Three little words strike fear into the heart of at least 40% of Queenslanders: coal seam gas. These three seemingly innocuous words have managed to divide a state, and become the hottest topic in the Queensland election.
A poll published by the Australian earlier this week articulated what many have been thinking: 40% of Queenslanders don’t support coal seam gas (CSG) extraction (while 33% do).
As for the rest… well the jury is still out with the remaining 27%. Should even half of those decide they’re not in favour, then over half of the Queensland population won’t support the extraction of CSG.
These statistics have an important message for Queensland politicians – the election may very well be decided on issues related to this highly controversial industry, worth $60 billion.
So what should the incoming Queensland government, whichever party that might be, do to increase community confidence in this energy source?
The community is up in arms because the Queensland government has granted petroleum leases over land owned by the community, especially farmers. Legally the Queensland government can do that because it owns the petroleum under the ground. But this ownership brings a responsibility to all Queenslanders, not just the business sector.
Here is how the government can take charge and take responsibility if it wants to make CSG more palatable.
Use the resource to benefit the people
CSG is touted as an important energy source and a way of securing our energy future, but the incoming government needs to take stock of the use of this resource.
Is it really for domestic consumption by Australians, or is the vast majority of it going overseas, sold by companies at a profit? And where profit is being made, how much of that money comes back to Queensland for the benefit of Queensland?
The incoming government needs to remind itself that it owns these gas resources on behalf of the Queensland people, and therefore the resource should be used for the benefit of the Queensland people.
Protect water resources
It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that extracting CSG has a huge impact on water resources. An enormous amount of water is required to extract CSG. At present much of this water is coming from the Great Artesian Basin, at a cost to all users of the Basin. The incoming government has to fairly and equitably allocate water use between farmers and gas producers.
Perhaps companies should get water allocations in the same way farmers do. Farmers are asking for fairness in the use of water. This is not an unreasonable request: we need to eat food, but it is difficult to eat gas.
Water use is only half the problem. The community is very concerned about the briny, chemical water that is produced by CSG fracking. The concern is that the water will not be properly disposed of, and will contaminate ground water and surface water.
The government needs to lead the management of water contamination and disposal. Studies by the United States Environmental Protection Authority on ground water contamination should be considered. Certainly, the government should fund independent research so that the community has evidence from independent experts, not just from CSG extractors.
Don’t let wells leak
Wells can’t leak: not now, not ever. This is a tough issue for the government, since well integrity is geared toward ensuring that the wells don’t leak during CSG production (and we have seen how sometimes we can’t even get that right).
But as demonstrated in the United States, abandoned wells are leaking hydrocarbon into groundwater. This issue is not going to go away.
The government needs to ask CSG companies some difficult questions. How long are the wells guaranteed to not leak? If the wells do leak into the ground water, who will fix them, and how?
The government could set up a well liability fund, similar to the Asbestos Fund established by James Hardie. The companies reaping the economic benefits of gas would deposit money into a fund for the future care and repair of the wells and rehabilitation of any lands affected by leaks.
With over 40,000 wells to be drilled in Queensland in the next 10 years, future planning and management of abandoned wells is an important issue for the government to consider. If people know the government has planned how to deal with leaks, they may have more confidence in the industry.
Don’t rely on industry self regulation
If an organisation might harm the community, we don’t usually let it regulate itself. In the United States we allowed bankers to self regulate. We saw the results of that: GFC.
Many in the community, including myself, believe that self-regulation of CSG extraction is ludicrous. I cannot fathom why a government that owns a resource would rely on those extracting that resource for profit to regulate themselves.
There is a legal framework that regulates CSG activities. The company submits a Well Operations Management Plan (WOMP) which is approved by the government, and then implemented by the company at the site. But companies do not always adhere to these plans, and sometimes wells are drilled by inexperienced companies who cannot comprehend the consequences of deviating from the plans.
The last time a company didn’t adhere to their WOMP, we ended up with an oil spill in the Timor Sea, spewing over 25,000 barrels of oil into the sea for over 10 weeks.
