’t so serious.
Brian #33, “60 Minutes…….You ride into town, find out who the baddies are, shoot them up and move on.
Sounds like fun if it wasn’t so serious.”
I’m a little fearful of the 60 minutes style in constructively advancing awareness of the impacts by the coal seam gas industry in the Surat basin. It will be interesting to compare their story with that of ABC TV Landline who have in the previous two Sundays run stories on this very same subject in the same locality. Here is last weeks transcript of the Landline story, Risk Management.
Brian #33, “60 Minutes…….You ride into town, find out who the baddies are, shoot them up and move on.
Sounds like fun if it wasn’t so serious.”
I’m a little fearful of the 60 minutes style in constructively advancing awareness of the impacts by the coal seam gas industry in the Surat basin. It will be interesting to compare their story with that of ABC TV Landline who have in the previous two Sundays run stories on this very same subject in the same locality. Here is last weeks transcript of the Landline story, Risk Management.
Still@34, I was actually disappointed with Landline’s story as it seemed old (obviously shot before Christmas around Roma) and only really dealt with Santos and Origin who’s tenements are around Roma and Injune. It showed Wayne Newton’s property but then showed the Surat Basin being to the west of Dalby. The Surat Basin goes nearly to Toowoomba in the east – which then shows it covering the majority of the Darling Downs. It certainly didn’t cover the issue of this infrastructure on intensive agriculture in any depth – let alone what this will be like on the floodplains. Arrow has by far the worst reputation in dealing with landholders from what I have gathered talking to people – yet no inclusion of them or BG/QGC was made. At least they gave the CSG reasonable time.
I was at the 60 mins public forum and the only government represented was the local council, who have the very difficult job of balancing all these new projects with existing industry. No gas companies or employees where present. I wait to see what they show.
Secondly, I see that there is to be a rally near Cecil Plains, on Wednesday 19th of May, with Drew Hutton, to talk about what negative impacts the CSG industry is having and could have.
Further movements include the Basin Sustainability Alliance being launched as an umbrella for all the local groups affected by CSG development. They are “calling for a moratorium on further Coal Seam Gas development until the full environmental impacts on communities, groundwater systems and agricultural land are understood and addressed.”
The communities out here are just starting to become aware of the potential problems.
Still@34, I was actually disappointed with Landline’s story as it seemed old (obviously shot before Christmas around Roma) and only really dealt with Santos and Origin who’s tenements are around Roma and Injune. It showed Wayne Newton’s property but then showed the Surat Basin being to the west of Dalby. The Surat Basin goes nearly to Toowoomba in the east – which then shows it covering the majority of the Darling Downs. It certainly didn’t cover the issue of this infrastructure on intensive agriculture in any depth – let alone what this will be like on the floodplains. Arrow has by far the worst reputation in dealing with landholders from what I have gathered talking to people – yet no inclusion of them or BG/QGC was made. At least they gave the CSG reasonable time.
I was at the 60 mins public forum and the only government represented was the local council, who have the very difficult job of balancing all these new projects with existing industry. No gas companies or employees where present. I wait to see what they show.
Secondly, I see that there is to be a rally near Cecil Plains, on Wednesday 19th of May, with Drew Hutton, to talk about what negative impacts the CSG industry is having and could have.
Further movements include the Basin Sustainability Alliance being launched as an umbrella for all the local groups affected by CSG development. They are “calling for a moratorium on further Coal Seam Gas development until the full environmental impacts on communities, groundwater systems and agricultural land are understood and addressed.”
The communities out here are just starting to become aware of the potential problems.
“In an earlier thread we found that rehabilitation for farming purposes after open cut mining was in practical terms impossible.”
Just as a matter of interest, what % of total agricultural land would that be then? I am guessing less than 1%?. Where I am the rehabilitation has resulted in some quite strong natural bush regrowth after decades of farming abuse, perhaps not all doom and gloom.
“In an earlier thread we found that rehabilitation for farming purposes after open cut mining was in practical terms impossible.”
