I like to think that i'm a rational thinker, highly sceptical, i always question everything. Climate change, religion, government policies no matter what side of the fence is in power, movies and documentaries. I like to make up my own mind after doing my own research. And i gotta say, this issue may actually unite the tree hugging lefties and the normally conservative farmers in a common cause against what might become Australia's worst environmental and community disaster in history. On face value this seems an over exaggeration, but after doing some digging around to about 3am last night, the more i read, the more i've become convinced that there may be some dark clouds on the horizon.

Yesterday i stumbled upon a US doco that highlights the impact of Hydraulic Fracturing drilling (fraccing or fracking) to extract Natural Gas from coal seams / shale. The basic nuts and bolts of it is that a huge amount of water, fine sand and chemicals are pumped down towards the seams under enormous pressure, which fractures the rock beneath to unlock the gas trapped within. I was skeptical about the level of risk that this doco presented, so i decided to look into it myself, in relation to Australia's push to become a gas super power.

The main issues with this process is as follows:
1/ the quantity of water used to pumped down the wells is enormous, and may create a supply issue for farmers who use bores to feed cattle, and go about their daily lives in the home. Australia as a geological landmass contains aquifers that are a finite resource, that could be at the mercy of an unregulated system. We are talking something in the order over a million litres per dig, yikes. Have a few dozen wells pop up in a district and you might have cause for concern.

2/ Contamination of water supplies is a biggy as it has became apparent in the US. The chemicals used to unlocked the gas are just plain scary. Some of the chemicals such as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide, are known to be dangerous to human and animal consumption. Benzene in particular just in small quantities has the potential to contaminate millions of litres of water, esp in artesian aquifers. In Nov last year near a well west of Mackay at the Moranbah gas project, tests detected the dangerous chemicals present in at least 3 wells. The issue is that under current legislation the oil and gas companies are only obligated to give the names of the chemicals, not the breakdown of the ingredients because they are proprietary. So even though the QLD / NSW governments have signed off on new projects all over the place, they actually have no real scientific evidence as the effects and the nature of these chemicals. So i guess it's like someone giving you a recipe to cook a cake, that has no ingredients, yet you're expected to come up with a cake at the end.

3/ Methane gas leakage is a potentially dangerous side affect of when gas is released within the surrounding areas. Farmers who have bores nearby may find that their water might actually be highly flammable. I didn't believe this at first, until i saw it on "Gasland", and then also on Aust 60 minutes from last year. I'll post the link for you to have a look below. So there is a real risk that homes and properties could become extremely dangerous places to even light up a ciggy, or have a bbq. That aside, the digging sites themselves, which become stationary gas wells, may not be checked regularly enough to ensure that methane isn't escaping. With the huge amount of licences that have been granted of late, whole areas may become enveloped in a cloud of methane. I believe that the NSW state government has given the green light to explore for gas in St Peters and my understanding that this is a built up area? Talk about putting people at risk, esp when they weren't consulted.

4/ Government revenue raising via the royalties from this resource makes it hardly conceivable that any government will pull the rug from under a big injection of funds to their coffers. Seems like a conflict of interest on face value. It will be interesting to see if governmental bodies set up to investigate claims of environmental, agricultural and community impacts, will be assessed without biased considering what's at stake. $35 billion is the most recent sign off for gas projects in QLD alone, doesn't take a genius to work out the issue here.

5/ Land access - if you are a farmer, and live above a seam-coal area in QLD, you have no legal right to stop a gas and oil company from walking on your property and setting up a well. You have no say whatsoever. I really feel for farmers who have been producing work class livestock, work class crops, for many generations, only to be told that the piece of paper that they thought represented ownership means nothing. State legislation brought in last year makes it illegal for property owners to stop this from taking place. You'll see a bit of this in the 60mins report below. The potential outcome is that not only may your live stock become contaminated, you may be forced off the land due to the nature of health implications of living there. I'm not a farmer, and even i can see how this would upset me if i was in their shoes. Not to mention food bowl districts for the entire nation being risk.

Okay, so this rant may sound like i've already made up my mind, and you're right. I've only scratched the surface and already i'm mortified. I hope as i read more into the process and the potential impacts i can sharpen my viewpoint. Perhaps you have a different opinion, or you may know somebody that has similar concerns? Do you know someone who lives in these areas? Will the jobs created and revenue raised be enough to put these concerns aside? Are there other safer ways to extract gas?

That's what a public forum is for, so that everyone can have their say. Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Anyway, here's the 60mins report from last year, following the US release of "Gasland".
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1052462

This is the guidelines for accessing farmer's properties...... sounds like political powder puff to me. http://www.dme.qld.gov.au/zone_files/land_tenure_pdf/land_access_code_nov2010.pdf

Screenings of "Gasland" this year if you want to go and see it.
http://www.gasland.com.au/screenings/
and it's preview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYEBwbB6xuA&feature=player_embedded

You should turn this into an article, Greg, and start hawking it to the papers. It's a big issue that is sleeping, because the people affected are not numerous, being rural. But the knock-on effects are, as you've shown, enormous and once the damage is done, there is zilch that can be done to fix it.

The rights that business has to hunt for minerals/substances on others peoples' land are poorly understood. They have total rights to do pretty much as they please. They're re-activating an old gold/copper mine in Majors Creek at the moment. The damage this is going to cause to all people downstream is horrific, and how their rights can over-rule the rights of so many others is scary. This gas business is many times larger in scale.

yer that's what i'm worried about Ant, the sheer size and scale of the new found gold rush mentality. No questions asked yet it will be the farmers, and potentially a greater proportion of the wider community that will have to bear the brunt if the artesian basin becomes contaminated. Could you imagine if major catchment areas for the big cities
become too dangerous for human consumption?

Some papers and media outlets are starting to wake up to it, with some column pieces starting to surface in recent months from what i discovered online. I might trundle down to the showing of Gasland on the 24th of Feb at Canberra's CSIRO just to gauge people's reaction, and perhaps there will people there to answer my questions. I have plenty.

Watch this space regardless if you are a greenie or a conservative.......

Greg, I've been looking into it as well - and it appears that everything you have stated above is pretty much on the mark. This 'technology' should never be allowed to happen...some of those chemicals that are used have the potential (more than potential - they WILL) pollute our precious aquifers for huge lengths of time.

We live in a beautiful country yet seem happy to totally screw it over. We are showing Galslands here in Bellingen - everyone should see this film.

I wonder at times if we need something like an Egyptian revolution to wake up the pollies and stop them putting the $$$ above everything else...There is an expression along the lines that it will only be once we have messed up our earth that we will realise that we cannot eat money.

Lord knows I'm no greenie but even I can see the potential damage that this process will bring to farms, families and our future. I know people who will be directly impacted if this process is allowed to continue and I am not happy with what they are doing. Maybe it's time to start a Stand Up campaign or something.

Could you do us a favour SBT and find out if they have been given clear information outlining how this will affect them? I think from what i'm hearing
is that public consultation is pretty much non-existent, and local authorities such as councillors are just towing the line. Will be good to know on the
front line how people are being treated.

Another factor that i can see is that many of the people employed to drill these wells are flown into these areas, then flown back out again to where ever they
came from. I guess it's a similar story in other mining operations. There would be no empathy for people you don't know.

From what i can tell, as the Gasland movie makes it's journey across the land in the next 2-3 months, the word will start to spread, i hope anyway.
Like i said, i've added a link to screenings that are coming up, so might be well worth people at the very least have a look at a worst case scenerio,
and hope that it doesn't come to that such as seen in the US. I agree, standing up now may save us all from a potential disaster.

Publicity is the key. Local councils are very much fragmented and have limited to no powers when it comes to situations like this. In fact, it's interesting how often local councils have no powers over what happens in their areas. The recently-built Defence HQ JOC between Queanbeyan and Bungendore, for instance. It's as though it wasn't there, as far as Palerang is concerned. They can't require the facility to do anything, they don't pay rates... and from memory, Palerang's powers to control the Major's Creek mine are also miniscule. Yet councils would be the main ones to have the most interest in these matters, being answerable to the residents.

there's already an upswelling of awareness of what's happening with mines in the Hunter. This fracking issue is similar but much bigger and much more serious to many more people.

I think you're right about that ant, and it's probably deliberately so. In the 60 minutes video the residents in the Tara district only have town mayor
to deal with. No company executives, no politicians, no-one at all who might be able to heed the public concerns. I might take a look into the Major's
Creek case for my own interest.

Whilst I completely sympathise with the anti-fracking sentiment, and personally would not like to see it used anywhere near me, the fact remains that it has been used for 60 years in something like one million wells. Whilst there are “some” accidents where pollution spills etc cause contamination, there is no evidence that it is riskier than other forms of mining, and coal / gas / petrochemical extraction.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that multi-walled concreted well shafts will crack. Which then is an inherent danger / potential cost that has to be offset against any benefits. And I suggest that this is the argument that should be made rather than an emotional “ban all fracking” response. [And is one that I will happily use in my NIMBY response if need be]


The Oil Drum is a sensational resource to read on matters related to the petro-chemical industry and a quick look finds that “fracking” has been discussed. A cursory glance through the contents of the two posts below show a good discussion of the pros and cons. There even is a link to the industry PR response to the Gasland movie that I’ve linked to separately, (and a response that I've just found to it - edited).

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6346
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6635
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

Again – I don’t have a horse in this race… but I suggest that as the “fracking” will generally take place well below any aquifers and the process allows a lot of the fluids used to be recovered, the “scare” may be disproportionate to the truth… More research required.

Intresting topic guys . I live here in Roma right on the main hwy and the number of roadtrains that pass and stop outside my house 2 or 3 tanks on them with all the chemicals that Greg was talking about plus explosives is mind blowing ,and a lot of farmers are really worried about these chemicals in bores .I worry about a serious accident involving this stuff. I used to work in the tyre industry and know what toluene used to do to my hands dry and split .I was reading a warning sheet once and it noted that a person was dared to swollow a tea spoon of this stuff in the US and was dead 20 mins later . bad dare . Doug

Jackie French, who does a lot of writing (about chooks and things, does poems) is one of the affected residents and is being quite effective at awareness-raising. Trouble is, with the powers that exist for miners, they can make all the fuss they like and it won't do a thing. We have governments, but for some reason mining is treated as being above that.

Reading through the first oil drum article it seems there are some alarming facts that even the API ( American Petroleum Institute ) allude to. One being that they recover 30-70% of the liquid and the rest either stays down there or seeps to the surface via the drill bore in time, because they say it's the "weakest" point. The issues for the farmers and landowners in the US from what i've read and watched is that pre-existing water bores are getting contaminated with these dangerous chemicals and methane. This contradicts the fact that drinking bore water is a shallow depth comparatively to the fluid injection depth and therefore isn't affected according to the API. Obviously the control mechanism isn't guaranteed. I mean are the API going to say otherwise? It's their business to spin a positive slant on their operations. The notion that 60 years without an incident is clearly out of step with the reality with what people are seeing on their properties.

From what some landowners are already seeing here in Australia, the method of extraction can't be rubber stamped as safe. What worries me is that the Bligh government has signed up to huge projects that when in full operation could see as many as 30,000 wells dotted all over the country side of QLD, maybe even more. How on earth are they meant to quality check every well, and even if a fault is found and the EPA here clamps down with a fine, it isn't going to bring back the land owner's bore water to it's prior state, nor will it hurt the mining company in terms of the bottom dollar. These companies are huge. It will be chump change in the end together with an injunction at every step of the legal process as they try and wear down the poor farmer to a payout and a non-disclosure agreement.

The other issue that i see in the US EPA report relates to the terms of reference of their study. Under the current legislation the process is exempt from just about every law under the sun that protects the environment and water supplies, which includes the drinking water act itself, courtesy non-other than Halliburton ex CEO Dick Cheney. What i mean by that is that because the chemicals are proprietary, they can't be forced to give up their products secrets incase the competition will steel the formulas, therefore they are exempt. A nice little loop hole. The EPA are hog tied and therefore don't have the scientific authority to come to a conclusion that is thorough. The very fact that Cheney made it illegal for anyone to garner information relating to the ingredients to some of these chemicals is scandalous in the first place considering what's at stake. Methane is a naturally occurring gas, no one has an issue with that. But when people have been in a place for years with no issues with drinking water, then a well is built nearby and suddenly their kitchen tap becomes a blow torch - it doesn't take a genius to work out you only have to put 2 and 2 together. The argument that "it's a naturally occurring gas therefore we didn't do it" is such a crock.

The Energy Depth website that has the "Debunking GasLand" write up has all the hallmarks of an industry that is trying to cover it's tracks. The website itself only represents the companies, not the wider community. Even if there are inaccuracies in the film Gasland like any other emotive film, there has to be an element of truth in it, otherwise he (Fox) wouldn't have encountered to so many people willing to show him their issues, with no hope of compensation (which is another law that is fraccing is exempt from). Fox himself threw away $100,000 free buckeroos for something that would have cost him nothing to provide. Just access to the company.

I agree that there all mining has it's implications. You can't avoid that. But it needs to be minimised, and unfortunately, from where i sit, this process has all the hallmarks of operators from taking shortcuts as loopholes are found in regulations and lack of quality control. The unfortunate landowners will be on the front line of a losing battle. If people start to see issues here on a broader scale as operations ramp up, it will be hard for the people affected to not be emotional about it.

This is worth a read........

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

Halliburton bought an oil cleanup company 3 weeks before the gulf disaster. Even though there were 12 tried and tested organic products tested at thousands of spill sites, Halliburton went ahead using a dangerous chemical dispersant which may have more long term complications than the spill itself.
It is really important to realize that the news media and politics is ALL spin. None of it reflects the reality on the ground. And I will continue to press on what I believe is the most important, which is understanding how political spin distorts reality.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy

Oh well. we can simply pass the buck onto How Many Generations? who at least cab be reassured of endless employment cleaning up our mess. Hardly anyone ones heard about the 23 creeks and rivers damaged in NSW alone by long haul coal seam mining, but I suppose that you would get a scratch on the scone if the average Joe Blow was asked what long haul mining is. And I only know how many are damaged in NSW coz I happened to switch on radio national at the right time. I and just about nobody knows how many 'mining time bombs' litter the planet. And do you think that the 3rd world have any environmental protection at all yet. As is our 1st world 'protection' is still scratching the surface, and the protection weighs heavily to business as usual.