Governments need to take the lead. They need on-site inspectors, lots of them, inspecting well activities at critical times such as when a well is being fracked, and when a well is being abandoned.
The incoming government will decry this suggestion with the old call of “how will we pay for it?”. Offshore petroleum safety is regulated on a cost-recovery basis: levies on the companies pay to regulate offshore petroleum safety. A similar levy for onshore well integrity would give the community more confidence in CSG extractors because the government would take a strong oversight role. Governments who undertake such inspections are to be applauded.
We are not desperate for this energy. The incoming Queensland government has the opportunity to take a leading role in regulating CSG activities. It will need to do so if it wants to capture the confidence of the 40% who are opposed to CSG activities, and the 27% who are undecided. Until water management, well safety and landholder use issues are addressed in a fair and sensible manner, the government will face increased opposition. And rightly so.
Join the conversation
Comments (43)
Heidi Ross
Tourism operator (logged in via email @gmail.com)
There are already many examples of leaking wells - see QGC and Chinchilla/Tara area last year and also Metgasco in the northern Rivers Region on NSW. Images clearly show bubbling leaking wells.
The other issue not adequately canvased is impact on communities.
We live in the Scenic Rim, about 100km form Brisbane, tucked in behind the Gold Coast. 80% of our region is covered by coal and coal seam gas exploration permits. Our land is closely settled, but the population is spread out on smaller…
show full comment
Charles Worringham
University academic and health researcher (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Everything about CSG has been done backwards. The major economic, social and environmental questions -
Is it really any cleaner than coal? What are its impacts on landowners/rural communities/aquifers/downstream export safety risks? How big are fugitive emissions? If we need it at all do we need it now? Do we have the knowledge and people to regulate it? What will happen to the salt and contaminated water? How much disruption of agriculture and fragmentation of habitat will follow? How much…
show full comment
Byron Smith
(PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)
"Water use is only half the problem."
Professor Hunter, you imply that there are only two serious environmental problems with CSG - water use and contamination. But the third is the big one. Climate change. Exploiting unconventional fossil fuels greatly expands the potential pool of inactive carbon to burn and put into the active carbon cycle for the next few thousand years or more. For the sake of the stability of all future societies and the possibility of a biosphere capable of productivity on…
show full comment
Peter X
(None) (logged in via email @iname.com)
There's another suspected downstream environmental problem: dredging for the LNG ports.
J N Curtis
(logged in via email @hotmail.com)
In the fast coming QLD election, QLDers need to realise that a vote for either major political party is a vote for CSG.
Garry Claridge
Systems Analyst - Software Developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Re: "We are not desperate for this energy."
However, we are desperate for renewable energy!
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
With so many alternative sustainable energy sources now available we Queenslanders do not want to take the risk of our aquifers becoming contaminated on some of our best farming land. Wind and solar come readily to mind, CSG exploration should be banned at least until we see the result of investigations in the USA. We have some of the best farming land in the world that could potentially be contaminated, its too late then. We don't want this energy, we have seen enough energy related man made catastrophes in recent years, no more, stick to what we know is safe.
paul magnus
(logged in via Twitter)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/new-york-fracking_n_1288696.html
New York Debates How To Handle Contaminated Fracking Wastewater
Tim Roark
Engineer (logged in via email @gmx.com)
Prof. Hunter, I am disappointed to see that your piece contains the same pitfalls as much of the public reaction in Queensland and as a result passes poor judgement on the state of the industry and required government action. Any fair analysis of the industry must acknowledge that complex issues cannot be adequately addressed with superficial commentary. The finer details of geology, production, engineering design, regulatory regime, social costs and benefits really do matter.
With that in mind…
show full comment
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
Please tell me there is more support for the statement "But as demonstrated in the United States, abandoned wells are leaking hydrocarbon into groundwater" than the link given (http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/green-issues/1609-abandoned-leaking-oil-wells-natural-gas-well-leaks-disaster.html), which has a great deal of speculation, but no documentation of abandoned wells leaking hydrocarbons into groundwater. It also contains the passage
""Natural seeps are supposed to be found in very deep water…
show full comment
Tim Roark
Engineer (logged in via email @gmx.com)
Mark - I fully agree. This is part of a broader problem where people pick up examples from an unrelated setting (usually overseas, often shale gas related) and automatically assume that it supports a certain fear of CSG production in Queensland. Unfortunately, most examples quoted are no better than a separate case of activism or at best not representative of the situation here.