Just as a matter of interest, what % of total agricultural land would that be then? I am guessing less than 1%?. Where I am the rehabilitation has resulted in some quite strong natural bush regrowth after decades of farming abuse, perhaps not all doom and gloom.
Some of the issues raised here seem to have relatively easy solutions. For example, there is no need to use a 250 m grid (which makes the use of farm machinery difficult.) There is no reason why lines of drill holes can’t be used with very few cross links to minimize problems for farm machinery.
There is also no reason why angle drilling can’t be used with more than one hole being drilled from each drill point to keep the lines further apart. For 300 m deep seams, 45deg drilling and a max of 250 m between holes at the seam level you could keep the drill lines 850m apart – more if you are willing to use greater angles.
Not sure how difficult it is to grout the holes to avoid loss of fresh water/salt contamination. Be good to see what hydrological reports are available on the issue.
It would also be useful to know just how salty the water is. In water limited areas saline water might be combined with desalination to actually increase the water available in water constrained agriculture areas with the volume of brine to be disposed of reduced to manageable volumes. Would also be useful to know how much of the gas reserve is outside of prime agricultural land with freshwater aquifer issues.
However, my alarm bells go off when the gas companies want to start before they have a credible plan for disposing of the saline water.
If coal seam gas is really a license to make money the companies can afford the additional expense required to reduce agricultural impacts.
Some of the issues raised here seem to have relatively easy solutions. For example, there is no need to use a 250 m grid (which makes the use of farm machinery difficult.) There is no reason why lines of drill holes can’t be used with very few cross links to minimize problems for farm machinery.
There is also no reason why angle drilling can’t be used with more than one hole being drilled from each drill point to keep the lines further apart. For 300 m deep seams, 45deg drilling and a max of 250 m between holes at the seam level you could keep the drill lines 850m apart – more if you are willing to use greater angles.
Not sure how difficult it is to grout the holes to avoid loss of fresh water/salt contamination. Be good to see what hydrological reports are available on the issue.
It would also be useful to know just how salty the water is. In water limited areas saline water might be combined with desalination to actually increase the water available in water constrained agriculture areas with the volume of brine to be disposed of reduced to manageable volumes. Would also be useful to know how much of the gas reserve is outside of prime agricultural land with freshwater aquifer issues.
However, my alarm bells go off when the gas companies want to start before they have a credible plan for disposing of the saline water.
If coal seam gas is really a license to make money the companies can afford the additional expense required to reduce agricultural impacts.
Danny@31, an interesting factor on the Darling Downs is private coal rights, as confirmed recently by Stephen Robertson -
QUESTION ON NOTICE
No. 155
asked on Tuesday, 23 February 2010
MRS PRATT ASKED THE MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, MINES AND
ENERGY AND MINISTER FOR TRADE (MR ROBERTSON)—
QUESTION:
With reference to section 8 of the Queensland Mineral Resources Act 1989, which states that coal on some land alienated in fee simple before 1 March 1910 is not the property of the Crown— How much income in coal royalties has the Queensland Government foregone in
the last 10 years due to this clause?
ANSWER:
For the 10 years ended 31 December 2009, total royalties collected by the State amounted to $11.4 billion. This contribution has enabled the State to fund schools, hospitals, police and infrastructure.
As stated in the legislation, prior to 1 March 1910, not all mineral rights were vested in the State. Consequently, the State is not always the recipient of royalty revenue.
There are various combinations of private mineral rights holdings, including the ownership of all minerals contained within the land, other than gold, or just a single mineral, for example coal or copper.
Should mining take place on this land, the holder of mineral royalty rights, which may be the landholder or another party, would collect the royalty rather than the State.
The Mineral Resources Act 1989 provides that royalties will be paid to the owner of the mineral royalty rights at the rate prescribed by the Act.
For the ten years ended 31 December 2009 royalties on coal accruing to parties other than the Crown amounted to approximately $554.1 million.
