The Fight for the Great Australian Bight continues

Patagonia Inc. email, 11 June 2019, excerpt:

Photgraph: Patagonia Inc.

Fight For The Bight

Last month, Patagonia Surf Ambassador Heath Joske  joined an Australian delegation to Oslo, Norway, taking the fight for the Bight directly to Equinor. The delegation was led by Peter Owen from The Wilderness Society and included Aboriginal elder and singer Bunna Lawrie and various local and international environmental groups.

The delegation met with Norwegian Indigenous Sami people to discuss their shared experiences in the fight to protect their oceans and lands from development by the oil industry.

The delegation also found support in the 500-strong crowd of local Norwegians who joined them for a paddle out in the harbour in front of the city’s Opera House. This peaceful protest was one of the largest paddle-out demonstrations held in the country's history and members of the delegation were buoyed by the camaraderie shown by the local community who braved near freezing water temperatures in support of the Great Australian Bight.

“Borders were smashed and countries were united,” said Heath. “Thank you to the people of Norway for supporting our pleas to save our southern seas! You turned up in hundreds and screamed “Fight for the Bight!” with me, and when I stopped, you kept screaming. That was incredibly moving and heartening.”

Taking on Goliath

The delegation also attended Equinor’s Annual General Meeting in Stavanger where they presented a shareholder proposal that the company should refrain from oil and gas exploration and production activities in frontier areas (such as the Great Australian Bight), immature areas and particularly sensitive areas. Heath Joske also spoke at the AGM, taking to the stage to explain his connection to the Bight as both a surfer and fisherman. Following the meeting, he personally delivered over 300 letters from concerned Australian citizens to Equinor’s CEO, Eldar Saetre.

“For the campaign, the AGM is not an end-point in any way,” says Norwegian citizen and Great Australian Bight Alliance campaigner Rune Woldsnes. “It is a step on the way to getting Equinor out of the Bight. There is no question the Board got the message.”

Heath Joske at the Equinor AGM from Patagonia Australia on Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/340119190

BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices:

17 April 2019, Norway needs to withdraw its majority-owned petroleum mining company from the Great Australian Bight

4 March 2019,From September 2019 onwards underwater seismic blasts will rock the Great Australian Bight around the clock over a 30,100 sq kilometre area

8 January 2019, Why proposed offshore mining in the Great Australian Bight matters to all of Australia

12 October 2016, Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP withdraws from offshore exploration in the Great Australian Bight - for now.

23 May 2016, Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

Norway needs to withdraw its majority-owned petroleum mining company from the Great Australian Bight

Plans to drill in the middle of the Great Australian Bight have led to a fierce battle, as a Norwegian Energy giant faces off with Aussie surfers, environmentalists and fishermen. #TheProjectTV pic.twitter.com/2ppO02m0or

— The Project (@theprojecttv) April 8, 2019

 ABC News, 12 March 2019:

A Norwegian MP has called for a state-owned Norwegian oil and gas company not to start drilling in the Great Australian Bight, while a scientist says noise from the project could hurt marine life.

The Norwegian Government has a 67 per cent majority stake in Equinor, which wants to start searching for oil off the coast of South Australia at a depth of almost 2.5 kilometres by the end of 2020.

It needs approval from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.

MP Kristoffer Robin Haug addressed the Norwegian Parliament last week and said going ahead with the project could see Norway become the enemy.

"Will the [Petroleum and Energy] Minister use this power as a majority shareholder in Equinor to instruct their company to stop their oil exploration in the Bight?" he asked.

Fight For The Bight, April 2019:

New research from The Australia Institute shows that 60% of Australians are opposed to drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight, while the rate of opposition amongst South Australians is even higher at 68%.

The first ever national poll on the issue found that only one in five Australians, and 16% of South Australians, support drilling in the Bight, while more than two thirds of Australians want to see the area given World Heritage protection.

The poll also found there is greater support, both nationwide and in SA, for ending coal, gas and oil exploration across Australia than there is for allowing it to continue.

“The Great Australian Bight is a national treasure and now we know that people across the country want to see it protected from exploitation,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, The Australia Institute’s SA projects manager.

“Equinor and the other oil giants looking to drill in the Great Australian Bight are attempting to do so in direct opposition to the wishes of the Australian people.