Lorna - you imply that drilling within a rainfall catchment area necessarily leads to aquifer contamination. Why that…
show full comment
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Tim: risk = probability x consequences.
The consequences of contamination of the aquifer are catastrophic and irreversible. The probability is unknown. Have a look at the history of the Thirlmere Lakes, not far form Sydney. In retrospect, it appears that assumptions about the impermeability of a rock layer were flawed. Well, maybe we've learned something new about geology but it's TOO DAMN LATE for the lakes.
The asserted contaminants are naturally present in the water removed from the coal seam. The level of hydraulic connectivity is unknown.
As for hypocrisy - there's no gas in my house, and never will be. Most of the gas is for export anyway (something the CSG adverts conveniently avoid when they make platitudes about our energy security) but the day a CSG-fired power station starts to provide electricity in my area is the day I go off-grid. I'm a physicist, I know how to do the calculations and I have the practical skills.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Also Tim - did you miss this?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/csg-mine-leaks-toxic-chemicals-into-water/3819060
Can you explain how we can justify drilling in the catchment that provides drinking water to 1/3 of Australia's population?
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
And now out today in Nature there's this: "There is little or no evidence that fracking — pumping high-pressure fluids into shale to force out natural gas — has contaminated groundwater, according to a university-funded report (see go.nature.com/sopiwm) from researchers assembled by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin."
http://www.nature.com/news/seven-days-17-23-february-2012-1.10079
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Mark - the link you posted says this:
"harm ascribed to the controversial technique could usually be traced to above-ground chemical spills or problems common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures"
Now, let's think clearly here: the report does NOT say "CSG does not cause contamination" the report ADMITS that shale gas production DOES cause contamination - just from a different source. It's still contamination.
It doesn't matter whether fracking is the specific…
show full comment
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
Lorna, you're misrepresenting me. As you know, I prefer energy solutions other than CSG. As such, I'm not advancing evidence 'that everything's ok'; what I'm advocating for is evidence itself. As I indicated in my initial post, that advanced by Dr Hunter in the one instance I followed up was manifestly inadequate. I find this disturbing.
What I cannot abide is people playing fast and loose with hyperbole, even in a cause I might support, especially in an area I work in professionally (earth science). Such as your reference to 'earth tremors', for instance, heavy with association with Christchurch-like impacts. There are earth tremors, and there are earth tremors. I'm reminded again of the quote by our friend Lord Kelvin - a bit of quantification goes a long way.
Sam Barillaro
(logged in via Twitter)
Aren't we missing the point? The burden of proof should be on those supporting CSG, not the other way around.
We shouldn't be looking for proof that CSG is dangerous, we should be looking for proof that it's 100% safe.
By the same token. All the "fast and loose hyperbole" wouldn't matter if there is evidence CSG is 100% safe. The problem is, there isn't.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Thanks Sam! I could not agree more about the burden of proof, given the potential consequences.
In practice we can't ever get to 100% certainty. So - we either decide how many decimal points we need after the 99, before the "risk = probability x consequences" equation is acceptable (and laws are in place to make the mining companies pay if the dice roll the wrong way) - or we say we're not willing to take any degree of risk because the benefits don't actually look all that hot to the 98% of us who're NOT employed in the mining industry, or how work in industries directly harmed by the high dollar.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
The point is, somebody's going to have to do a lot of research. It must be overseen by independent experts, the processes must be transparent and open to scrutiny, and the mining companies must put up all the money required.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Can you clarify Mark - were you offering that Nature article as evidence for or against CSG?
The article is very heavily spun to sound like a good news story but the fact is, the authors admit that all drilling operations result in contamination. That's an allegation I'd never dream of making against them, and they've casually admitted it. I'm seriously amazed.