Link

Here we go. Four Corners tomorrow (Monday night) should be of GREAT interest.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3141787.htm

About the "Gas Rush". Effects on farmers having their land taken over by these clowns drilling everywhere, lowering water levels in the bores, gas leaks, damage to the water in the wells from the chemicals they use.

Hey Greg,

I've posted the link to this thread on Adelaide Now's Facebook page, as well as my own. I really think that the media needs to make a huge song and dance about this. It's yet another money grab by big companies wanting to rape our land without thought for the environmental consequences.

I'm not a fan of Bob Brown, but if he's not aware of this situation, then he really needs to be, as do the other independents in parliament.

The majority of chemicals listed are a breakdown of diesel as you can see below.
Courtesy: Earthworks - Hydraulic Fracturing 101


I really think some perspective needs to be maintained in all of this. All versions of resource recovery will have some sort of negative impact on the environment and the land. The open cut coal mine that was in place out at Willowbank in SE Qld cut through the water table which saw many bores on properties around the mine run dry. Anyone who has watched operators dropping a bore will see the amount of grease and oil that can find its way down a hole as well, is that not ground water contamination? What about the recent Brisbane floods that saw many, many petroleum/diesel tanks spill their contents into the flood waters?

Look, I can understand that this a very emotional subject for many, and I can say that I would be very non-plussed to see methane gas bubbling from my bore but at the end of the day these kinds of operations are brought on by society's need for energy. I do have reservations about the method and the lack of control they have over cracks permeating into areas that do have significant knock on effects. At the end of the day though, despite the wealth of knowledge we have about the ground, we understand enough about it to definitively make decisions as to how operations can be carried out. I think what it comes back to is actively encouraging, seeking and developing better methods, better technologies to carry out resource recovery work leaving as little damage as possible to the ecosystems that surround it. Now you can't do this by making everyone sit on their hands and wait till someone has a genius moment and you sure as heck can't wait around for the governments of the world to fix it either!

Apparently there are alternative fracturing fluids available that are more environmentally friendly that they use in offshore oil and gas exploration, which brings to mind another question. If fracking on the land is so prohibitively bad, why haven't people come to the same conclusion for fracking operations out at sea? It's probably because these operations are performed out of sight and out of mind that they are more acceptable to the public psyche. Who cares about a bit of methane and oil seeping from the seabed? Actually, BP probably does, but that was only because of a useless US bureaucracy / government / contractors butt covering for their own inadequacies and praying on a public perception of mistrust for big multinationals. Similar thing happened to the north of Australia and we heard sweet bugger all about it, must've been because the $$$ weren't going to BP?



I certainly agree with you on this. Our governments are so compromised it isn't funny, especially the Queensland government and the fact they have so completely mismanaged and botched our state finances to the tune where they are so heavily reliant on resource royalties. The lack of inspection and supervision is hardly surprising, it's easier to watch the satellites for signs of land clearing than what it is to go out and monitor the activities that contribute to your revenue. For what it is worth, it is easier to convince a public that you are doing your job by silencing land clearing dozers than reporting on the reduction of benzene in water on a parts per million basis. We've got to wake up to ourselves, we need to remove the expectation that governments are going to look after us from the cradle to the grave. We feel duped when a newly reelected government announces asset sales that it didn't mention in the campaign, yet we don't vote them out for their history of incompetence, cover ups and bungling...

Aghghhg, we get what we deserve

Some great points and info on this thread. It really helps build a better understanding of the situation. If in the end it means that a better approach to extracting coal-seam gas can be sought, then everyone is a winner imo.

I look forward to watching the four corners episode tonight.

I know that both Tony Windsor and Bob Brown have been pushing for a halt to this type of mining until a thorough examination is carried out to ensure that everything is ship shape- SEE LINK BELOW. Perhaps a modified version of fracking, or other means can mean that a better way can be sought. Bloody stupid of the QLD and NSW governments from signing up on something they don't understand.

LINKY

Thanks for the heads up for four corners tonight ant, This will be intresting .I will be steaming by the end probably . I worry about our aquafiers .Doug

I have been following this thread for a couple of days now, just like I follow the CSG industry in the media... There is a lot of stories getting thown around out there these days, that well... are just so far from the truth... First things first, I work in the CSG industry and in particular I work for Arrow Energy in the Bowen Basin in Queensland, I see the workings inside and out of a major CSG company everyday, so I know what "really happens" and not what people think, assume or compare to the American Natural Gas Industry... I deal with the Landowner's on a day-today basis, so I now how they feel in the Bowen Basin about the industry... I can only speak on my dealing's with Arrow and not other companies, so here goes...

1: Hydro Fracturing "Fraccing": Arrow Energy does not undertake in Fraccing activities in the Surat Basin.. Why cause there is know need for it, the coal permeability (how soft and how easily water in the coal seam disperses) is so good, that it does not require any stimulation of the coal seam what so ever, A single vertical well is drilled down into the coal-seam and away we go... Yes Arrow does undertake Fraccing in the Bowen Basin as the coal geology and structure warrants some type of stimulation...

2: How is Fraccing done??: First of all do not, and I cannot stress enough do not draw any comparisons between the Australian Coal Seam Gas industries fraccing and the American Shale Natural Gas Industries fraccing, they are 2 very different kettle of fish, different types of gas, different methods of extracting the gas, and quite frankly the American Industry is so out of control and so greedy it even scares the hell out of me... Fraccing is done by pumping water and 3 different grades of sand down a well at about 2000-3000psi (which is pre-mixed into a 4mg/l dam beside the well group, usually 4mg/l is sufficent for up to 5 wells), the idea of this is to fracture and open up the cleats of the coal seam to allow the gas to flow much easier and faster rate, the sand moves into the open cleats and holds them open as the water is then steadily pumped away (thus the different grades of sand so they dont clump together and allow the gas to flow through it much easier)... Now i hear people going, what about all the truck loads of chemicals, well the fact is there are very little involved (they make up about 0.5 percent of the fraccing mix), the primary 2 Arrow use currently are "Acetic Acid" (the basis of vinegar) and "gutaraldehyde" (used in hospitals to disinfect equipment), their primary function is to protect to steel well casing and the cement mix from damage and corrosion, and the also assit in intiating the fraccing process... Arrow do not use and have never used "any" products that contain the BTEX group of chemicals and I am not aware of any CSG company in Ausralia that do, people do need to remember that BTEX does occur quite often naturally in the Coal Seam...

3: Postives and Negatives of Fraccing: Believe it or not Arrow have found fraccing over the past few years to be relatively useless, we have trialed it many times and have come to the same conclusion that gas flow is no better when fracced compared to the, single vertical well in the Surat Basin and the vertical well with 2 laterals drilled into the vertical from 1.2km away in the Bowen Basin... Arrow will be more than likely phasing out Hydro Fracturing in the next 12 months with only a handful of them on this years drilling schedule... Yes the are always doubts whether companies can successfully confine the fractures in the coal seam itself, however that said the risk of a fracture bursting into a water aquifer is slim to none, why is this so, cause fraccing is not performed any shallower than 300m and most of the time at depths greater than 450m well, past your standard water bore depth of 150m maximum... If it does occur put it this way, the way in which gas is held in the coal seam is via water pressure, so therefore the idea of a gas well is to to take away the water from only the coal seam in order to reduce the pressure of water in the coal and allow the gas to flow out naturally, the well will not produce gas if there is to much water in the coal, so therefore is you have a burst fracture channeling water back into the coal seam as you take it away the well is useless, as the gas cannot flow cause the water just keeps on flowing in... So the well is un-equiped, cemented from top to bottom, and cut off 1.5m below the ground and abandoned...

Anyway, if you have any questions about the CSG industry at all, please do not hesitate to ask about them in this thread so I can answer them to the best of my knowledge... I hope this helps a bit...

Thankyou for your input AzzaG. Sadly, the 4 Corners story does not do any of the CSG companies any favours. I'm inclined to believe the word of the average everyday bloke, rather than that of corporations trying to cover their backsides.

Just the mere fact that companies can just come onto someones land to put CSG wells in willie-nilly, suggests that this problem is wider spread than even you are lead to believe and much more damaging to the environment (both above and below ground) than you've been made aware.

Well I was not going to say it before but I will say it now after the 4 corners story QGC "Queensland's Greediest Company" they have always been like that... I won't lie, you are right Helen that story does not do any favours for any CSG companies, but I will tell you now I will defend Arrow Energy and Santos until the day I die...

Companies like QGC give the rest of us a bad name, others who are trying to do the right thing and being put in the same basket as the likes of AGL and QGC... Not once have I ever lied to a landholder, and I will never will, if I cannot answer a question, its not because I don't want to tell them, its because I honestly do not know, but I will always find the answer and let them know and I will not leave them in the dark...

I had heard the rumors that QGC were only paying $250 per well per year... And that my friends is a joke, although 4 corners said each well makes the company $1,000,000 a year I would not agree with that, I would suggest probably a little less than half of that figure (which is still a lot of moneny)... I am basing that figure on Arrow Energy gas profit last year of $170,000,000 and Arrow has about 600-650 production wells... I know one landholder up here has roughly 110 production wells (consisting of one vertical and 2 lateral wells) on his 120,000 acre property and his pay packet from us each year is about $1,200,000 per year escalating at CPI...

I would suggest my job is about to get much harder, even though I am working for a company that I believe has its morals in order (believe me I would tell you if I thought otherwise) my job is tough at the best of times... I try to keep and unwanted relationships between Arrow and landholders stable, and thanks to other "cowboys" in the industry, I may as well start looking for a new job... Yes Australia should be worried if QGC keep going the way they are, but hey they are owned by BG "British Gas," guess the poms are stuffing us in more than just the cricket...

Any questions I will be happy to answer...

Thanks to AzzaG for your input as well . And get a view from your side of things . The facts that whatever industry there will be always be accidents or things go wrong ,Helen pretty well covers what i thought too .Doug

cracker of a story (as usual). Seeing whole communities of normal people getting angry and getting mobilised was a big wake-up. This is a big issue right now.

AzzaG has some interesting points and it would be great for all of us if the issue turned out to just be a cowboy company.

Just in regards to Helen's comment again, I will believe whatever I chose to believe... Companies will not sway my thoughts in any way shape or form... But I deal with landholders, drilling rigs, gas wells and compensation agreements on a daily basis, so yes I do know a bit about the industry... I have not met one landowner that I have not liked, they have all been great to me, yes we have our problems and we have dis-agreements every now and then but the fact is we exist together, and we do our best to exist peacefully...

Landowners are smart, they will ask the right questions to get all the facts, so therefore I have to ready for any of them (after all it is my job to know them) and I have always answered them truthfully... I have spent the last 3 years around these drilling rigs on a daily basis and not once have I seen the chemicals around or used on any of our drilling rigs like the ones shown on 4 corners around QGC, our rigs are not even any where near that size, our well set-ups are completely different, and we do not require wells to be any where near that close together...

All I ask is (as hard as it saying it after watching 4 corners) do not tar all companies with the same brush... I am your everyday Australian bloke, I work each day, I go home to my partner each night, I work hard but I play harder... Believe me now, i get just as upset watching these programs as the rest of you do, watching "cowboys" wreck it for everyone else... But again I ask do not put all companies into the one basket...

Thanks Azza for your experiences at Arrow Energy, it certainly needs to be said that there are 2 sides to a story, and you're more than welcome to have your input here. By the crux of what you are saying is that compared to the US we have better practises in place currently, which i certainly hope will remain the case. I've seen Gasland, i assure those who see it, will walk away thinking that it would be better to live here in Australia than there!

So, i guess this comes to my first question as you are better equipped to answer this than most. From what i've read thus far, the Australian standard outlining Hydraulic Fracturing comes with approx 1200 conditions that are enforceable which would include drilling procedures, wells construction, drilling fluids, waste disposal, well maintainability etc etc.
- But what if wells aren't built to the Australian standard? I mean it happens all the time in other industries, people taking short cuts, breakdowns in accountability, and procedures. I work in the building industry myself and i've seen it all, there are some real cowboys out there. Local governments only have limited resources, and largely it comes down to industry quality control. What happens if the casing fails, steel reinforcement rusts and cracks appear in the concrete, even many years after it's long been forgotten about?

What MPa is the concrete and what is it's expected lifespan? 100 years, 200? On 4 corners tonight there was a case in point whereby a problem Well started off with a leak, they came and fixed it. Then the ground around the well started to seep water from below with methane bubbles coming up from the ground. Till this very day it still hasn't been been able to be fixed. Could this be the casing failing?

Is it easy to clean up the ground water if it does become contaminated? What's the policy for say Arrow Energy for argument sake?

What if you have a group of cowboys who do the wrong thing and dump waste water where they shouldn't? What are the penalties and are each employee responsible personally? Or does it fall back on the company? I remember many years ago when i work in a factory when a dimwit poured his bucket of dirty water down a drain which the EPA found in a random check - he personally got the sack and the company got a 20,000 fine. Huge company, so it didn't matter much, more of a bad publicity thing for them.

Another question that i have is associated with water bores within a couple km's of a drill site - on 4 corners tonight and on 60 minutes last year, people have showed where methane gas have found it's way into their bores directly after drilling has taken place nearby. What would be causing this? Is it a malfunction of the casing, or could it be that there was a natural weakness in the geology surround the drill site? How can this be if the water bore is 150m deep, yet the fraccing is well below that?

What happens to all the recovered waste water afterwards, when it's done properly? What does Arrow Energy do - is there a process that cleans the water so it can be recycled? I've seen images of waste water ponds that are lined with membranes to contain it within a pond. How long does the water sit there? What happens to the pond and water membrane when the area is finished? What happens if there is a spill from a leaking pond? Would a pond like that, should it leak, be a problem for the ground water in the area?

Evaporation tanks - in the US it seems they have them everywhere. Do we use them here and can you describe what they are used for?

I have many more questions, and believe me when i say it, that i am in no way suggesting you Azza or anyone in Arrow are involved in any malpractice. I just want some clarification on some specific items at this stage. So i'll only throw a few your way this time round:)

I agree Ant. Greg's opening post would make a great article to send to editors of some of the major Australian newspapers. The only way ppl can be mobilised to enact change, is by presenting loads of factual information to as wider group as possible.

