« profile & posts archive

This author has written 591 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

6 responses to “Quick link to CSG water post”

  1. Scott Sunshine Coast

    Brian,

    If you are dishonest as the majority of the anti-CSG activists are, then make up numbers like they do. And make up something really scary so it goes to press.

    If you are honest, then you need to ask the question of “in which geologic basin, which specific field area, and in which specific coal seam?” Real science shows every coal seam is different. The luckly ones have dry coals that produce no water. And then that ranges to slightly undersaturated coals that produce little water, then to undersaturated coals that produce signficant water. For example, the Bowen Basin coals are relatively dry and are estimated to produce only 10% of the water compared to the Surat Basin.

    The next honest questiion that you need to ask is “where are aquifers that may possibly be at risk.” You will find in almost all cases, the coals that produce CSG are not connected to the aquifers that people use for water. Its a scientific fact that oppenents don’t like to advertise. The reason is simple and economically driven, if the coals are connected to the aquifers, then the gas would not come out and the CSG proponent would have no product to sell. Around the world in a few places, property owners have water bores located in the same seams as CSG. These are the folks who had to manage gas in water long before the CSG industry, in fact, they were the ones that essentually discovered CSG. These water bore owners are essentually CSG producers, albeit at a very slow rate. So yes in these very few circumstances, the CSG proponent will depressure the same seam as the water bore. One fun fact for you, if the Surat CSG industry produced at peak rate for the entire time, then that rate would take 600 million years.

  2. jules

    Its good to see some public examination of the whole CSG debacle, so thanks. I assume you’ve heard about the contamination in the Pilliga, if not here’s a SMH article about it.

    Most of this water is expected to be left in tailing dams for the underpants gnomes to clean up. I live in an area where 500ml of rain in under 24 hrs is not unheard of, I think the record is over 600 in 3 hrs (in early 2008). Similar rainfall to what hit upstream from Toowoomba last year. I’m unaware of any mining co. assessment that takes these, or even slghtly lower rainfall levels into account when specifying whats needed to prevent contamination from tailings dams overflowing and contaminating the area, yet thats what Metgasco propose for their mines in the Richmond valley.

    I’ll post that link to the Wellhead blog too. Cheers.

  3. jules

    Scott you might want to ponder the honest question: “How does releasing toxic water from the Surat Basin (the one that produces 10 times as much water as the Bowen Basin coals according to you) into the Murray Darling river system engender trust in the industry?”