“We’ve known for some time that the Great Australian Bight holds a special place in the hearts of South Australians, but this research has shown that opposition to exploiting the Bight exists across the country.

The Norwegian Greens Party has also adopted the Australian Greens slogan "Fight for the Bight".

South Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Mr Haug's speech showed the fight was now receiving international attention.

"This is starting to cause problems and waves overseas," Senator Hanson-Young said.

"People are questioning why Australia would put at risk our beautiful pristine areas.

"This is a whale sanctuary. This is an untouched wonderland. Why would we put this at risk?"….

Protesters took to Encounter Bay this morning to protest against oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

See https://www.facebook.com/abcadelaide/videos/2538309232876968/

The Morrison Government has given permission for oil and gas exploration in NSW coastal waters by a company set up as a tax minimisation ploy

Those Liberal-Nationals MPs and senators preparing to return to Canberra late next month appear determined to annoy NSW voters - especially those who live in coastal communities.

Having wrecked the Murray-Darling freshwater river system that runs through four states, they have now turned their eyes towards the coastal commercial and recreational fishing grounds of New South Wales.

This is how it is playing out........

Asset Energy Pty Ltd holds an 85 per cent interest in Petroleum Exploration Permit PEP11, an offshore petroleum exploration lease covering 4,649 square kilometres in Commonwealth waters off the coast of New South Wales.

Asset Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Melbourne-based (formerly Perth-based) mining company MEC Resources Ltd’s investee company Advent Energy Ltd.

Bounty Oil and Gas NL is the junior joint venture partner in PEP11 holding a 15 per cent interest, 

Newcastle Herald, 9 January 2019

In March 2018 the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environment Management Authority (“NOPSEMA”) gave approval for a survey which acquired high resolution 2D seismic data over the Baleen prospect, approximately 30km southeast of Newcastle, which evaluated (amongst other things) shallow geohazard indications including shallow gas accumulations that can affect future potential gas drilling operations.

NOPSEMA falls within the portfolio of Australian Minister for Resources and Northern Australia & Nationals Senator for Queensland, Matt Canavan.

That particular survey has been completed and on New Year's Eve 2018 MEC Resources informed the Australian Stock Exchange that it now intends to do 3D seismic mapping in the vicinity of the potential test drill site at the earliest opportunity.

Underwater seismic testing involves continuous seismic airgun blasts approximately every 2-3 seconds for 24 hours continuously, for days or weeks at a time. That is, such testing creates compressed air streams or focused sonic waves - in simple language, loud booms - towards the ocean floor in order to gauge the depth, location and structure of the oil or gas resources. The sounds of which can travel many thousands of square kilometres and which are known to have a negative effect on marine ecosystems.

Previous to this, on 15 May 2018 the NSW Parliament had called on the federal government to suspend Asset Energy’s permit to conduct seismic testing off the coast of Newcastle, with the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy & Liberal Party Member of the Legislative Council Don Harwin expressing a lack of confidence in Australia’s current offshore mining regulations.

The Morrison Coalition Government in Canberra appears to be ignoring NSW Government  and community concerns. Being more concerned itself with offering tax free investment opportunities to the market.¹

It is worth noting that any significant Advent Energy/Asset Energy drilling rig (left) mishap has the potential for an uncontrolled release of untreated oil into coastal waters.

It is reportedly intended that one or more exploration drilling rigs should be in place sometime in 2020.

MEC Resources (formerly MEC Strategic Ltd) is a registered corporation which only been in existence for the last thirteen years and for the last three years there has been a bitter rift between the board and certain shareholders involving repeated calls for removal of the entire board, with the last call for a spill occurring in November 2018. The company was also involved in a dispute with a former managing director, as well litigation involving a $295,000 loan.

One of the shareholder bones of contention appears to be the cost of exploration in PEP11. On 31 October 2018 MEC Resources informed the stock exchange that a cost reduction plan remains in place to ensure all costs are reduced wherever possible.

Questions raised about the rigour of offshore mining regulations covering PEP11 and an oil & gas exploration company determined to cut costs. What could possibly go wrong? 