A fair chunk of the Downs comes into this category, including the existing mining areas of Acland & Millmerran. The word is that the mining companies have bought the land with private rights attached, and are now paying royalties to themselves. As the Govt would get no royalties from mining at Felton, it’s hard to believe they’d allow Ambre Energy to build their horrendous coal-to-liquids & CO2 operation. Could Felton be Qld’s Bickham – the first coal mine rejected?
Getting back to CSG, the question is, if a landholder has private coal rights, does he/she also have rights to the gas within the coal? If not, does he/she have any powers to stop gas drilling using the Merchant of Venice argument – ie you can take the gas, but don’t take a single drop of coal?
Danny@31, an interesting factor on the Darling Downs is private coal rights, as confirmed recently by Stephen Robertson -
QUESTION ON NOTICE
No. 155
asked on Tuesday, 23 February 2010
MRS PRATT ASKED THE MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, MINES AND
ENERGY AND MINISTER FOR TRADE (MR ROBERTSON)—
QUESTION:
With reference to section 8 of the Queensland Mineral Resources Act 1989, which states that coal on some land alienated in fee simple before 1 March 1910 is not the property of the Crown— How much income in coal royalties has the Queensland Government foregone in
the last 10 years due to this clause?
ANSWER:
For the 10 years ended 31 December 2009, total royalties collected by the State amounted to $11.4 billion. This contribution has enabled the State to fund schools, hospitals, police and infrastructure.
As stated in the legislation, prior to 1 March 1910, not all mineral rights were vested in the State. Consequently, the State is not always the recipient of royalty revenue.
There are various combinations of private mineral rights holdings, including the ownership of all minerals contained within the land, other than gold, or just a single mineral, for example coal or copper.
Should mining take place on this land, the holder of mineral royalty rights, which may be the landholder or another party, would collect the royalty rather than the State.
The Mineral Resources Act 1989 provides that royalties will be paid to the owner of the mineral royalty rights at the rate prescribed by the Act.
For the ten years ended 31 December 2009 royalties on coal accruing to parties other than the Crown amounted to approximately $554.1 million.
A fair chunk of the Downs comes into this category, including the existing mining areas of Acland & Millmerran. The word is that the mining companies have bought the land with private rights attached, and are now paying royalties to themselves. As the Govt would get no royalties from mining at Felton, it’s hard to believe they’d allow Ambre Energy to build their horrendous coal-to-liquids & CO2 operation. Could Felton be Qld’s Bickham – the first coal mine rejected?
Getting back to CSG, the question is, if a landholder has private coal rights, does he/she also have rights to the gas within the coal? If not, does he/she have any powers to stop gas drilling using the Merchant of Venice argument – ie you can take the gas, but don’t take a single drop of coal?
Wheatman is exactly right when he says the Landline program focused on Origin and Santos and gave, therefore, a more optimistic picture of the impacts than might otherwise have been the case. If you go to areas where British gas (QGC) and Arrow have their leases you will see a much different picture. Not that Santos and origin are above reproach; they simply have a better resource, own more land and have done more work on what to do with the water. The over-arching question still remains: why has the State government allowed an uncontrolled experiment with one of our major natural assets – the Great Artesian Basin without any guarantee that the companies know what impacts they will have or have any idea how they will address the problems? The 60 Minutes program was, in my view, very accurate because, in this case, it really is about coming into town and shooting up the baddies. This is one of the grossest episodes in this country’s environmental history…and that’s saying something!
Wheatman is exactly right when he says the Landline program focused on Origin and Santos and gave, therefore, a more optimistic picture of the impacts than might otherwise have been the case. If you go to areas where British gas (QGC) and Arrow have their leases you will see a much different picture. Not that Santos and origin are above reproach; they simply have a better resource, own more land and have done more work on what to do with the water. The over-arching question still remains: why has the State government allowed an uncontrolled experiment with one of our major natural assets – the Great Artesian Basin without any guarantee that the companies know what impacts they will have or have any idea how they will address the problems? The 60 Minutes program was, in my view, very accurate because, in this case, it really is about coming into town and shooting up the baddies. This is one of the grossest episodes in this country’s environmental history…and that’s saying something!
Thanks, Drew.