The implication of the article for drilling in the Sydney water catchment is this: contamination is an inevitable effect of drilling, even in the absence of fracking.
I should thank you for bringing the article to my attention. It will be invaluable in strengthening the case against CSG development in and around Sydney.
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
Lorna, now who's not reading carefully? "...harm ascribed to the controversial technique could usually be traced to above-ground chemical spills or problems common to all oil and gas drilling operations..." does NOT mean "harm is common in all oil and gas drilling operations"! I'm sure the authors would be mortified if you invoked their work to say that 'contamination is an inevitable effect of drilling'. It is absolutely untrue that "all drilling operations result in contamination", except in…
show full comment
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Mark:
"chemical spills or problems such as casing failures common to all oil and gas drilling operations"
Nope - that definitely says that *all* oil and gas drilling cause contamination. Definitely.
The seriousness of the contamination isn't discussed, so can't be inferred - and there's no reason to say that it was trivial.
Fact is, there should be a moratorium on all CSG development until we can be appropriately confident that all the points made by the author and others in comments, have been addressed. Given the magnitude of the possible consequences, that means VERY confident about the geotech issues and potential for contamination.
If we fail to develop CSG because of potential risks, what have we lost? NOTHING! The gas will still be there, possibly to be extracted in the future, using better methods and for more important uses. If we charge ahead and something does wrong what will we have lost? Only our water and food security.
Tim Roark
Engineer (logged in via email @gmx.com)
So many failures in logic, so little time to comment. But that is not unusual where people first decide they are opposed to an idea based on ideology and then later attemp to seek out evidence to support that stance even if it means jumping through some mental hoops.
1) Thirlmere Lakes has nothing to do with CSG. Its about as relevant as the exxon valdez incident or the Fukushima disaster. But its interesting that someone can refuse to use gas on principle but continue to use grid power (ie coal…
show full comment
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
No, Lorna, you're committing a logical fallacy. It's like saying 'preventing crashes is a problem common to all airline operations' means that all flights result in crashes.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Nope, they didn't say "preventing". The quote is pretty clear. You say you work in earth science, I work in deducing meaning from what people say or write.
A generic analogy would be " ... (harm) were found to be due to technical failures common to all .... (industry) operations, such as ...(cause of harm)"
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
'Preventing' was incidental to the analogy I was attempting to draw. The key is the phrase 'common to'. You're reading it as 'common in'. Big difference.
Joseph Bernard
Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)
Mark - Talk is Cheap
How about order a bottle of fresh water that has been collected in or around a csg mine! I am very sure someone will help you out! Try http://lockthegate.org.au/contact/
If you are unwilling to drink from the poisoned chalice? Well, then, what are you doing telling everyone else that there is nothing to fear and especially question the credibility of say Tina Hunt!
Go on order yourself a bottle of fresh CSG poisoned water and drink it.. Then maybe, I will believe you are confident in what you are preaching.
order now from http://lockthegate.org.au/contact/
Joseph Bernard
Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)
Water is not an option it is an essential part of Life. Three days without water and we are dead.
Water security has been heralded as a major world issue and i have seen articles that propose bubble wrapping ice bergs and towing them to a place where the water can be collected..
So just look at how much water CSG will consume and lay to waste! check this report and do the numbers.. CSG should be totally banned.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/coal-seam-gas-by-the-numbers/water…
show full comment
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Couldn't agree more, Joseph. In NSW there are CSG companies drilling inside Sydney's water catchment protection zone. That's right folks - not a typo. You can't go bushwalking or swimming in the catchment because you might contaminate the water - but CSG wells are good to go.
Have we lost our collective mind?
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
I'll see you all the risks of CSG listed above and raise you earth tremors as experienced in England.
So - who ARE these 33% of Queenslanders who're in favour of CSG? They seem awfully quiet.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Prof Hunter, thanks for this commentary on need for adequate governance of CGS.
You write: "An enormous amount of water is required to extract CSG."
It is true that a large amount of water is required during drilling of CSG production wells. Thereafter, the issue is that CSG production wells are also large production wells for coal seam water.