Greg: Great topic, and thanks for bringing this to the forum. I too, watched 4 corners last night in horror, and I also have many questions. There's a very extensive and detailed list of resources on the 4 Corners Website, specifically with regards to this issue. I highly recommend going through it before they take it down or into archives.

In the mean time, I'm going to do some more reading up on it. Thanks again

It was horrible watching those people whose farms were to be wrecked by those gas wells. Imagine the feeling of being unable to prevent these troglodytes trampling all over your place, drilling deep holes and building ugly and potentially harmful well infrastructure over them. Turning your place into an industrial facility. The lady who had worked to bring her farm up to organic standards was particuarly affected.

Yeah, it was disturbing to watch.

While this is set to make a s**** load of money (and therefore a lot harder to resist against) I think about the various ventures that - at the very least - brought upon some change to practices. I think that's about as far as 'people power' will be able to get on this one, but I'd be very happy to do what I can!

You're looking a bit green there Ant. Hope you feel better soon

I think what Azza was trying to say in his post was that there are good and bad companies. It's definitely a company culture that produces sound practices.
The important thing is the regulatory authority and the resources that they have, needs to be in balance with the industry itself. Big money, means that there
should be big consequences. I'm doubtful that this will happen though.

Some very good questions in there Greg, and these are the questions that people should be asking companies like Arrow... I would much rather people ask me these questions than just assume so i thank you for that... The question about the MPa of the concrete I am unsure of, and I will definietly get back to you on...

1: 1200 Conditions and Regulations: At the end of the day it comes down to this, how well are they enforced by the government??? Everyone can have there own opinion and mine is, that there are not policed well enough... Sure you can have these rules but if you dont want to police them, than it leaves the door open for cowboy companies... I should say this, I am not suggesting in anyway that Arrow is perfect, we have had our stuff ups (however nothing like what you sore on 4 corners last night), for example Arrow have outlawed the use of "polymer" in our wells about 6 years ago (polymer makes a well easier to cement for drilling companies and sets it in place faster, however the cement bonds quickly break apart), and about 6 months ago we caught a drilling company using it, at the time we could not afford to tear up there contract (much to my disgust) due to rig shortages in the Bowen Basin associated with last years exceptional rainfall up here... However we did force the company to fix and re-cement the well properly at there own cost, and yes the job was then completed fine, fortunetly we discovered this before they made there way into the coal seam, so all harm was avoided...

2: Casing Fails: Yes if a casing fails it is difficult to fix, but I wouldn't exactly say its hard, given the nature of how the steel casing is cemented into place, using a "U" tube effect it can pose some problems... However stopping the gas from flowing or stopping water from flowing into the well is simple, all that is required is one of 2 things flood the well with water from top to bottom, or cement the well from top to bottom (this is why I cannot understand QGC with the well on 4 corners, it was leaking that bad it should have been cemented and abandoned, why couldn't they do this?? I am not sure, but my guess is that kept patching the casing so it could be left in service and still produce gas, but what it really needed was cementing and abandoning... Arrow have had wells leak, (not to the extent on 4 corners, but none the less we have had leaking wells) but it is as simple as this, if you we cannot fix it permanently we will always "shut it down..."

3: What if Arrow had cowboy contractors? The fact is, we have had them like I explained with the polymer example... Another example is when an absolute idiot from a drilling company discharged drilling lubricant into a landholders dam, I was mortified when I heard this had happened... However the drilling company had there contract torn up pretty much instantly, we made good on the dam and trucked in about 5-6 mg/l of potable water, as for the fine from the government, I am not aware that we were fined at all but we probably should have been... In some ways I think Arrow can be tougher on staff and contractors regarding issues with landholders, if I had my way anyway who deliberatly left a gate open would lose their job, but anyway that is just my opinion... The law says if we bugger it, we must make it good, if we drain and aquifer we will drill and new one, and I dearly hope that we will never have to do this... The fact is here, the law is black and white what we can and cannot do, but the enforcers are no where to be found, and until the government start punishing those who need it, companies like QGC will keep running wild...

4: Water Bores Leaking Gas: I believe there could be 2 possible reason's for this, 1. Coal Seams vary in depth, structure and gradiant, just because a coal seam is 350m deep 5km away, doesn't mean it will be underneath where you are standing... The 60 mintues show last year I can easily explain, those 2 bores where both licenced to drill into the Wallowan Coal Measures down near Dalby, big problem... The way in which gas is held in the coal is via water pressure, therefore if you reduce the water pressure in the coal the gas will flow naturally... Gas would have been coming out those bores for years, but do not get me wrong, if a gas company is extracting gas further away in the same deeper seam it will only make the problem worse... That said there is a simple solution, "steel case waterbores where they intersect coal seams" however another big problems, under laws set by the government it is highly illegal for steel to be in or left in a coal seam, a gas well has no steel in the coal, only perferated tubing to allow water to be sucked in and the gas to flow up the well... 2: No one "usually" extracts gas any shallower than 250m as gas is not held in the coal very well and "oxidises" out of the coal into the overlying structure before it goes into the atmosphere and this all happens naturally, however noticed I used the word usually, maybe some company is telling porkey pies about where they are extracting gas, and if they are extracting it around the 150m mark, then that could mean serious harm to some water acquifers...

5: Water Storage Tanks in the USA: Yes I am aware of companies in Australia using similar tanks, they are simply designed to store coal seam water, coal seam water is quite salty, it has about 1/3 of the salinity count of the ocean usually, in some places around Dalby and other area it is quite clean and can be used straight out of the ground for irrigation and the likes, but not usually, Gas wells filter the left over methane from the water before discharging it into these tanks, however that said, they filter it, there will always be some left in the water, therefore the tanks need to vent the excess methane out, it might look like a lot but it is really not... But you never no, some companies may store more than just "water" in these tanks, but boy I hope not... Arrow Energy do not use these tanks, we use bulk storage evaporation dams, on our production field in the Bowen Basin we have 2, 100mg/l dams and one 200mg/l dam.. And probably up to 10 smaller 5-10 mg/l dams about, around our exploration areas we would probably have another 12-15 5mg/l dams, these dams are all fully lined to prevent water from leaking into the underneath... In Dalby we currently have a Reverse Osmosis plant in full operational use to treat the water for general use... One thing tha annoyed me was when Dalby was very low on water in 2009 I believe Arrow actually offered our water for free to the council, but we could not guarantee it for human consumption straight out of our Reverse Osmosis plant, however we were prepared to run all the pipelines to the water treatment plants so it could be treated for human consumption, however the council did not want a bar of it, and wanted us to guarantee it straight out of the RO plant, which is something we could not risk... In Moranbah we are getting our approvals in place now for an RO plant, and are looking at the possilbilty of installing 2 large centre-pivots, to irrigate crops to do some good with this water... Arrow are also looking at ways of injecting excess "brine" leftover salt and stuff from the RO plant back into the coal seam, but this is proving far to costly for little effect...

I hope this answers your questions Greg, if I see more I will endevour to answer them

(busy reading AzzaG's stuff... I hope Arrow are going to recognise your good efforts on their behalf AzzaG!).

I don't think tough consequences are going to stop bad practice... look at Hardies and the asbestos. Once the damage is done, it's done. I think there needs to be a LOT more up-front regulation and scrutiny. You can't just clean up the Artesian Basin once it's contaminated.

Thanks AzzaG for that insight , Gives us a lesson on how it works and things done .Doug

Thanks Azza for your honesty and a great deal of depth to your info. Really appreciate it. Coming from yourself as well, i totally agree better government monitoring needs to come into play. Seems like it could be a pink batts scenario on a far larger scale all over again;(

Thanks guys, like I said any questions do not be afraid to ask... I just wanted 2 inject some facts into the debate, and give people the information to make up there own minds... I do firmly believe that this industry can be a great industry, but I do not look at it through rose-coloured glasses, I also know that if it is not done the right, the damage can be nothing short of disasterous...

Agree with you Greg about the Pink Bats scheme, unfortunetly I had a great young mate taken from us in November 2009 thanks to this scheme, but thats a whole other agruement...

Interesting story from the New York Times this morning and well worth reading all 5 pages:

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

...and whilst this article pertains to the USA, one has to wonder just what the heads of these companies are not telling us!!!

The pink batts trouble was in part the federal government's failure to predict the level of greed that could be triggered in the building industry when they injected un-regulated cash into it.

Many years have passed since the federal government ran programs direct... since the Howard government, the government has purchased services to be delivered through contracts.

Seems that corporate knowledge had exited PM&C and Environment... when you spend cash direct, you must regulate it or, the pink batts scandal happens. Cowboys pop out of the woodwork and people get hurt (and even die).

Hello Everyone. This is the first time I've posted on Weatherzone forum. I live in the Manning Valley in NSW and we've been identified as having a lot of CSG in this area. For some time now there's been a huge fight against mining in the Gloucester area near to us.

My main question is why would anyone in their right mind want to RISK contaminating our aquifers and streams and creeks? This is Australia and everyone knows that over time we go through periods of major drought. Our Artesian Basin is a finite resource and MUST be protected from contamination. Water is life. Without it there is no life. CSG would be no use then.

CSG extraction involves the use of millions of gallons of water. Where does that water come from? What happens when there's a period of major drought? Is the water for CSG extraction going to continue to be used for that purpose?

I've recently been in touch with someone who would like to see a campaign which involves ensuring that our water in Australia is kept clean and pure. That may be a way of ensuring that the miners don't contaminate the water basin. However, as Greg originally pointed out, these operations have to be monitored and our government doesn't have a good record on that score. They won't even raise the tax which would provide for proper monitoring. The mining companies tell them how much tax they can have.

I've also recently been informed that in July 2010 the Australian Government abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution calling on "States and international organisations to provide financial resources, build capacity and transfer technology, particularly to developing countries, in scaling up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all" The UN sees this as "integral to the realization of all human rights".

Do any of you agree that this means that the Australian Government has, in effect, absolved itself from providing that basic human right to Australians?

People might be interested to know that an organisation called Lock the Gate has formed an alliance with various groups calling for a moratorium on CSG extraction until a Royal Commission has been established to look into the effects of the CSG industry. I can't remember the exact wording but please check the Lock the Gate website.

That's the big thing... once we contaminate that underground water, we can't fix it. No one can. Having tough penalties to punish companies with won't do a darn bit of good in this situation. Fining someone won't fix the ruined water.

It's high time we focussed on the issue of farmland and water, because as the cities spread over scarce farm land, we lose it. If the underground water was to become contaminated and poisoned, that would render farm land that is viable but marginal now into unviable land.

It is, to put it mildly, somewhat surprising that a government which claims to be democratic, can be prepared to put at risk the water supply for millions of its people, if not all of them, in the interests of more money for gas companies. To pretend, as governments of all complexions usually do, that what counts is jobs and the economy is short-sighted, since if there is no drinkable water, there will be no people.

In other correspondence on the topic of water and Coal Seam Gas, I suggested that what the pro-water lobby needs is a Mahatma Ghandi. In reply my correspondent said what we need is a Ghengis Khan. She is unfortunately wrong, because Ghengis Gillard is already leading the pro-gas lobby. Now Miss Gillard is a very clever lady, and one can only think that she has calculated what the consequences of the pro-gas-don’t-worry-about-the-water policy may be.

It was plain from the Four Corners broadcast that many residents, and particularly farmers, were being driven to distraction by the degradation of the land and the systematic destruction of their livelihoods, let alone the terrible effects on the health of the families. It is only a short step from distraction to madness. Miss Gillard will be aware of that. The shooting massacre in Tasmania is not that long ago, and we see events like that in the USA all the time.

Miss Gillard must have taken into account that the chances are that in a little while a distracted, maddened farmer, or his wife, will get out the family gun and go on the rampage. Gas company workers and truck drivers on site are the obvious target, but attacks on company offices or even government offices or politicians cannot be ruled out.

National Security advisers will also be pointing out to the Prime Minister that farmers use fertilisers, which are a basic ingredient of terrorist bombs. What will they recommend? All farms should be raided and all guns and fertilisers removed. That is what would happen to potential terrorist homes if the inhabitants were Moslem.

Many of these farms have been in the same family for generations. Many a son or daughter of the agricultural community may have served or be serving in Iraq, or Afghanistan. Some farmers may have served in Vietnam. So may their friends in town.

Someone has already observed on this web-site that “What we need is an Egyptian style revolt”, or words to that effect. God forbid, but the government is doing all it can to provoke the need for such a response if it thinks siding with the gas companies in order to destroy our water is more important than caring for Australia and its people, which is what they were elected to do.

Apparently there is no law to protect the land - or house owner from gas exploration and drilling. There is no legislation to prevent the destruction of the water supply. Even if there were, government efforts to police it would always be too little, too late.

I am reminded of something Winston Churchill said just before the 1914 War when many politicians were of the opinion that war was now a thing of the past. Paraphrasing him to deal with the situation we have now: “Problems from coal seam gas mining are too foolish, too fantastic, to be thought of in the 21st Century…Civilisation has climbed above such perils….The inter-dependence of nations… the sense of public law….have rendered such nightmares impossible. Are you quite sure? It would be a pity to be wrong.”

No-one can be 100% positive that no harm will come to the water supply from the noxious chemicals and the gas. If the reservoirs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were affected the consequences would be catastrophic and the Government is already at war with the people.