Unfortunately the 60 Minutes program clashed with Dr Who. Our video facilities are kaput. I only get one vote out of two in this household, so would be clearly out-voted on which program to watch.
I’ve got some private/family stuff to attend to and then hope to get back to see whether I can add some value in a further post.
Thanks, Drew.
Unfortunately the 60 Minutes program clashed with Dr Who. Our video facilities are kaput. I only get one vote out of two in this household, so would be clearly out-voted on which program to watch.
I’ve got some private/family stuff to attend to and then hope to get back to see whether I can add some value in a further post.
Denise @ 38, I have no expert knowledge, but I think that exploration rights for coal and CSG can exist on the same land. If both want to go ahead they would have to negotiate and presumably one would pay the other one out. If there is a conflict then the State Government has to decide which will be approved.
If anyone has expert knowledge on this one it would be appreciated.
Denise @ 38, I have no expert knowledge, but I think that exploration rights for coal and CSG can exist on the same land. If both want to go ahead they would have to negotiate and presumably one would pay the other one out. If there is a conflict then the State Government has to decide which will be approved.
If anyone has expert knowledge on this one it would be appreciated.
The 350,000 megalitres/yr mentioned above is equivalent to a layer 100mm deep covering a 60x60km square. The point I am making is that, in terms of the Darling basin, this amount of water is minuscule. Original sin I know but it may actually make sense to simply run the saline water down the river during significant rain events. I know this approach was used for the disposal of saline mine water in the Hunter Valley the last time I looked. The question is how much salt is actually involved and what are the risks/practicalities of injection back into the coal seam?
The 350,000 megalitres/yr mentioned above is equivalent to a layer 100mm deep covering a 60x60km square. The point I am making is that, in terms of the Darling basin, this amount of water is minuscule. Original sin I know but it may actually make sense to simply run the saline water down the river during significant rain events. I know this approach was used for the disposal of saline mine water in the Hunter Valley the last time I looked. The question is how much salt is actually involved and what are the risks/practicalities of injection back into the coal seam?
The 60 Minutes video can be seen here: http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/undermined/xslwxn0
Liz Hayes did a pretty good job, I thought, particularly in pinning down Stephen Robertson. She also pointed at an issue which underpins this problem and others: how insecure property “ownership” really is. We think our home is our castle – but it’s only “skin-deep”, says Liz Hayes.
still@34: Did you see the episode and what did you think?
The 60 Minutes video can be seen here: http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/undermined/xslwxn0
Liz Hayes did a pretty good job, I thought, particularly in pinning down Stephen Robertson. She also pointed at an issue which underpins this problem and others: how insecure property “ownership” really is. We think our home is our castle – but it’s only “skin-deep”, says Liz Hayes.
still@34: Did you see the episode and what did you think?
Jemstone @43, I saw the first Landline program but the program on the second week. Talking to others they were a little disappointed with Landline’s second week’s story. The 60 minutes story as per usual had a certain amount of hype but I believe was generally good. Liz Hayes certainly made Stephen Robertson squirm; it did highlight the shallow thinking of Government with the head down rush for royalties without consideration of environmental and food production values. Note the interesting mix of people affected by the gas wells; not only there are farmers and long-time town residents but also tree change “blockies” on small acreages with a many varied backgrounds.
John D @37 & 42, your questions deserve a response by someone with greater technical expertise than myself. If no one comes into this thread soon I’ll try to give an answer later.
Jemstone @43, I saw the first Landline program but the program on the second week. Talking to others they were a little disappointed with Landline’s second week’s story. The 60 minutes story as per usual had a certain amount of hype but I believe was generally good. Liz Hayes certainly made Stephen Robertson squirm; it did highlight the shallow thinking of Government with the head down rush for royalties without consideration of environmental and food production values. Note the interesting mix of people affected by the gas wells; not only there are farmers and long-time town residents but also tree change “blockies” on small acreages with a many varied backgrounds.
John D @37 & 42, your questions deserve a response by someone with greater technical expertise than myself. If no one comes into this thread soon I’ll try to give an answer later.