Concerned readers can sign Stop Seismic Testing Newcastle's change.org petition to Minister Canavan and NOPSEMA here.

Footnotes

1. www.mecresources.com.au, Tax Advanatges, retrieved 10 January 2018:

MEC is a registered Pooled Development Fund (PDF). PDF shareholders pay no capital gains tax on the sale of their PDF shares. Investors who receive dividends will also be exempt from income tax on dividends.

This can be particularly attractive to both traders and investors, since any profits derived from trades or investments are tax-free or low tax. The Pooled Development Fund Programme was established by the Federal Government to develop the market for patient venture capital for growing small and medium enterprises and to provide a concessional tax regime to encourage such investments. Any capital losses on the sale of PDF’s are not deductable.

To encourage investors, the government offers tax benefits to both the PDF and its shareholders as follows:

capital gains made by PDF shareholders are not taxable,

shareholders can elect to treat dividends paid by a PDF as tax free,......

PDF’s tend to invest in a portfolio of growing companies, thereby potentially reducing investors’ risk through diversification. Investee companies have the potential to become listed companies in their own right, which has the possibility of providing investors with attractive returns.

This is not a complete list of the taxation issues surrounding Pooled Development Funds. For further information please contact AusIndustry.

See  Pooled Development FundsAct 1992 as amended up to September 2018.

Of Gas and Hot Air

Energy security became a major political issue following a storm-induced blackout in South Australia late last year.  Instead of the massive storm which knocked over the transmission towers being the “villain”, the Prime Minister and his Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg  blamed the state’s level of renewable (wind) energy for the outage. They have persisted with this version of events regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

In the months since then politicians and others have had a great deal to say about the national energy grid and its shortcomings and renewables and base-load power.  Ideology has played a very significant part in the statements of many politicians. This of course means that truth has often been twisted or completely ignored. 

Recently the focus has been on gas and a predicted gas shortage.

Despite the claims of the Government and many industry players, there is no general gas shortage.  There is, however, a looming domestic shortage because most of the enormous volume of gas being extracted is being exported. 

The Federal Government has rather belatedly recognised that, despite the fact that Australia will soon be the largest gas-exporting country in the world, there will be a shortage of gas for the domestic market.  Moreover, the Government has realised that domestic consumers are paying more for gas than consumers of Australian gas in Japan - even after the cost of processing and transporting of the resource to that country. This has become a rather urgent matter for the Government because domestic gas prices and the uncertainty of supply is hurting local industries.  For a government that talks about jobs and growth, permitting more of our dwindling manufacturing base going either “down the gurgler” or offshore would be politically foolish.

As the Prime Minister’s meetings in recent months with the major gas exporters have not produced the cooperation he hoped for, he recently decided to take further action.  It is action that the industry is unhappy about saying that this will discourage global investment, a claim which is unsubstantiated. There are others, including some in the Government, who believe that this interference in the market is not justified.

What happens elsewhere?  Western Australia, the one Australian state which had the forethought to realise that there was a need to protect local interests, has a gas reservation policy[1]. Many other countries, including Canada, the USA, Israel, Indonesia and Egypt, have various mechanisms to ensure that they won’t end up in the situation that Australia is heading towards.  In their rush to encourage foreign investment, successive Australian Federal Governments failed to see that safeguards to protect domestic gas supplies were needed in the national interest.

Prime Minister Turnbull has stated that his measures will only be needed for the short term because he expects that there will be further development of local gasfields which can service the domestic market. He is referring specifically to NSW and Victoria which have currently stopped unconventional gas mining. (There is an exception in NSW.  Santos’ project in the Pilliga in the north-west is currently going through the planning approval process.)

The Prime Minister is one of many politicians and industry players who have weighed in wanting the opening up of NSW and Victoria to coal seam and unconventional gas mining. 

Recently Ian Macfarlane, the head of the Queensland Resources Council, and a former federal Coalition Minister, criticised the NSW and Victorian Governments for lacking the will to develop their gas resources in the same way that Queensland has.[2] 

What Macfarlane either does not understand or conveniently ignores is that it is what happened in Queensland as well as overseas in the USA and elsewhere that alarmed communities in NSW and Victoria and generated the campaigns against CSG and unconventional gas mining – campaigns that have gathered strength also in the Northern Territory and the north-west of Western Australia. 