20 years ago a bush worker, a faller for the largest logging contractor in the Eden Forestry Management Area, became the very first whistle blower working within the industry. At a media conference with the EPA, Forestry and local protestors, Shane Mitchell dobbed in the contractors for stealing 1% of bush workers pay over 20 years, and forestry workers for marking perfectly good saw logs for the chipper. Of course it didn't make the news. Sahne got the sack a few months after the event, when everything calmed down.
I surveyed logging coups in a 5000h area of the Coolangubra forest and photographed many obvious violations of the Logging Code of Practice. We (Forest Rescue Group) submitted 26 of the worst violations to the Forestry Commission in Sydney. Their response was to send their own Forestry Investigators, and we walked them ragged coz the amount of violations was so widespread. In one instance we argued over a dry creek that had been trashed and completely covered in debris. And even though this creek fitted the Forestry definition of a creek (generally flat bottom with vertical, or near vertical banks) the investigator simply stuck to his guns and said it was a drainage zone.
The forestry response to the investigators report. Scrap the NSW Erosion Mitigation Conditions, and revert to the weaker Federal conditions. Isn't it so easy to keep the exploitation juggernaut bulldozing it's way mostly uninhibited. This is what happens with centralization of power, and in cahoots with big business. What hope has the small local environment group got. It's David vs. Goliath. This is why inevitably we hit the streets to protest.
An EPA officer said to me "You never win in this game. The only way to survive is to be able to see the political situation 4 years ahead, and prepare to be moved sideways, out of 'harms way" It's like 2 steps forward, one step back, or more likely 10 steps forward 9 and 3/4 steps back.
Shane Mitchell also undertook a survey to guage his fellow workers opinion of the package deal for bush workers in a Hawke/Greiner proposal. 9 out of 10 said they'd prefer to get out of the industry. You won't hear that on the evening news. Now many of them are working in better paid and much easier work with as NP rangers making nice little walking trails and emptying rubbish bins.
In 1992, 7 years before all the disputed SE forest was declared NP, a Forestry worker told me that they'd be outta there in about 5 years. Only 2 years off. What did he know that we greenies didn't. But anyway they got most of the good timber in the 1st round of alternate coups and since 99 they have been logging the [censored] out the forest surrounding the new NPs (what isn't already pine plantations)and over a million tonnes of logs still end up at the chipper. And no doubt good saw logs are going into the mix because nothing ever came of Shanes accusation, and despite documented proof of contractors ripping off their employees for 20 years, nothing came of that either.

Our successive governments have progressively sold our land off to global corporate interest. Free trade agreements, and the ETS will be a part of, is a threat to the soveriegnty of nations and human rights are thrown out the door. It gives power to corporations over citizens.

I used to be totally against nuclear power. But seeing how the mining industry is turning land into a toxic dusty wasteland everywhere I wonder how things would be now, if we had from the beginning kept moat of the uranium for us. Now we wouldn't have a carved up landscape.

Sadly, this situation would cause the eyes of big business to light up with greed. No water? They can make some with de-salination plants, powered by huge amounts of power of course (de-sal requires a crapload of power). They could make water and sell it and make more money!

The people would be living in a wasteland and importing badly-grown food from China, and paying through the nose for it all. This is the vision of business, which is driving government policy.

I think this is more emotive reasoning than one based on sound logic. There have been thousands of free flowing bores that have been gushing artesian water to the surface for quite some time. Granted, they are capping them / putting taps on them now, but I wouldn't mind betting the water losses we've seen from these bores would be massive compared to the water taken from CSG bores. I'm not saying that it is a total green light to drilling for CSG, but reasoning along these lines do not really contribute to the argument in a meaningful way.

Unless conclusive evidence is brought to light that sways the argument one way or the other, I think industries need to learn how to co-exist.

Azza, I was just wondering, when mining/exploration permits/leases are issued to a company, is it exclusive or can other companies march on in? I just feel if the miners were made to compete with each other not on just monetary grounds, but on environmental grounds and land holders developed a good network, it would be easy to boot the cowboy operators and employ the better contractors. That way then, all parties might be able to benefit.

Andy,

When a company is granted an exploration lease it is known as an ATP (Authority to Prospect), and the answer to your question is yes, each of these ATP's are exclusive to that particular company...

However (big however) there are different type's of ATP's... Firstly the CSG industry falls under the Petroleum & Gas Act, and the way it works is no 2 of these leases can overlap each other, however companies can go into agreement's with each other and the government to basically enter into "share farm" agreements (not sure of the exact term of this), in which they can explore together on the one lease exchanging information...

The mining industry falls under the Mining Act, once again as far as I am aware, mining ATP's cannot overlap each other and basically work similar to the P & G act, however, mining and P & G ATP's can overlap each other, so that is why it is so common to have mining and gas companies basically drilling right next to each other...

Also once it comes to production Mining Lease's and Petroleum leases can also overlap each other, but 2 mining leases cannot overlap nor can 2 petroleum leases...

Hope this answers your question...

Apologies, I have just turned to my books and have discovered mining ATP's can overlap eachother... But P & G ATP's cannot...

My apologies...

Guys, why is it only QGC mentioned in the media,what are they doing different to all other energy company's.As far as i was aware they all had a bad rep,but QGC seem to be copping the brunt of it all.I'm interested in QGC,the reason i ask is i may have a job with them in the very near future,and having second thoughts about it.
cheers

Sharky,

I believe the main reason QGC are coping all the flak is, they have the biggest leases in the more sensitive locations, like areas with high grade cropping and intensively farmed lands...

I know I knocked them a bit in a few of my earlier posts (if you read back) but i guess i probably should have elaborated a bit more... QGC used to be a pretty top notch company with the way they went about there business until British Gas brought them out a couple of years back, and ever since then they have basically been on a downward spiral, in particular the way the dealt with landholders... I am aware of a few good men who left after BG came in for the simple reason, they couldn't stand where the company was heading and their practices...

However that said, as much as the 4 corners story dis-agreed, they are slowly but surely getting better (they do have a long way to go though)... They have definitely starting to realise the error of there ways...

Yes no one really likes the gas industry, but the big thing is here "education, education, education" and up until now no companies have been any good at that (including the company i work for, Arrow Energy)... No one knows what is involved with gas extraction, to many people draw there conclusion's to its done exactly the same as the American Industry, its completely different, cheese and chalk...

Mate I would encourage you to take the job with QGC, it will really open your eyes to the real picture, and not all the propaganda people are throwing out, who realistically have no idea...

Thanks Azza

Yes they do seem to have a few sensitive leases,this is what i was thinking.Most of the "noise" i keep hearing is coming from the rural residential type areas.Your average cocky with large property seems to be happy with the energy co's,they maintain the roads,new fencing,new water sources,generate income for him,etc etc.

Education is the key here.They admitted to me the standard is up here somewhere,but we are down here and learning as we go(lol what)

I was talking to a drilling inspector(derm) yesterday,would you believe they only have 4 inspectors in Qld.My opinion is,an inspector should be on site to oversee these operations to make sure it's done safely and to standards,just my 2 cent worth.

Being a relatively new resource in Aust,hopefully in decades to come we can look back on this and be proud that we didn't follow what the Yanks have done.Only time will tell.

Hope the job offer comes soon,already had interviews and medical the suspense is killing me...lol

Coal Seam Gas is the Devil - and noone is going to convince me otherwise.
Subsurface hydrology is generally poorly studied and understood, so how could it even be possible to predict the full range of impacts that CSG operations will have on our most productive agricultural regions (and soils, subsoils, aquifers, hydrology, drainage, connectivity). I am thinking beyond the short term profits and gains. It is not acceptable to risk damage or impact to the integrity of the landscape - specifically impacts to water quality. It is not acceptable to risk valuable ecosystem services - upon which we are dependant. The recent floods hit home to me just how important local and regional food production systems are, how important our farming communities are. We should act now to ensure a sustainable future. The environment is not a laboratory - I know of not one successfully rehabilitated minesite that has resumed its former function and capacity for agricultural land-use. The precautionary principle must be applied especially in the case of CSG - a technology that is as yet unproven and will bear with it unknown impacts!

oh and God help us if we ever do walk down the path of nuclear power generation- we will end up just like USA, shoddy dumpsites scattered all around the landscape, continual ups (contamination scares, spills, gas leaks, you name it - the mining industry is capable of it- lots of risk taking all the time) and to think of where the responsibilities will fall... I mean in my area local gov can't even keep the roads fixed in a serviceable condition, let alone regulate the management of toxic nuclear waste dumps or even ensure a safe transport route, no thanks, rather deal with coal dust and associated contaminants in the water supply. Personally I am hoping the Government will wake up and see the LIGHT - well photovoltaic that is.

Chunky,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and yes you are right about sub-surface hydrology being poorly studied, however you will find most CSG companies employ ground water modelers, in fact Arrow have 5 permanent modelers employed ... I shall remind everyone, coal seam gas is "not" a new industry in Queensland, all the hype has begun since the approvals have started to be handed up by the government for the LNG projects on Curtis Island of Gladstone...

Companies have been producing gas in Queensland for about 20 years and exploring for close to 40 years, these include Origin(the eldest), Queensland Gas Company(Owned by British Gas), Arrow Energy (formerly CH4, now owned in a Joint Venture by Royal Dutch Shell and Petrochina) and Santos (yes there are more exploration companies, and more smaller ones but these at the main LNG players)... Here at Arrow we have had 500 wells producing 45 Tera Joules (45 Million Cubic Feet) of gas per day, for the past 11 years, and we have not seen a drop in the water table at all, even with the 30 odd mines that are in the area (which have massive de-watering bores emptying every water aquifer they come across between the coal seam and the surface, each mine will empty more water from the water table than our 500 wells will per year 10 fold, if not more)...

But oh well, i could talk all day, but at the end of it all, no one will take any notice of me, they will form there apparent more "educated" opinions... Meanwhile the Mining Industry is rubbing there hands together because there competition (CSG) is being smoke-screened by worthless scare-mongering, even though our footprint is 1 tenth of what there's is, talk to any landowner in the Bowen Basin and they will tell you they would take gas companies over mining any day if they had the choice...

People seem to think that the studies haven't been done, they have! Science tells us CSG has minimal to no effect on the water table what so ever, existing Gas Field's show little effect, and science has always been and will always remain just best guess anyway...

quote AzzaG "..and yes you are right about sub-surface hydrology being poorly studied,..."
In your first sentence you negate your argument. And I don't for a minute think that CSG is going away. But the reality is most big companies do whatever the [censored] they need to do to keep expanding and increasing profits. What are future generations going to think about how we collectively raped the planet, which is the most appropriate term for how a couple of generations have gorged on most of it. Oh well,let's just leave it for our childrens childrens children can pay for any serious ramifications that happen to pop up down the track because the studies hadn't been done.
Sorry, but I'm in a cranky mood because I keep getting all these reasons to see what an arrogant 'enlightened' bunch of westerners we are. And I don't excuse myself for my own youthful arrogance fading with age. We have sold out to a political and economic system that defies physics, encourages greed, and destroys communities.

Who are the scientists who say the above about CSG having "minimal to no effect on the water table"? What about the National Water Commission identifying a variety of risks and saying that cumulative impacts were not well understood?

Why would anyone in their right mind want to risk a problem with water by mining in the head waters of rivers or anywhere near river systems including underground aquifers?

Last year, JP Morgan, one of the world's biggest merchant banks produced a report which "raised serious questions about the reliability and safety of the $50 billion coal seam gas industry."

Their report "cited six key water concerns caused by industry, including a reduction in the water supply to towns and landowners, reduced quality" (of water), "gas migration to water bores and migration of salt".

Gas exploration licences are being granted without proper public consultaion. The most recent being in the Shoalhaven area where the local council weren't even consulted.

Australia is supposed to be a democracy. Why is there such an apparent attempt the get the mining done at all costs? Actually, the answer to that is in an earlier part of this post...There are $50 billion reasons not to consult the public. It seems that money talks and means more than ensuring our water is kept safe and pure.

Mining in any form should not be permitted to contaminate our water.

"People seem to think that the studies haven't been done, they have! Science tells us CSG has minimal to no effect on the water table what so ever,.."
and
"..and yes you are right about sub-surface hydrology being poorly studied,..."
Perhaps you should check the script first.

Ok, i see how my words didn't really match up i did sound really stupid... So i will elaborate more for you all

1. I still say that sub surface hydrology has been poorly studied, especially by the government they have hardly studied it and i would support a halt on CSG to undertake a moratorium... However that said CSG companies are constantly undertaking studies, big studies were done by CSG companies and 3rd party companies before there Environmental Approvals were handed down for each LNG project... But the government to my knowledge never undertook there own individual study, which is definitely needed and i agree that they need to do there own... Now I know everyone is going CSG companies will twist everything there own way to get what they want... But i tell you now I worked with a lot of people heavily involved and in charge of these studies and not only are they some of the biggest hippies of have ever met (haha i seriously met one bloke who wouldn't even let me drive my vehicle off the road in case i crushed some special plant) but they are also some of the nicest and most genuine people I know, and for someone to suggest to me that these amazing people lean all that weight towards the CSG companies so that they get what they want, well I would find that offensive... But yes even though we have done these big studies i would still class sub surface hydrology as poorly studied outside of the CSG industry...

2. Ongoing study is needed, and you will find most companies have monitoring bores all over the place, looking for changes and drops in large underground streams and aquifers... Yes Mumso I am constantly hearing all these reports from important people stating the same things over and over again, so my question is what studies have they got to prove these major problems already exist, how many incidents in Australia can they come up with, have they done any ground water modeling before or know anything about it... Yes I saw the 4 corners story and if you read back through this thread I have already provided answers for all that you saw on there and if you have more questions please do not be afraid to ask... But I do support that constant ongoing study should always be undertaken by CSG companies as well as the government in this industry... Ohh i thought i might add that, the same water that CSG companies are bringing up from underground, is the exact same water mining companies have been pumping down river systems for 60 years... Most people don't realise that...

3. You are right the government are desperate for cash and they are handing out exploration license's like no tomorrow, if you knew the amount of exploration permits the QLD government handed out in a rush before they pushed through there own new laws you would be horrified... I for one wish there was no coal underground down in the Surat Basin, that area is such pristine farm land, and yes I wish the government would at least limit the amount of Authorities to Prospect they grant in those intensively farmed areas... I am not going to sit here and tell you that CSG companies and farming can co-exist in areas like around Roma, Cecil Plains and Dalby because the fact is in most cases they won't, but unfortunately we have a government desperate for whatever money they can get there hands on...

I am not going to argue any more points in this thread, people have made up there minds i can see that clearly and i don't hold that against you, this is a free country (well at least it is supposed to be)... But i beg you, if you have any questions please ask, do not just assume...