Firstly, the landholder themselves have basically no rights – these gas companies can go wherever they like. As a primary producer I would be very wary about purchasing any property with CSG exploration on it – because of future water contamination and depletion, and the later emerginging issues of subsidence. Properties in Queensland have been devalued by 10% just because of one exploration hole. This was done by the Department of Lands and the gas companies are not obligated to make good on this issue. Re the totally inappropriate comment about releasing water in the rivers during high flow – CSG water is not only extremely high in salts but also heavy metals. The water is contaminated also by drilling fluids – benzenes, pottassium chloride, (known in some circles as the suicide drug or abortion drug) the list is endless and this cannot be put into our creeks and rivers. Inter-aquifer contamination is a very serious matter – Queensland govt has said that this water cannot be used for irrigation on prime land even after treatment. Hope this answers some of your questions.
Firstly, the landholder themselves have basically no rights – these gas companies can go wherever they like. As a primary producer I would be very wary about purchasing any property with CSG exploration on it – because of future water contamination and depletion, and the later emerginging issues of subsidence. Properties in Queensland have been devalued by 10% just because of one exploration hole. This was done by the Department of Lands and the gas companies are not obligated to make good on this issue. Re the totally inappropriate comment about releasing water in the rivers during high flow – CSG water is not only extremely high in salts but also heavy metals. The water is contaminated also by drilling fluids – benzenes, pottassium chloride, (known in some circles as the suicide drug or abortion drug) the list is endless and this cannot be put into our creeks and rivers. Inter-aquifer contamination is a very serious matter – Queensland govt has said that this water cannot be used for irrigation on prime land even after treatment. Hope this answers some of your questions.
John D…at a time when the Condamine alluvium water users are being told they will have to cut their allocations by between 40 and 60 per cent and $100 million has been spent by State and Federal governments on capping bores, it is problematic that the CSG industry can extract hundreds of thousands of megalitres from underground water with an, as yet, unknown effect on other aquifers. Also, it is estimated that CSG extractions will raise about 2 million tonnes of salt a year. That is about the same amount that travels down the entire Murray-Darling system in a year now. Adding another 2 million tonnes by flushing this water down would not be seen in a good light by downstream users, environmentalists or governments.
John D…at a time when the Condamine alluvium water users are being told they will have to cut their allocations by between 40 and 60 per cent and $100 million has been spent by State and Federal governments on capping bores, it is problematic that the CSG industry can extract hundreds of thousands of megalitres from underground water with an, as yet, unknown effect on other aquifers. Also, it is estimated that CSG extractions will raise about 2 million tonnes of salt a year. That is about the same amount that travels down the entire Murray-Darling system in a year now. Adding another 2 million tonnes by flushing this water down would not be seen in a good light by downstream users, environmentalists or governments.
Drew, to this you’d have to add the fact that much of the water released in Qld doesn’t make it to the Murray. So the salts, heavy metals etc would lodge somehwere along the way. But personally I don’t have the expertise to know how drastic this would be.
Drew, to this you’d have to add the fact that much of the water released in Qld doesn’t make it to the Murray. So the salts, heavy metals etc would lodge somehwere along the way. But personally I don’t have the expertise to know how drastic this would be.
Here is a link to the Feasibility Study (CSG water) being done by DERM. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/w184.pdf
They state the concerns about unknown impact on groundwater resources, including the Great Artesian Basin, but the study will not be completed until 2012! A moratorium at least until then sounds reasonable.
They also state that CSG producers are required to treat their water unless it can be injected into a suitable aquifer (my emphasis). And yet one arm of the Feasibility Study is about assessing the “risks and feasability of injecting CSG water and brines into aquifers”.
It sounds to me like they really have no idea what effect these actions will have and are hedging their bets.
Stephen Robertson stated that the Qld Water Commission would be monitoring water levels. However,I can find nothing on the QWC website. In fact, putting coal seam gas or CSG into the QWC search comes up empty.