It's not an issue of equitably sharing water between farmers and CSG producers; it's an issue of safely disposing of CSG water.
As it happens…
show full comment
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
It matters little Mr. Duffett, the public has decided that we don't want to take the chance as CSG mining presents an unacceptable risk to the community. We want renewable energy not further mining of fossil fuel.
Shirley Birney
retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Australia already has significant areas of groundwater contamination of coal, gas and oil wastes and petroleum hydrocarbons including benzene. Additionally there remains groundwater plumes of chlorinated organic pesticides and agricultural run-off contaminants of nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilisers and livestock wastes in groundwater, streams, rivers and oceans. Costs for remediation, if any, are met by the taxpayer.
The Queensland Farmers’ Federation is a vociferous opponent of CSG. Should the Qld government disallow exploration of coal seam gas, can we but hope that the QFF will retract its policy statement in opposition to a carbon price and the assertions that "climate is naturally variable" and that “CO2 is not a toxic gas?"
Or shall we just keep up the pretence to appease industries with vested interests while rising water tables bring forth the salinity, the nation keeps on cooking, and potable groundwater becomes more precious than gold?
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Mark,
It is common knowledge that opinions can be bought and sold, this is precisely why a legitimate government study needs to be undertaken by a government organization like C.S.I.R.O to provide independent believable investigation.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Australia of course every day moves a little closer to being just another State of the United States of America where the only thing that matters is the pursuit of the almighty dollar, bugger principles ethics or anything else. Its a disease and Australia, having lost the last traces of a separate Australian identity seems to have an ever increasing contagion of screw anyone and anything so long as a dollar can be made.
Sam Barillaro
(logged in via Twitter)
An elegant look at the dangers of CSG, all of which the current ad campaigns have missed. http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
Steve Gibbons
Business Development Manager (logged in via email @fehlberg.com.au)
Doesn't the article below from New York indicate that we will inevatably follow the same direction? I certainly hope so. People before Profits.
NEW YORK | Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:12pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a blow to the oil and gas industry, a judge has ruled small towns in New York have the authority to ban drilling -- including the controversial method known as fracking -- within their borders.
In a ruling released late Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justice Phillip Rumsey of Tompkins County…
show full comment
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
I agree JN Curtis, a protest vote is something a lot of Queenslanders will be lodging. If you lean to the right its Katter's Australian Party, if you lean to the left then its a vote for The Greens, the 2 major parties have failed us in many ways, this being only one. It seems that Aussies are developing standards set in the USA, a disturbing trend where the almighty dollar rules everything. Australian standards are what I live by.
Martin Bannard
(logged in via Facebook)
Could I ask if the touted $60 Billion figure on this industry is a "life of industry" projection or a figure per annum?
Joseph Bernard
Director (logged in via email @parasoft.com.au)
That sound like the cost of the water that they waste a year.. What sort of business sense do the investor's in this counry have?
1/ America is reportedly going to be a net exporter of Gas.. which means prices will head south.
2/ In the meantime yet another world conference is calling for global reforms and strategies for fresh water.. http://www.ben-global.com/Main/News/9803.aspx ... and what while the world pays $3 a litre for bottled water and is screaming of an impending disaster…
show full comment
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
JN Curtis,
This is precisely why I am lobbying for a protest vote in the form of a vote for either The Greens or for Katter's Australian Party.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Tina - here's how an American, whose land overlies a shale gas field, experiences the industry:
‘They’re here to rape this land, make as much money as they can and get the hell out of here. They could give a crap less what they are doing here. They will come on your property look you straight in the eye and lie to you. And they will leave without a second thought and they don’t care’
JACKI SCHILKE, North Dakota farmer
To be brutally honest this sounds exactly like what's going on here - nevermind the fine points of coal v. shale gas or fracking v. not.
Is the industry ever going to change this fundamental attitude? I think not - I think that we're dependent on the Governments to put in place the rules, limitations and obligations that we need and which the mining companies will never voluntarily deliver.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3438114.htm