My main concerns re: CSG is the impact on Ecological integrity & Water quality. My concerns are not limited to CSG but extend to the impacts from all mining industry.
Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion and maybe the truth is somewhere inbetween. The point about a thread like this is that other people provide dialogue and challenge our own understanding - so thats a good thing - I think!
Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with some of the points that Azza has made - especially the point about coal mines dewatering coal seams and discharging into our rivers, yet another thing that I have never agreed with. I graduated back in 2004, suppose it doesn't seem that long ago but one of the key messages I took with me is that Dilution is not the Solution to Pollution. The whole practice surrounding our mining industry at large needs a shake-up because right now its just a free for all - and yes they (the CSG companies or other mining corporations) do invest significantly in environmental studies, management systems to ensure their operations reach compliance. But as you and others have touched upon - the government should be doing more research and studies and in my opinion, a particular focus needs to be on identifying the cumulative and long-term impact of all industry. Broadly speaking - it all needs to be weighed up at the landscape, regional and then local scale with consideration to ecological integrity, carrying capacity, finite resources (namely soil & water) and how this also impacts on food production. We must not forget about future generations and the responsibility that we carry as custodians of the earth.
One day The Government will need to grow some teeth, stand up against the big boys and say NO- it is enough - we won't give approval for land-use that is incompatible with core agricultural or food production areas. The mining industry needs to be constrained - it is not providing for a sustainable Future!

Thanks AzzaG, for saying you'll answer questions. Please can you tell me exactly what chemicals are used in the fraccing process?

Regarding your comment about the type of person who sometimes does a study on behalf of the CSG company; they may well be the nicest person who is environmentally savvy, however, they are EMPLOYED by the CSG company. The old saying is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" and I think that it would apply in this case.

You also said that "the same water that CSG companies are bringing up from underground, is the exact same water mining companies have been pumping down river systems for 60 years..." Where did you get this information from?

Thanks Azzag.

Hi Mumso,
I don't want to cut in but I think what Azzag was referring to was the subterranean water bodies that often co-occur with the ore deposits eg coal seams. In order to mine the ore body and access the mineral deposit they (the Miner) need to pump the water out. This water is often pumped into tailings dams or discharged directly to environment. The quality of this water can also be low for a number of reasons such as its parent geology and impacts from the mine operation. You may be aware in particular how an underground coal mine may continually need to dewater because of high recharge rates in underground aquifer systems, by the way this also constitutes one of the risks for the underground miner - where men have drowned before from heavy rain events that have filled the mining pit or tunnel.

To provide some local context, I live in CQ where the Fitzroy River forms the basis of our water supply. A complexity of river systems drain into the Fitzroy basin namely the Mackenzie, Isaac, Connors, Nogoa, Theresa ck, Dawson...and many other smaller creek systems. Many of these river systems have suffered direct impacts from Mining - for example the Nogoa River has been completely 'undermined' so to speak and natural drainage has been altered. Most of the mines if not all of them in CQ are discharging into our streams - into our water supply. This is and has been standard accepted practice for centuries - because its the easiest shortcut for the miner to take. Instead of working towards zero water balance/discharge to environment and developing on-site mechanisms for dealing with this 'waste water' mines are being handed permits to contaminate the water supply. In times of high flow one will barely notice an impact on water quality as a result of this practice (due to the dilution effect) but come the drought and once the water levels get low - the silt sitting on the bottom of the river could become a bit of a threat to the water quality. But 'derm' has eminent scientists like Dr Barry Hart and a whole swathe of other yes men sitting on its round table to assure us that the water supply is safe. Sorry if i am being cyncial or sarcastic - it just really annoys me that in 60 years we have not progressed any closer to the benchmark for best environmental practice and governments are collectively sacrificing environmental/ecological integrity for a fistful of profits. So apparently our region benefits from profits in the short-term nevermind the problems we can expect in the long-run!

Mumso,

Firstly thanks Chunky for covering the water side, I could not have put it better, the only thing I will add to that is: Mining Companies de-water every aquifer between the surface and the coal seam, they have enormous de-watering pumps, and I am aware of such pumps especially around the Isaac Plains and Old Broadlea mines close to Moranbah that are constantly bringing 120,000+ gallons an hour to the surface, day in, day out (and my friend that is huge amounts of water considering your average property bore is about 2,000 - 15,000 gl/h)... CSG companies however are only removing water from the coal seam itself, and we do not have to move large amounts of water, though it does vary from well to well... Each production well is cemented and steel cased from top to bottom to cut off other aquifers in between, however it is not cased inside the coal itself to allow gas to flow into the well... Gas is held in the coal seam via water pressure, so release the pressure and the gas will naturally find it's way up the well... I have covered more about water in my previous comments Mumso if you would like to read back...

The part about "biting the hand that feeds" is not correct, anything involved with Environmental and Cultural clearances for Mining or CSG companies must come from a 3rd Party company and not direct employee's of the Holder Company... I can assure you we have had many sites moved by these 3rd party companies because they were in sensitive area's and places of significance... They do not care about the CSG or mining company they are actioned by, only the company they are working for... I organise a lot of land access for these companies, and escort many of there employee's around, so I should know how the system works...

Chemicals... I will re-iterate a point I have made in previous comments in this thread, I can only comment on what chemicals Arrow Energy use and not other companies, as I would only be assuming and not stating facts... The chemicals Arrow Energy use are as follows: food grade Acetic Acid (it is the basis of vinegar), Gutaraldehyde (used to dis-infect hospital and dental equipment), Surfactants (found in toothpaste and soap), Cellulose (found in wallpaper/paste), Bacteriacide (used to stop corrosion of the steel casing), Guar Gum (found in ice-cream, also fed to cattle)... I will state Arrow Energy have never used anything containing the BTEX group of chemicals ever, and I am not aware of any company in Australia that has...

Any more questions, let me know... Or read back over some of my old posts as well...

Thank you Chunky (you're definitely not butting in!) and AzzaG for your explanations and also for answering my questions about the chemicals used by your company.

As you are probably aware I'm not an expert. However, I've always been a questioner. I'm extremely unhappy with the way that governments are permitting the CSG exploration. The more I read the worse it gets.

Regarding your point about 3rd party company employees, I may not be making myself clear. Do you remember the Enron scandal, when Arthur Anderson, the biggest independent firm of accountants on the planet, was writing reports assuring shareholders and the US Government that the company was solvent when they knew it wasn't?

If you were accused of a crime would you employ an independent solicitor and barrister to tell the Court you ought to have pleaded guilty? No, you would want them to state your case. People and companies employ independent experts who will say what they want them to say. If you wanted real independence, the mining companies' reports would be written by experts selected by the local community or the local government and paid for by the company.

I expect you think I'm being argumentative but with something as important as CSG mining's effect on our water, I think that all decisions should be made in as transparent a way as possible. Thanks again for your explanations.

Know worries Mumso only to happy to help... I like people who question like yourself (which is a good thing trust me haha), I definitely prefer people to question my knowledge, rather than sit in silence and doubt my knowledge... The biggest problem I am facing at the moment is people not asking questions, and assuming they know exactly what happens by what they see on T.V.. For example, every animation you see on how fracing is done on TV goes as follow: single well drilled into the ground and before intersecting the coal seam the drill rig bends the rods and follows the coal seam laterally along, which then creates vertically running fractures once the well is fraced, this definitely increases the chances on a fracture blowing out of the coal seam... The technique is widely used in the U.S, but not in Australia at all that I am aware of, the only company that may is QGC, but I am only basing that on the types of rigs they use, and not actual fact, the rigs I have seen them use are the only ones I have seen capable of using this technique... In Australia the fracing is done by a single vertical well running into the coal seam, then fracced by using perforated tubing to more directionalize the "horizontal" running fractures, thus extremely lowering the chances of it blowing out...

Mumso I wasn't aware of the Enron scandal but I have read up on it a bit now, and I definitely see your point... I agree with you about the government nominating there independents to undertake these studies, but the way they are strapped for cash at the moment if they did find something wrong, they would probably just sweep it under the carpet anyway to let CSG and Mining companies keep going...

If you have more questions don't be afraid to ask... Cheers

We could go on and on debating how we get the energy for our extravangant lifestyle. But strip mining the planet to feed a few generations, and leave a big mess including unknown yet consequences for many future generations to deal with, don't sound healthy for life generally on planet earth.

AzzaG. After reading through this Topic it is still not clear to me how much Fraccing is done in Australia for coal seam gas extraction.
Is it done as a normal part of developing a well?
How much water is required for the process and where does this come from?
How much water is extracted from a well over its life compared to that injected?
What is the life of a coal seam gas well?

Phil

Phil,

Believe it or not Phil less than a quarter of the gas wells in Australia are actually fracced... I don't know the actual percentage for a fact, but my rough estimate would be 15-20%, but its definitely less than 25%... Put it this way, the company I work for Arrow Energy have roughly 600 production wells combined in the both the Bowen and Surat Basin, and of those 600 odd wells only 10 wells are are actually fracced and all those wells are up here in the Bowen Basin... Having said that we do have another 18 Appraisal Frac wells that are being tested for gas flows but are not in production... Arrow do not undertake any fraccing activities in the Surat Basin, nor do we have plans to...

It is definitely not part of normal well development, there are many factors that need to be taken into account before the well is even drilled... 1. Coal geology, does the coal seam warrant fracturing?? The way they do this is via permeabilty tests on core samples and exploration wells (how fast water moves in the coal seam, if the water is very slow moving, the gas flow will be the same, so some type of stimulation is need to allow water to move faster)... 2. Well design, including larger and thicker casing structure as the well needs to be bigger, and also be able to handle the 2000-3000psi that it will take to fracture the coal seam... 3. Cost, fraccing is expensive, so the company needs to weigh up cost of fraccing against expected gas flow, if you are going to frac it needs to be worth it, so you need to be able to get a better gas flow out of the well if you chose to frac, companies can expect little change out 1 million dollars per well... You can't just drill a well and if the gas flow is crape, come back later and frac it, a completly new hole needs to be drilled if the well was never set-up for fraccing...

The water it takes to frac a well varies significantly, but the best way to look at it is about 1mg/L per well... Intially 50-75% of that water is recovered during the fraccing process it varies a little depending on coal geology, after that the rest of that water will be recovered during the first few days of the well been brought online, as the well will lower the water level in the coal seam to start the gas flow... Companies vary on what water they use, Arrow mostly use raw water off pipelines, or water from landholder dams if they are willing to sell water to us, other times we may use a combination of raw water and produced water from our current dams, the water needs to be fairly clean for the fraccing process so the sand does not clump together badly, thus we do not use 100% produced water (however that will change here in Moranbah once our Reverse Osmosis Plant is installed, it should be up and running by mid year that we can keep recycling the water in which we use)...

The life of a well varies quite a bit, each well is planned for a 15-20year life span... There are wells that are shut down after 5 or 6 years and there will certainly be others that will last over 20 years, you cannot really tell how long a well will last... Good gas is anything over 500,000 cubic feet per day, we have wells that were drilled 11 years ago putting out 1.5million cubic feet of gas per day originally, and now are still putting out 800,000+ cubic feet per day which is great gas... On average a well should produce about 100,000-300,000 cubic feet per day... That said we have had wells putting out in excess of a million cubes a day, and 3 or 4 years later are now only putting out around 100,000 cubic feet, its luck of the draw really...

The water side varies significantly as well... Intially upon being brought online a well will produce about 500,000L per day, after about a month it will slow to about 250,000L per day and after about 3 months a well should slow to about 100,000L or less... From about 6 months onwards a well should slow down to about 10,000-30,000L per day of water give or take, like i said it varies... So if my sums are correct a well will produce about 42mg/L in its first year... after that it should only be about 7mg/L usually less, but sometimes a bit higher...

Hope this helps Phil...

Just in regards to how much water a well produces I am fairly confident those sums are correct, however our wells are measured in water barrel's per day, and as far as I am aware our water barrell calculations are 186 gallons per barrel... So i did the maths to calculate it... Just waiting on confirmation that our water barrel's are still measured at 186 gallons per barrel...

Sorry if I have confused you haha... apologies... but I am confident those are the correct sums...

Toxic Contamination From Natural Gas Wells
The New York Times collected data from more than 200 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania. Many of them are tapping into the Marcellus Shale, a vast underground rock formation. But a method being used to stimulate wells, called hydraulic fracturing, produces wastewater containing corrosive salts and radioactive and carcinogenic materials. In Pennsylvania, this wastewater has been sent through sewage treatment plants that cannot remove some of the contaminants before the water is discharged into rivers and streams that provide drinking water. The Times was able to map 149 of the wells.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html?ref=us

@AzzaG Once the wells are capped, how long do they have to be monitored? And what happens to the well before plugging when the harvest is over?

Very interesting and thanks for the info but you have some very big barrels there AzzaG.

One USA "petroleum" barrel = 42 US gallons = 34.97 Imp Gals = 158.987 ltrs

ROM,

Yes its extremely weird how we measure our barrel's... Not to sure where the method came from (who ever came up with the idea should be shot in my opinion haha, but anyway)... However that is how they are measured by our wellfield tech's and production engineer's I am assured by them...

Loopy,

Some interesting facts you point out about the American industry, most people are not aware that the American industry are not extracting coal seam gas, rather they extracting natural gas from shale at far greater depths than the CSG industry... Yes produced water can be quite salty, its salt content is about 1 third of sea water, and yes salt is corrosive but so is sea water and we are able to treat and drink that (I am by no means suggesting we drink produced CSG water)... Coal itself does not produce radiation, however when burned certain types of coal can emit low levels of ionizing radiation... Yes companies have found small traces of the BTEX group of chemicals, including the company I work for Arrow Energy, the traces we picked up in 3 of our wells were between 2 and 5 parts per billion... Benzene can and does occur naturally in the coal seam and these traces were minute considering the world drinking standard is 10 parts per billion, most countries have a drinking standard of 5-6 parts per billion and Australia is the only country that I am aware of that have a standard of zero, but that only changed that last year after Cougar Energy picked up traces in there Underground Gasification Project (very different from CSG), prior to that it was 2 parts per billion... All the information that we have is pointing to it being naturally in the coal in certain areas up here, we have tested all water bores within a 5km radius of each well and you will be happy to know they are all clear...