Here is a link to the Feasibility Study (CSG water) being done by DERM. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/w184.pdf
They state the concerns about unknown impact on groundwater resources, including the Great Artesian Basin, but the study will not be completed until 2012! A moratorium at least until then sounds reasonable.
They also state that CSG producers are required to treat their water unless it can be injected into a suitable aquifer (my emphasis). And yet one arm of the Feasibility Study is about assessing the “risks and feasability of injecting CSG water and brines into aquifers”.
It sounds to me like they really have no idea what effect these actions will have and are hedging their bets.
Stephen Robertson stated that the Qld Water Commission would be monitoring water levels. However,I can find nothing on the QWC website. In fact, putting coal seam gas or CSG into the QWC search comes up empty.
I enjoyed your post. The possible devastation to our land and water is frightening.
Your focus in on is the lowering of the aquifers. While a valid point there is another problem. The complete poisoning of the water supply.
This scarier possibility is here. When drilling these gas wells a fracing fluid is injected into the wells, this fluid is made up of many chemicals, many which will poison the water, causing it unfit for consumption, for crops, or for beast. The content of the fracing fluid the QLD Government has listed is woefully inadequate. All of these chemicals injected do not return to the surface, but run off into the aquafiers, into the land, everywhere.
Another problem is during the drilling process, the water that is pumped into the ground to extract the gas, comes back up and is called produced water, this water contains chemicals used in the fracing process and gas, and is dangerous, this water is what is placed into these 25-acre “holding ponds” or holding tanks and released into enviroment via evaporation. This is evaporation into our air supply! and our rain. Worst of all some of this is even recycled into our drinking water!
The governments say they have monitoring in place, but after a mistake has been made, thats it. You cant clean water 1000m underground. You cant make more farming land,
Can any government monitor properly? Companys want money, cut corners, bend and break rules. I point you to BP.
We already have 1000 wells in Queensland and more are coming. Our water here flows to the other states to. How long till we hear about sick farmers, sick cattle, dead crops?
If there is no water to drink, and we are all sick, what is the point of money? Is this gas extraction process a risk we can take? How can humans so blindly chase money that we would risk poisoning our own water supply? Makes me sick.
I realise the gas and energy lobby denys all of this, they may well be right, but them, with their profits in mind, who can you trust? would you like to take the chance?
http://www.industry.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=15795
I enjoyed your post. The possible devastation to our land and water is frightening.
Your focus in on is the lowering of the aquifers. While a valid point there is another problem. The complete poisoning of the water supply.
This scarier possibility is here. When drilling these gas wells a fracing fluid is injected into the wells, this fluid is made up of many chemicals, many which will poison the water, causing it unfit for consumption, for crops, or for beast. The content of the fracing fluid the QLD Government has listed is woefully inadequate. All of these chemicals injected do not return to the surface, but run off into the aquafiers, into the land, everywhere.
Another problem is during the drilling process, the water that is pumped into the ground to extract the gas, comes back up and is called produced water, this water contains chemicals used in the fracing process and gas, and is dangerous, this water is what is placed into these 25-acre “holding ponds” or holding tanks and released into enviroment via evaporation. This is evaporation into our air supply! and our rain. Worst of all some of this is even recycled into our drinking water!
The governments say they have monitoring in place, but after a mistake has been made, thats it. You cant clean water 1000m underground. You cant make more farming land,
Can any government monitor properly? Companys want money, cut corners, bend and break rules. I point you to BP.
We already have 1000 wells in Queensland and more are coming. Our water here flows to the other states to. How long till we hear about sick farmers, sick cattle, dead crops?
If there is no water to drink, and we are all sick, what is the point of money? Is this gas extraction process a risk we can take? How can humans so blindly chase money that we would risk poisoning our own water supply? Makes me sick.
I realise the gas and energy lobby denys all of this, they may well be right, but them, with their profits in mind, who can you trust? would you like to take the chance?
http://www.industry.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=15795
I’ll just mention here that Garrett has called for more information on the LNG proposals, with concerns, I gather, about water quality in the Great Artesian Basin as well as the ecology around Gladstone.