What happens when the wells are plugged and abandoned, before plug and abandonment each well is cleaned out, then a 50m long cement plug is put in place on the bottom of the well, then it is pressure tested to 1500psi, if it passes the well is then completely cemented to the surface, following that it is surveyed for exact positioning, then the well is cut off 1.5m below the surface with a cap welded on top of it, and it has to have certain information written on it, including who drilled the well, Total Depth and date of Abandonment... So to answer your question its very hard to monitor a well after it is capped as it is by law to be cut off 1.5m below the surface... Currently many companies are going through a full audit to make sure every well they have ever drilled is completely abandoned, and this information is then going to be submitted to the government...

Hope this helps again...

Australia's rising liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports may make for bluer skies over Chinese power plants, but back home LNG producers will pump out more carbon emissions than the coal sector.

Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels when it is burned, so energy-hungry Asian nations are snapping up stakes in LNG projects as they look to guarantee fuel supplies to meet fast-growing energy needs while weaning economies off coal and cutting emissions.

But pumping, processing and chilling the gas for transport sends more CO2 per tonne into the atmosphere in Australia than the country's coal production.

If LNG project operators are forced to pay for the full cost of those emissions under Australia's proposed carbon pricing scheme, they could face a CO2 bill equivalent to about 3 per cent of LNG sales revenues. That would eat into their profit margins.

"LNG is cleaner but it's not clean," said John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, an independent climate change think tank in Australia.

"It's got a role to play in the transition to cleaner fuels. But the champions of LNG are kidding themselves if they think they can wash their hands of any responsibility for emissions."

For LNG to be chilled and piped onto ships, all but a fraction of the CO2 must be stripped out and is usually vented into the atmosphere.

Australia is the world's fastest-growing LNG producer and has nearly A$200 billion ($216 billion) of projects under construction or in the pipeline, with global energy giants Chevron, Shell, Inpex and Woodside Petroleum keen to cash in on the growing appetite for energy in Asia, led by China. Australia is already China's biggest LNG supplier.

Just nine of those projects would add around 50 million tonnes per year (tpy) of emissions to the 8.4 million tpy the sector already produces, according to Reuters calculations based on data in the reports of operating companies and stakeholders.

The total is equivalent to more than ten percent of Australia's estimated total 2010 greenhouse emissions of 543 million tonnes. Total LNG emissions would be twice the 27 million tpy produced by the coal sector – and Australia is the world's largest coal exporter. The jump in emissions could undermine government efforts to cut the nation's carbon pollution by 2020.

The latest government projections show that Australia's booming economy is on track to pump 24 per cent more emissions in 2020 than it did in 2000, well above the target 5 per cent cut.

For policy makers in Canberra, LNG emissions pose an additional headache as the government tries to introduce a controversial carbon pricing scheme.

Australia's projects are already among the world's most expensive per tonne of LNG produced and costs are soaring as more projects go ahead.

Developers fear a carbon cost would make their LNG exports less competitive than gas from producers paying no carbon cost.

Canberra is expected to unveil an interim carbon price of between $15 and $30 per tonne of emissions in the next few months for a scheme that would start in July next year.

If producers have to pay the full carbon price per tonne of LNG, the two projects already in production emitting 8.4 million tpy of CO2 per year could face an additional cost of about $125 million to $250 million.

Deutsche Bank estimates that Australia's annual LNG exports are currently worth around $8.5 billion, so the $250 million cost would be 2.9 per cent of LNG sales revenue.

But Australia's boom in LNG projects is helping fire economic growth, so Canberra is unlikely to risk that through imposing the full carbon cost.

Under the planned scheme, some polluting firms that export their products would likely be compensated for any loss of competitiveness by receiving free permits, cutting CO2 costs.

A previous scheme which the government failed to pass envisaged LNG paying only 50 per cent of CO2 costs, and gave the industry other sweeteners.

Even a carbon price of $35 a tonne would have only a marginal impact on the sector's profitability if firms were given 60 percent of pollution permits for free, Macquarie Research said in a note written in March.

EXEMPTION?

The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) says LNG projects should be exempt from any carbon price because it would penalize production of a fuel cleaner than coal.

The association, the industry's main body, says it is an irony that LNG's emission-intensive production in Australia should be taxed, when the wider global benefits of displacing dirtier coal in Chinese or Indian power plants should be lauded.

LNG is cleaner than coal over its full life cycle – counting emissions from producing, processing, transporting and burning.

Studies by Carnegie Mellon University, Australia's state-backed research body the CSIRO, consultancy WorleyParsons and others, show that LNG releases about 40 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than black coal.

Under a global carbon pricing scheme, its lower lifecycle emissions would give LNG a competitive edge over coal.

"Aggressive global action on climate change will clearly be good for LNG," said Tim Jordan, a carbon analyst for Deutsche Bank in Sydney. "If it's a cleaner fuel than coal over its life cycle, then a carbon price applied globally, whether direct or implicit, will be a positive for it."

But Australia's quandary in how to price carbon emissions under a domestic rather than global scheme is illustrative of how difficult it is for governments to exact a fair cost on national soil for cross-border energy flows.

"The global climate policy framework makes countries responsible for emissions within their borders," said Jordan. "If an LNG project emits carbon in Australia, then Australia is responsible for that carbon – end of story."

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australias-lng-carbon-conundrum

A powerful response about energy

12th May 2011

*
*
*

Let's temporarily suspend disbelief and take Metgasco's Peter Henderson at his word...

Let’s temporarily suspend disbelief and take Metgasco’s Peter Henderson at his word when he says the coal seam gas footprint is a 110m square well pad for every 1km square collecting area (Echo, May 5). Correcting his arithmetic, this is 1.21% of the total area for the well pads.

Now back to reality and compare this with the collecting area for a solar thermal system operating in our Northern Rivers area that provides the total energy used by an Australian each year – that is electricity (whenever you want it via thermal storage), transport (via solar hydrogen), manufactures, food etc. It turns out to be a solar collecting area of 49m2 (a 7m x 7m square) per person for the solar direct insolation in our area. At the average population density of 23.5 people per km2 in the Richmond-Tweed, the solar thermal collecting area takes up only 0.115% of our area. Or conversely, were the gas well pads to be installed they would take up more than 10 times the area needed to supply all our energy requirements via solar thermal. That solar collecting area can be on your roof so that it takes up no extra land area but you can’t live on a gas well – even nearby houses have blown up from the ubiquitous methane leaks in gas fields.

This illustration shows the scale of the nonsense that the fossil industry continually peddles, and Peter Henderson repeats in The Echo article, about the solar potential. The solar potential is about 10,000 times more than the current profligate human requirement for energy and it lasts for another five billion years, not the three weeks of gas supply for Australia in the Clarence-Moreton. As a physicist, I’ve worked on solar parabolic dish systems and I can back up, provide data and demonstrate all of my claims about solar thermal systems.

Now to the actual area taken by gas wells above ground. I’ve been to the Tara gas fields twice and the area taken up by the gas wells and their gathering lines is astounding. For starters take the five wells being connected after the Terror Squad busted our blockade on Bryce Keating’s property. There’s 16.5km of 40m wide pipe way from the well heads back to the evaporation ponds and processing plant. That is dozed bare of the now scarce Brigalow, stick raked, rolled to compact the mineral earth and four pipes laid. Including the well pad area, that’s 14.2ha per well. For seconds take British Gas’s own Tara EIS that documents the clearing of 17000 acres (must be Americans) for 200 wells – that is 34.4ha per well. So don’t be fooled by the 1.21ha per well pad nonsense.

Metgasco’s Mick O’Brien still hasn’t come to terms with the life cycle analysis of global heating emissions from coal seam gas. Including the methane leaks, burning coal seam gas contributes between 70% and up to double the emissions from coal – that’s only close to Mick’s claim if you take the absolute lowest leak rate and lowest global warming potential for methane – and there are good arguments for not taking the lowest estimates. The Queensland Government Department of Industry inspected the Tara gas wells after locals measured leaks and a detailed report is available, documenting 45% of the well heads leaking, some at an explosive level. Mick may technically claim an advantage in lower CO² emissions but not lower global warming emissions due to the considerable methane leaks.

Next I’ll go to Mick’s furphy about if you’re not producing wind power, you’re burning coal. Coal is very poor at balancing out grid variations – it takes 24 to 48 hours to bring a coal power station on line from cold, less so when the power station is just sitting spinning the steam turbine with no load – not ideal. Across a large grid, wind can be averaged out as it blows over a wide area. Anywhere suitable on that grid excess wind energy can be converted to pumped hydro, which can then come back on line in about two minutes. Also solar thermal with thermal storage can come on line quickly.

The last estimate I saw for the price of wind power was seven cents/kWh – is Metgasco only charging 1/3 of that for gas-fired electricity?

We can have sustainable solar thermal and wind turbines with heaps of fulfilling jobs for our friends, or we can have temporary fossil coal seam gas mining in some of the best agricultural land in Australia, which will almost certainly: inject toxins into our water supplies; produce global heating up to double that of coal (or if it’s LNG up to four times the coal emissions); disrupt our peace by importing foreign Gestapo-like security personnel to trash people’s common law rights (British Gas security weren’t shy about mentioning their Iraq war experience on their way here); and Metgasco has already engaged Halliburton – a corporation I rate as the most evil in the world, without asking us. Two starkly different futures – the first benefits people and planet, the second makes a select few temporarily financially rich but leaves a poor wrecked planet for everyone’s future.

Let’s leave fossil gas in the ground.

Alan Roberts

Secretary

Nimbin Environment Centre
http://www.echonews.com.au/story/2011/05/12/a-powerful-response-about-energy/

Nobody will convince me that doing this to the landscape over vast areas of agriculture is ok. This issue is set to become the biggest environmental protest in Australias history

I forgot to add the link. This desecration of the landscape is from just 400 wells. What will it look like with 40000?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4gGERobicw&feature=related

Truth Comes out on 'Fracking' Toxins

Who finally tells us the nasty chemicals used for shale gas drilling in Western Canada? The US Congress.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, 20 Apr 2011, TheTyee.ca

In one blunt 30-page report the U.S. Congress has now spilled the beans on an extreme Canadian energy sport.

Believe it or not, the U.S. Committee On Energy and Commerce disclosed what our very own energy regulators won't: it listed the contents of hydraulic fracking fluids for shale gas and oil production.

Judging by the lengthy toxic menu, it's easy to see why Canadian regulators have left poor water drinkers in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan in the dark.

According to the U.S. Congress, the majority of 750 fracking chemicals, which include a bunch of kitchen sink stuff too, are hazardous if not tumor-guaranteed cancer makers.

The amazing list includes coffee grinds, salt, ceramic balls, walnut hulls, lead, petroleum distillates, methanol, (a dirty air pollutant) benzene, toluene, xylene and millions of gallons of diesel. Benzene will curdle the brain and the liver, while just a cup of diesel can make an Olympic-sized pool of water undrinkable.

And here's the problem: in the absence of a minimum U.S. national baseline for disclosure of fracking fluids combined with a special industry exemption from U.S. water safety standards, it's nearly impossible to "assess any impact the use of these fluids may have on the environment or public health." In Canada it's frackin' impossible.

Hunger for energy, thirst for water

To no one's surprise, the technology has produced a public uproar in New Brunswick, flammable tap water in rural Alberta, a moratorium in Quebec and rural outrage throughout the North American mountain west.

At the end of the petroleum age, extreme forms of energy like shale gas and bitumen inexorably generate extreme debates especially when oil patch regulators drink Prozac instead of water.

Yet shale gas is a true sensation. After running out of conventional gas reserves, energy firms targeted deep shale deposits with industrial force about a decade ago. They discovered that that they could release small pockets of methane or oil trapped in concrete-tight rock (and radioactive stuff too) by fracturing the formation with millions of gallons of high-pressured water, tonnes of sand and gallons of undisclosed chemicals.

The technique (or what critics call "Earth [censored]") not only increased natural gas reserves on the continent but also launched "a shale gale" that has changed energy equations around the world. B.C.'s heavily subsidized shale boom both industrialized Peace River country and turned the province into a careless petro state.

But the fracking process is a shameless water and energy hog. It requires hundreds of trucks to transport all the H2O and scores of vehicles to generate enormous amounts of horsepower to inject the sand and fluids.

(The industry's demand for energy has grown from 2-million horsepower to 10-million since 2002: that's 10 Daiichi nuclear reactors at 746 MW a unit.)

A polluting 'shale gale'

Not surprisingly, rural communities have complained loudly about the noise, traffic, air pollution and fracked water supplies.

Fracking remains a chaotic activity and a wild science experiment. Even B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission recently sent out an alert that says that frackers can accidentally fracture other frackers' drilling operations with, as the saying goes, bad frickin' results.

"Fracture propagation via large scale hydraulic fracturing operations has proven difficult to predict. Existing planes of weakness in target formations may result in fracture lengths that exceed initial design expectations."

Fracking fluids, too, can foul groundwater. Pro Publica, an investigative journalism outfit, has documented 1,000 cases of water contamination in the U.S. alone as a result of the shale gale.

Given that 100 million Americans depend on groundwater, citizens are now asking companies to disclose what they are pumping under their watersheds or near their aquifers. (Frackers leave behind anywhere between 20 to 80 per cent of the chemicals they inject underground.)

more...
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/04/20/FrackingToxins/

Seems there was a bit of a Blow-out out at Arrow Energy wells at a property in Dalby more recently!

Yes Chunky we did have a blow-out beginning yesterday afternoon at our field down in Dalby... The details I have a pretty sketchy at the moment as I was out and about here in Moranbah all day today...

From what I can gather it begun as the guys were installing a down-hole submersible stator pump into a new well that was to be brought into production, from what I have heard (don't hold me to this, I will update if I hear differently) the pump became stuck on the bottom of the well in drilling muds as it was lowered to far, they decided to give the mud a blast of compressed air to release the pump and as the air bubbled back to above the water level it was able to release enough pressure on the coal to start a syphone effect gas flow... Which in turn gives you the water spout you see on the news, not a very good looking incident at this point in time... It has now been brought under control as off lunch time...

By the way this was not a frac well, and it happened at the well head, not a pipeline blow-out like most nightly news shows are reporting...

Any questions let me know...