I’ll just mention here that Garrett has called for more information on the LNG proposals, with concerns, I gather, about water quality in the Great Artesian Basin as well as the ecology around Gladstone.
if garrett is voted back in, he’s likely to continue his record as minister AGAINST the environment.
the scale and lack of care of this gas rush in qld. has the potential to become our greatest environmental disaster as well as resulting in an even greater dependence on imported food.
we cannot afford this sort of vandalism! this gas exploration could be limited and done with proper environmental safeguards and compensation for those disadvantaged. unfortunately, i believe exploration companies need to prove the certainty of gas supply before being awarded a contract with one of the big multinationals.
and we know that they, the big boys, run australia.
i fear for our future and for the devastation of our remaining wildlife.
if garrett is voted back in, he’s likely to continue his record as minister AGAINST the environment.
the scale and lack of care of this gas rush in qld. has the potential to become our greatest environmental disaster as well as resulting in an even greater dependence on imported food.
we cannot afford this sort of vandalism! this gas exploration could be limited and done with proper environmental safeguards and compensation for those disadvantaged. unfortunately, i believe exploration companies need to prove the certainty of gas supply before being awarded a contract with one of the big multinationals.
and we know that they, the big boys, run australia.
i fear for our future and for the devastation of our remaining wildlife.
kika, this whole industry is deeply problematic. Still@downfall @ 34 quotes a Qld Govt spokesman as saying:
I have a diagram that illustrates just how problematic this issue of interconnectivity is. The diagram is not mine, however, and I couldn’t publish it without permission, which might be hard to get.
The Qld Govt says they can ‘manage’ the risk and take a ‘balanced’ approach, which in effect means doing a bit of research, which could well be inconclusive and the results will not be known until after the permissions have been given. The notion that you could restore the underground aquifers once they have been fowled is risible.
Moreover, there is a problem of jurisdiction. Australian Greens Lead Senate Candidate for Queensland Larissa Waters who is an environmental lawyer says that
Garrett is in new territory here, and as with Gunns, may not have the powers to do what should be done.
And with Martin Ferguson, Wayne Swan, Anna Bligh and State Treasurer Andrew Fraser chafing at the bit, and given the mega billions involved, the realpolitik is clear. So spare a thought for Garrett.
kika, this whole industry is deeply problematic. Still@downfall @ 34 quotes a Qld Govt spokesman as saying:
I have a diagram that illustrates just how problematic this issue of interconnectivity is. The diagram is not mine, however, and I couldn’t publish it without permission, which might be hard to get.
The Qld Govt says they can ‘manage’ the risk and take a ‘balanced’ approach, which in effect means doing a bit of research, which could well be inconclusive and the results will not be known until after the permissions have been given. The notion that you could restore the underground aquifers once they have been fowled is risible.
Moreover, there is a problem of jurisdiction. Australian Greens Lead Senate Candidate for Queensland Larissa Waters who is an environmental lawyer says that
Garrett is in new territory here, and as with Gunns, may not have the powers to do what should be done.
And with Martin Ferguson, Wayne Swan, Anna Bligh and State Treasurer Andrew Fraser chafing at the bit, and given the mega billions involved, the realpolitik is clear. So spare a thought for Garrett.
This appears to be yet another assault on the property rights of farmers in Australia. First, the Greens want to steal the land use from the farmers for the ‘common good’ by invoking land use restrictions that wreck the environment, and now mining companies have followed suit.
I agree that we need a bush/city alliance to raise awareness of true environmental issues, and proper, sensible debate.
Protecting property rights would be a damned good start.
Here is something which may interest gentle readers:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PropertyRightsAustr
This appears to be yet another assault on the property rights of farmers in Australia. First, the Greens want to steal the land use from the farmers for the ‘common good’ by invoking land use restrictions that wreck the environment, and now mining companies have followed suit.
I agree that we need a bush/city alliance to raise awareness of true environmental issues, and proper, sensible debate.
Protecting property rights would be a damned good start.
Here is something which may interest gentle readers:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PropertyRightsAustr