Alan Jones gets fired up over both coal and CSG. "It is unbelievable" in his own words. Definitely worth a listen!
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8995

Gday Azza,
I do have a few questions, therefore please feel free to answer at your own conveniance...
I assume the placement of a well is based on criteria of underground geology / deposits, but how exactly is the siting of a well determined? Also how deep can/do the wells go? I guess every situation will be very different because of the natural variation of factors associated with each site... How is a well brought into production? Also by well head do you mean that the blow-out was at the surface (at the head of the pressure) rather than below ground somewhere?
I remember seeing reports of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidoarjo_mud_flow a few years back and was extremely concerned by this incident at the time... In your personal opinion, what risk management systems are in place here in Australia to prevent the occurrence of such unprecedented incidents and furthermore, in the event of something unprecedented - what is the worst case scenario?

Nevermind my questions on how a well is brought into production. As I read back over older posts I see that there is information covering off on aspects of well production already...

Future generations will 'marvel' out our ability to strip mine the planet to feed a couple of generations. A landscape littered with plugged wells, compacted soils, abandoned rusty infrastructure, toxic ponds, and possibly no clean water to drink. It's completely insane to do so much damage to the environment when we already have sustainable alternatives.

These are complex issues - Lets take a step back and also consider more broadly the process of denial and moral exclusion in arguments re: Environmental Conflict

See how one small mistake can trigger a big unforeseen disaster!
Lake Peigneur sinkhole disaster
Sinkhole drains entire lake and surrounding buildings into a salt mine shaft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddlrGkeOzsI&NR=1

Gday Chunky, thanks for your questions, sorry my response is on the delayed side...

1. Placement: To start off with, everything is based of your exploration results... I will start in order:

Seismic (usually only done in area's of limited previous exploration, unlike around Moranbah where the area is heavily explored and companies are always sharing results), this gives you a pretty good picture of where the coal seam is, what depth, where it runs and which way the seam leans or dips (you will hear the phrase up or down dip used a lot, this is what there are referring to)... Usually done by clearing or slashing relatively straight lines that are 10-20km long, lines are generally 5-20km apart from on another, sometimes lines also intersect others at 90 degree angles before continuing on, it all depends on the geologist's really... Then seismic vibration buggies will move along the line and give the ground a good shake at 10-20m intervals, while geophones that are pushed into the ground 100m behind and 100m in front of the buggy, pick up the sound waves and vibrations as they bounce off the underlying strata, this information is then fed into a support truck in real time, which deciphers the information and thus gives you your picture of what lie's underneath you...

Exploration Wells: These are drilled sporadically along coal seams, often they intersect multiple coal seams on the way down bringing core and chip samples of each coal seam back to the surface... From there the geologists will do there tests on the core samples to test gas density and coal permeability... If results are good, the next step is to be decided

Appraisal Wells: Just because the results are good in an exploration well, doesn't mean the gas will flow... Thats where these come in, they are essentially production wells, without the pipeline, instead the wells are just flaring the gas off, you need to test the god factor of whether the gas is going to flow and what those flow rates are like... These are usually done, with wells in a close cluster generally 2 to 6 wells, they can be Surface to In Seam Wells, Frac wells or Just single vertical wells into the coal seam... They are pumped for 6-12 months generally before they are shut down and results are assessed...

Production Wells: Generally they keep to a grid pattern of usually 750m to 1000m apart, but they are not super strict on the pattern... They can move them about reasonably... As long as the vertical well remains on the down dipped section of the gas bearing seam, and in the case of lateral's they have to be coming from directly up-dip, you can't go wrong... Obviously the wells cannot go into faulted sections of coal either, as it is pointless

Yes by blow-out Chunky i mean gas coming up from underground to the surface, its not an underground blow-out... Blow-outs to the extent you saw down in Dalby are not common, however small well kicks during drilling are, I wouldn't use the word common, but they happen, gas rushes up the well if you hit a gas pocket, sometimes with water behind it, but generally they are brought under control within a few seconds to a minute...

Coal Seam Gas Wells generally do not go past 650 to 700m at the deepest, however that said if it is viable we can extract gas at depths greater than 1000m, if the gas is worth it... Exploration wells are generally 400m to 750m deep, but we have drilled exploration wells to 1100m before...

Let me say this Chunky, you can have all the risk management systems in place in the world, but when you have human interaction in a human process, they is always the element of "human error..." The Sidojaro Mud Flow (Thanks by the way very interesting read) is about as extreme as you can get, there is not doubt the well had something to do with it, but to me it was like the perfect storm, with all the events combined nothing is going to stop something like that... The biggest difference I will point out is depth, they are over 2,220m down if I read correct, pressure's at that depth are far greater than anything we will ever deal with here in Australia... But is something like that possible here at home, I do not know... I would hope not...

I firmly believe however here in Australia, we are well and truly a cut above the rest of the world... And I really do believe that... Can this industry work, I believe it can... But it needs to work from all parties, from the Landowner all the way up to the Prime Minister of Australia...

Azza, even with some environmental protections, this doesn't justify strip mining the planet for short term gain. And I don't care how slick the spin is, communities everywhere will not be able to sustain itself on a fractured landscape. With every well that goes down, so will the value of the land. What about the impact of all the roads and infrastructure. And the toxic ponds?
We really have to get serious about our impact on the planet. There are battles being fought by local groups all over the planet due to our insatiable appetite for cheap energy. We have to get real about understanding the impact from the beginning to the end of a products life. We have to get real about local independent energy generation, unless somebody comes up with a Tesla 'free energy' bonanza that can be fed to the grid.
Sure I understand that you have to make a buck. I just ask that you spend some time researching the bigger picture. Coz it ain't pretty!

Hi all. I'm new here to the Weatherzone forums but I have been browsing posts while I was waiting for Admin. to let me in .
the one about fracking caught my eye and I settled down to some serious reading . Why ?
Because I had never heard of fracking until earlier this year when this report was published on the Perth Now news site.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-...l-1226010221897
And that certainly grabbed my attention I can tell you.
The Wellington Dam sites that are mentioned in the article are only a couple of kms away through the bush across the road from our place.

We knew they were drilling last year because we could hear it ; started around late August from memory and it nearly drove us mad , went on for months and it seemed like 24 hours a day because you could hear it during the night too.
Thing is , we never knew who **they** were or what they were drilling for , in fact nobody living around here seemed to know and we weren't told anything.
After reading the news report though , I can understand why none of the locals were informed of what was going on. No way do I want anything like that here , so close to home not to mention the fact of so close a proximity to Wellie Dam.
De-watering out the other side of Collie for the mines has caused major problems for landholders and upset the flow of the south branch of the Collie River.
I shudder at the thought of contamination of the Collie River and the Wellington Dam and the fact that it is the major tributory flowing into the Leshinault Inlet down on the coast.

Anyways thanks for the patience to answer everyone's questions Azza , I'm sure I'll have a couple as I mull over all of this.

Thanks for the insight Azza,

So I am curious about the Appraisal Wells
flared to the environment? If so, is there any way this gas can be captured?
so what is being assessed here is it the gas flow rate?
Honestly never gave much thought to the depths involved, so some of the gas is actually being extracted from great depth ~1km or deeper into earth. Does this gas need to be pumped up or does it come up under its own pressure? I am also curious about the types of protocols in place that would cause a Stop Work/Drilling situation... while drilling 'what' (i.e. pressure? seismic activity? temperature? anything) is being monitored to ensure that work can be stopped before um, a blow-out? Can this in fact be predicted at all?

Hi OzRose, welcome to the discussion!
It was only about 4 years ago that I started to hear about LNG port proposals for Curtis Island of Gladstone. At the time I just thought that LNG was all about capturing gas from the existing coal mines and didn't quite understand the implications of the proposals. While I had some concerns it wasn't until I was in Darwin 2009 that I started to hear of all the LNG proposals happening up there and in turn those happening in neighbouring WA. Since my return to QLD and now having learnt a lot more about what is happening 'big picture' I realised how 'big' this industry is and how long they have been gearing up (last 10-20 years). While it seems like CSG industry has appeared overnight - there have been some very carefully laid plans by vested interests - so in a way I think most communities have been caught by surprise as they really had no idea what was happening (and possibly many communities and members of general public still don't). Interestingly Anna Bligh (QLD premier) has been spruiking about Policy that will protect Agricultural lands from mining... though I believe it will not affect CSG?! another piece of legislation that has no teeth...

The Big Energy PR machine has been working overtime brainwashing us into accepting that gas is natural and clean. Yeah sure the former may be true, but does the slick propaganda campaign on the tv the past 20 years show the dirty side. No toxic ponds. No showing the landscape carved up with roads. No ugly prcessing plants. No warning of the noise,the dust, and the wear and tear of trucks on the roads. No warning of 'intruders' on your land. No right to stop them. And no warning of the new 'settlements' popping up all over the place, and the mercenary style security guards fresh from war zones moving into your community.
We are dealing with an industry that has been actively suppressing sustainable technologies for decades, and they have used every dirty trick in the book. Do yourself a favour and look into halliburton, the criminal enterprise it truly is. And the evil scum like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. Bin Laden was a picnic compared to the disgrace to the human race these people are. I dare you to seek the bigger picture. Believe me, it's far worse than you think. Look into the shale mining in canada. Look at the mess they've made, and they've only just started. Add up the many pieces of the puzzle which is pure corporate insanity. These people will risk anything for power and wealth!

Check out what 400 'exploratory' wells has done to the Tara landscape. Now imagine that multiplied by 400. 40000 wells are planned. How on earth can anybody with any brains justify such large scale blight on the landscape, not to mention the other problems, known, and yet to be known. All for 20 years of energy. Completely insane. Time to wake up from our middle class trance!
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150198420309812.334307.651364811#!/photo.php?fbid=10150198422574812&set=a.10150198420309812.334307.651364811&type=1&theater

Definately not going out of my way to read anything about those horrible people, it can't help anything to learn about their evils or the fact that they get away with whatever they want! I would much rather focus on information that is constructive and helps me feel empowered, as well as motivates me to take action.

I couldn't agree more... so what can we do about it?
Can we stop demand for the product? No. Consumption Growth.
Can we change legislation? Yes um No. Ok Yes, No, I don't know, I think so?
Can we regulate the industry? Yes.
and there are a whole swathe of other options about what can be done. The Lock the Gate action is an example of what people are doing -They are doing whatever is in their power!!! I feel a lot of empathy for what they are going through & fully support their action, though I cannot get involved. For a number of reasons, the big picture sometimes overwhelms me.... We cannot change demand. We cannot easily change the legislation....the government is tied up in this financially so unlikely that they will just pull back unless they have a good reason.
That reason would be evidence of demonstrable harm to the environment which would trigger investigations & court proceedings and the resulting backlash from the voting public would also cause swift policy redirection? maybe...well to my mind thats where it's really at... If CSG operations prove to be harmful under current and existing statutes and regulations - the industry will need to be shut down!

Chunky,

Yes the gas is burnt off to the atmosphere using flare stacks, that are postioned away from the well head and are connected via a 6 inch polyline... Most modern flare stacks have auto-ignition systems in them, as soon as they sense a gas flow from the well they will spark to ignite the gas flow...

To answer your question Chunky the gas is burnt off, therefore there is nothing to capture... We have means yes of capturing the gas flow rather than burning it off, however under the Petroleum and Gas Act's Authority to Prospect we have no legal right to capture the gas, only to test it and appraise it...

Appraisal wells are pumped for 6-12 months for multiple reason's... Yes one is the flow rate... The biggest reason is it takes 6-12 months for a well to settle into its rhythm... When a well is first brought online it takes about 2 months to reach a flow peak (eg. 700,000 cubic feet per day) after that the well will steadily decline in flow and eventually reach a plateau (eg. 450,000 cubic feet per day)... Once the well plateau's, usually takes 10-12 months but it can be as little as 6, it gives us a rough idea how much gas is down there in that general area and we add that amount to our proven reserve's over the wider area...

To apply for a Petroleum Lease you must be able to prove that you have enough gas to service one, if the government believe you don't they will tell you to do more exploration boost your reserve's and then come back... Now I know there is people sitting there saying like the government are going to knock you back, well we have just had a number knocked back by the Queensland Government as they believe we do not have enough data to prove those reserve's and told us to do more exploration...

No Chunky we do not need to pump our gas, it flows out by itself under its own natural pressure...

Chunky a blow-out cannot be predicted, if they could, we would never have any, you can only have preventative measure's eg. large steel pre-collar, a good B.O.P (Blow-out Preventer) which monitors and regulates the well pressure if it gets to high, it also provides a quick well kill point, to flood the well annulus (gap between drill stem and casing) with water or drilling muds in the event of a blow-out, and in an extreme case like a total loss of well control from a blow-out it can severe the drill stem in an instant... Also an Annular Bag is required, this keeps an even amount of back pressure on a well down the well annulus thus reducing the gases ability to flow up...

Hope this answers you questions...

What on earth can be mpre constructive than the people knowing the truth. And what can be more motivating than fighting for a future for your children once you know we are in peril. And if you don't know what we are up against, constructive solutions will fall short. I've seen that happen over and over again with the green movement, due to a lack of comprehension of the issues. The most important thing is for the pillage to be reduced by a very large amount because it's out of control. The corporate elite are riding roughshod over the sovereignty of peoples all over the world. And they are up to some unbelievably devious and murderous schemes like trying to destroy non GM food supply, hence chemtrails. It will force the world to buy their aluminium resistant strains. I could go on.

Azza, thanks for answering my questions, there is a lot more for me to learn.

Loopy, I want to agree with you in sentiment but cannot agree with your arguments
Personally I believe it's the devil! But politics and religion aside...
Destructive solutions will however work?!
ok, in YOUR Humble opinion - what then are the issues?
Consumpton Growth These are the issues as I understand it!

Here comes another 'clean and green' coming to frack up western Australia. You have probably seen their slick PR campaign on tv recently. Here's what they don't tell you.

The truth behind Chevron's greenwashing: 'The true cost of Chevron'
http://links.org.au/node/2370

June 22, 2011 -- Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- Television viewers in Australia are being bombarded by an expensive series of PR advertisements extolling how much the giant "energy" corporation Chevron "agrees" with the Australian people's concerns for the environment. In a classic example of "greenwashing", Chevron's "We Agree" campaign is a concerted effort to defuse opposition to its activities around the world.

But as with most capitalist advertising, the truth and reality behind the glossy claims are very different, as the True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report below highlights in extensive detail. Fortunately too, the satirical exposers of corporate shams the Yes Men joined forces with the environmental groups Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network to issue a bogus press release and set up a phony website to expose the "We Agree" campaign.

Below is the introduction to the True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report, which was released in May 2011. Readers can download the report or read it on screen below.

* * *

CEO John Watson opens Chevron’s 2010 Annual Report by telling the corporation’s stockholders that “2010 was an outstanding year for Chevron".

We do not agree.

We, the communities who bear the costs of Chevron’s operations, have witnessed a year in which Chevron’s performance was anything but exceptional. As we have documented in this third installment of the True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report, Chevron continues its long history of ravaging natural environments, violating human rights, ignoring the longstanding decisions of Indigenous communities, destroying traditional livelihoods, and converting its dollars into unjust political influence in the United States and around the world.

This report is a record of egregious corporate behaviour that — in locations as diverse as California, Burma, Colombia, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, the Philippines and the US Gulf Coast — has spanned decades and carries on today.

In the year that saw the world’s largest unintentional oil spill, intensifying global concerns about the safety of the hydrocarbon industry, Chevron has failed to change its behaviour.

* In 2010, Chevron pursued ever-riskier and ever-deeper offshore projects in the South China Sea, the North Sea, the US Gulf Coast and the Canadian Arctic.

* In 2010, Chevron intensified its investments in three controversial liquefied natural gas projects in areas of Western Australia that have tremendous international conservation significance.

* In 2010, Chevron announced a major expansion of its Alberta, Canada tar sands projects, which are destroying the environment and severely impacting the health, livelihood and cultural preservation of Indigenous communities living downstream from this destructive development.

* In 2010, a rupture of Chevron’s pipeline in Salt Lake City, Utah dumped over 33,000 gallons of oil into Red Butte Creek, exposing residents to oil fumes and unknown health impacts as the pollution flowed downstream through this densely populated streambed. After the pipeline was turned back on under Chevron’s assurances of safety, a second rupture occurred within a few hundred feet of the first spill just five months later, dumping an additional 21,000 gallons of oil.

* In 2010, Chevron continued its well-documented history of releasing toxic pollution in both Angola and Nigeria through recurrent leaks and waste discharges, and the harmful practice of gas flaring.

* In 2010, the Chevron joint venture developing the supergiant Tengiz Field in Kazakhstan emitted such high levels of toxins into the air that the country’s government fined the operation nearly $64 million.

* In 2010, a Chevron pipeline explosion covered part of an Indonesian village in hot crude oil, leaving two children suffering burn wounds and a community devastated.

* In 2010, two extrajudicial killings by Burmese Army battalions providing security for the Yadana pipeline—owned by a joint venture that includes Chevron—were documented by EarthRights International.

* In 2010, in an effort to silence local community voices opposed to the corporation’s destructive practices, Chevron disenfranchised shareholders by denying admission to its annual shareholder meeting to 17 individuals who held legal proxies.

2010 was not an outstanding year for the communities where Chevron operates.

The campaigns undertaken by communities around the world to hold Chevron accountable for its actions were outstanding. The acknowledgements of Chevron’s wrongdoings by government entities in locations around the globe were outstanding. The hard fought victories achieved by citizens uniting to change the Chevron Way were outstanding.

After nearly 18 years of litigation, the Indigenous people and campesinos of the Ecuadorian Amazon achieved a critical milestone in 2010. An Ecuadorian court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion for cleanup, clean water, health care and other reconstruction efforts for the tens of thousands of people affected by the company’s widespread contamination in the region.

Environment Texas, the Sierra Club and the National Environmental Law Center reached a settlement in 2010 with Chevron Phillips Chemical requiring the company to pay a $2 million penalty and implement major changes at its chemical plant in Baytown, Texas. The plant had violated its clean air permits hundreds of times since 2003, leading to more than one million pounds of illegal emissions.

In an unprecedented victory for the community of Richmond, California, in 2010 the State Court of Appeals upheld the majority of findings in a lower court decision that the Environmental Impact Report for the expansion of Chevron’s Richmond refinery violated state environmental law.

After decades of campaigning against Chevron’s highly polluting coal operations, communities in Alabama, New Mexico and Wyoming welcomed — with cautious optimism — Chevron’s announcement that 2010 would be the year the corporation would exit the coal industry.

We celebrate these triumphs and the many courageous individuals whose refusal to be silenced has been instrumental in bringing Chevron’s egregious actions to light.

Even so, there is much work to be done. Chevron is vigorously contesting the landmark verdict in the Ecuador case and is continuing flagrant violations of environmental and human rights around the globe. As Luis Yanza, coordinator for the Affected People’s Assembly in Ecuador, writes, “the struggle will continue today stronger than before ... to ensure that justice triumphs over impunity.”

We invite you to read our report of the true cost of Chevron’s operations in communities from Alaska to Thailand, to decide for yourself if Chevron displayed an outstanding record in 2010, and to join with the growing international movement to hold Chevron accountable for its abuses around the globe.

Some big things are going on in Gladstone industry wise - they have been dredging for the new ports and in last few months dugong & dolphins have washed up dead. High incidence of marine mammal deaths are being reported from CQ to Northern Queensland (some are saying its part of a wider trend due to flooding impacts /turbidity) but certainly the exponential industry expansion in gladdy extending from mainland areas to Curtis /wiggin Island is bound to have a toll on coastal habitat values & wildlife. Once could mistakenly think that Gladstone is already over-burdened with industry cluster - but I think the industry really is just getting itself warmed up The State Development Areas are dotted all over the place & I shudder to think how far north the industry expansion will come. Hope that measures are taken to keep some parts of the CQ coastline free from heavy industrial development because the cumulative impacts are relatively poorly understood & therefore I don't see how impacts can be appropriately identified let alone managed and mitigated for. BTW Several large mature turtles were found dead on Farnborough beach the other day - reports says it was boat strikes. Coastal environments in CQ & surrounds are clearly coming under more & more pressure...

Agreed Chunky... Between Gladstone and Mackay there is some beautiful sections of coastline (especially around the Stanage Bay area)... Even though I work in these types of industries, I would hate to see coal loading and LNG facilities expand into some of these pristine area's....

We used to have a member here on the Zone (maybe just maybe on the old wx channel forum) who's family property was involved in one of the very early developments in qld.
I can recall the convo over the boring crews, slurring dams and many local truckers getting work.
but wondered how it's all panned out 10 years on?

Would be good if they could/would drop in to give a first hand view of the outcomes.

However the fracking way we fuel our lives unsustainably, this is our legacy.


The big picture is as simple as this

That is an amazing pic - makes super pit at kalgoorlie look like a kids play pen - wonder if there will ever be any rehabilitation of that mining site ?????

How do you rehabilitate a site like this without spending millions of dollars on it. And they hardly have credible record. But my point of posting this pic, is a warning of desecration of the landscape and water supplies that will happen over vast areas of the country if we continue on the current course. This is the stark reality that we face, and much of the world face. We truly are like a bus careering headlong towards a cliff, and if one looks at the sign on the bus, and w'out the cultural blinkers on, it reads "this service will soon terminate at the bottom of a cliff"

Insight on SBS tonight had an excellent show on CSG. As they usually do, they had good guests from every part of this debate, and it was a civil debate, with a crapload of information.

It'll be on the SBS site at some point (if it's not already) and if you are interested in this issue, I guarantee you'll be rivetted. It gave everyone a fair go, didn't set out to "get" anyone but to discuss what we know and what we don't know.

So what was the conclusions there Ant its worth pursuing or to dangerous and problematic?.

Insight doesn't really come to conclusions. It's a well-moderated and directed discussion between experts, stakeholders, anyone with a worthy opinion. I love it due to the amazing range of people they get, the skillful way the discussion is run, and the lack of yelling and abuse.

Everyone got a say. They had some farmers there who've had gas wells on their land for years who had no problems, others who had... scientists, government people, people from the gas companies... worried parents and farmers facing the prospect of gas farming...

What did come out was that even the very pro people (like the gas companies and one university person) saw the need for very tight controls and safeguards against poisoning the acquifers and admitted that danger to the great artesian basin was real, and un-fixable once it happened.

It's worth watching online, and SBS often hoist a written transcript at some point. Online screening is here:
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/ And there's comments from people watching the show, too.

Tune in to 4 corners tonight

Dredging killing off reef, govt told
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-nat...1107-1n3iv.html

The Great Barrier Reef could be in danger of losing its world heritage status, federal parliament has been told.

During Senate question time on Monday, Australian Greens senator Larissa Waters raised concerns about dredging in Gladstone Harbour in Queensland and a subsequent spike in turtle deaths and fish disease.

Queensland authorities imposed a three-week temporary fishing ban at Gladstone Harbour on September 16 after fish were found with sores andclouded eyes.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) has approvals to dredge 46 million cubic metres - the equivalent volume of 27 Melbourne Cricket Grounds - from within the harbour boundaries, inside the World Heritage area, over the next 20 years.

So far, 1.5 million cubic metres have been dredged.

According to a preview on the ABC website, the broadcaster's Four Corners program will report on Monday that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman Russell Reichelt is worried about the impact of dredging operations at the Gladstone coal port to accommodate Queensland's expanding coal seam gas industry.

Mr Reichelt told the program dredging presents an "unacceptable risk to marine life on the reef".

In parliament, Senator Waters asked when the government would suspend its approval for dredging in Gladstone Harbour.

Senator Stephen Conroy, representing Environment Minister Tony Burke, replied that Fisheries Queensland had imposed the fishing ban while they investigated infection outbreaks in barramundi and other fish.

"No links were found between the fish disease and water quality," Senator Conroy told the Senate.

"Water quality testing has shown little change other than seasonal variation for water quality since dredging began."

Senator Conroy said the dredging was carried out in accordance with "stringent conditions of approval and environmental management plans" and the latest testing had found a "parasitic flatworm" was the cause of the fish disease in Barramundi.

Senator Conroy said authorities were monitoring the situation.

In July, the United Nation's environmental arm criticised the Queensland and Australian governments for allowing gas processing on reef's doorstep.

UNESCO said it was concerned three processing plants under construction on Curtis Island, near Gladstone, could affect the "overall universal value" of the reef.

It also said the government had failed to tell it about approvals for the three plants, in breach of World Heritage guidelines.

The three plants are under construction on Curtis Island, inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.

They will convert coal seam gas, piped from the Bowen and Surat basins in Queensland's southeast, into liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export.

Senator Waters told the Senate "the reef may now be in danger of losing World Heritage status" because of the dredging and future development.

"Australians have to ask right now - are we prepared to lose one of our greatest national assets so we can turn the Great Barrier Reef into a coal and gas highway?" she said later in a statement.

UNESCO has called on the federal government to provide a strategic assessment of coastal development.

"This won't happen for another two years and will take three years to complete ... I ask what will be left to assess in five years' time when there's at least six port developments on the way?" Senator Waters said.

Senator Conroy promised to seek more information.

AAP lp

I saw a story from the uk where they had 2 events 2.5 tremors after fracking by lucas company. Dosen't sound good . What sort of real damage is going on . cheers Doug.

Santos has claimed that water contamination in the Pillaga forest is caused by recent rains and morethan usual eucalyptus leaves causing a blackening of water. I've observed numerous creeks in the forest after rain. and none of them had black water. Lots of small lies add up to lots of dosh.

I saw a wastewater 'detention basin' in the Pilliga during the exploration phase in the 1990s - erk. I have also seem anaerobically decomposed leaves in sediments - similar colour, similar stench.

Here is a link to US Geological Survey Organisation site with information about earthquakes induced by fracking.

An incidental question is what damage does a tremor do to cased bores which penetrate vulnerable aquifers / watertables? I suspect a deep aquifer could give a very large hydraulic loading on a bore in the event of an earthquake. This could lead to leakages into strata or above ground.

If a strata was thrixotrophic (eg relatively 'solid' sand/sediments which shear under stress) the results could be unpredictable. These sediments would be easy to identify during exploration. Think of the Indonesian "mud volcano" caused by penetration of sediments by a well, or the liquifaction zones from the Canterbury earthquake....

What happened to the 'precautionary principle'?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=46

This might be of interest to those who live in the zones where it is proposed to use Fracking technology to recover shale and coal seam gas.
The usual thing is happening as it does with any technology allied with the capitalist system where competition and economics and social pressure are the driving forces behind the advances in all technological systems.
New, more acceptable and cheaper and cleaner methods to achieve the same ends just keep on appearing.

And the newer, cleaner, cheaper methods of extracting the truly enormous amounts of gas residing in the deep shale and the extremely deep and inaccessible coal seams across the planet will fill the world's energy needs for centuries ahead or until we develop newer power generation technologies like the thorium reactors and eventually the Fusion reactors.
Mankind's energy supplies will then become almost limitless.

Waterless Natural Gas Fracking Method Unveiled

Mate that's awful news. We shouldn't be so complacent about the destruction of Australia's natural resources. But then again we're Aussie, not like in France, the French would hit the streets and protest. We just sit back on the couch drinking red and bemoaning the situation. Act now people.

Of course the insignificant matter that Gladstone harbour isn't actually within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a small but important fact that most can't get their heads aroiund. That plus the absolute piddling anount of so called dregding damage which pales into absolute insignigficance compared to the natural damage done to any section of the reef from a cyclone and resulting flooding from say the Burdekin River alone and some how without anyone of us lifting teh smallest of fingers it still endures today.

Most people have no idea how big, wide, long and deep the reef is to start with.

Now I know some people will say I have no idea what I'm talking about but I beg to differ. Unlike some of you I have fished parts of the reef for over 20 years from Townsville to Cairns and up to 125 klms off shore and reckon I have seen maybe 0.01% of the total reef in that time. It is vast, it is made out of a natural material that will tear the bum out of the largest ships in the world without blinking and has survived for around 800,000 years without being coddled to death by humans so leave it alone.

The systems already in place are more than adequate to ensure its future survival without it being turned into a prohibited area.

the key point here is natural as opposed to man made damage. I would rather 'coddle to death' one of the worlds most beautiful marine environments than witness the accelerated destruction of the reef/ and or Gladstone harbour. I also believe that [censored] has changed dramatically in the last 800,000 years. The negative environmental impact humans create is much more than we care to admit....myself included.

if you were fishing SBT. You got a bite