In his interview with Leigh Sales on ABC TV’s 7.30 on April 27 Macfarlane paints a very rosy picture of the industry in Queensland [3]. He claims “irresponsible green activism” stopped the industry in NSW.   Blaming the anti-gas campaign on the “greenie” bogey is convenient for many conservatives but is far from a true reflection of the breadth of community opposition to an invasive and polluting industry.

It will be interesting to see whether the urging of the Federal Government and proponents like Macfarlane encourage the NSW and Victorian Governments to change their positions on gas mining. If this happens, the reaction from those who see the industry as an unacceptable threat to agriculture and the environment is easy to predict.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers         

5 May 2017

[1] http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/what-we-do/advise-on-economic-policy/domestic-gas-policy

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2017/s4660142.htm

[3] Ibid.

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP withdraws from offshore exploration in the Great Australian Bight - for now.

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) operating as BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program has announced that:

We have looked long and hard at our exploration plans for the Great Australian Bight but, in the current external environment, we will only pursue frontier exploration opportunities if they are competitive and aligned to our strategic goals. After extensive and careful consideration, this has proven not to be the case for our project to explore in the Bight.

Concerned citizens and environmental groups can see this as a win – even if business economics and the risk profile for mega storm in the Great Australian Bight may have had a much to do with this decision as the strength of community opposition.

However, it should be noted that BP does not appear to be abandoning its offshore petroleum exploration leases in the GAB which don’t expire until 2020* and, this multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration licenses in the area - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021, Karoon Gas has a permit current until 2022, joining a Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd presence there not due to end until 2020-21.

Petroleum exploration leases current in GAB in 2016

Nor has the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) indicated that it is averse to further mining exploration being undertaken in the Great Australian Bight.

* BP had guaranteed to undertake exploration worth about $605 million and drill four exploration wells in 2016-17 and under a “Good Standing Agreement” entered into with the federal government it is reportedly liable for that amount unless it commits to a new project within Australia or its Norwegian joint venture partner StatOil decides to exercise an option to proceed with the GAB exploration program.

Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

For the second time in less than a year multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) has not met all environmental assessment criteria according to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA):

BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program proposes to drill four exploration wells in Commonwealth marine waters in the GAB. Exact well locations are yet to be determined for all wells; however they will be drilled within a defined ‘drilling area’. The drilling area is the previously acquired Ceduna 3D seismic survey area, which covers 12,100 km2 across Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 37, EPP 38, EPP 39 and EPP 40. BP and Statoil are the registered titleholders of EPPs 37, 38, 39 and 40, with BP being the Operator. The drilling area has water depths ranging between 1,000 and 2,500 m Lowest Astronomical Tide. At the closest point, the drilling area is located approximately 395 km west of Port Lincoln and 340 km southwest of Ceduna in South Australia (SA). The project is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2016-2017, with each well taking between 45 and 170 days to drill. The wells will be drilled using a dynamically positioned semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). The purpose of the drilling program is to determine whether the target formations have commercially recoverable volumes of hydrocarbons. Additional project details are available on BP’s project website www.bpgabproject.com.au.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, 17 May 2016:

On 16 May 2016, NOPSEMA provided BP an opportunity to modify and resubmit their environment plan for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight. If BP accepts this opportunity, the modified plan is expected to be resubmitted by 15 July, at which time NOPSEMA will recommence the assessment.

An opportunity to modify and resubmit is a normal part of NOPSEMA’s environment plan assessment process. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder (the company proposing the activity) a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit their plan if it doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. NOPSEMA will typically provide two opportunities to modify and resubmit, but is not restricted to providing only two opportunities.

If a titleholder has been given a reasonable opportunity to modify their plan and NOPSEMA determines that it still doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance then NOPSEMA will refuse to accept the plan. Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 4% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

NOPSEMA has updated the status of the assessment on the Great Australian Bight Exploration Drilling Program submission page. Stakeholders are encouraged to subscribe to the page to receive email alerts of any changes.

For more information about the environment plan assessment process see NOPSEMA’s Assessment process and FAQ pages at nopsema.gov.au.

The Wilderness Society re-released this animated graphic on 17 May 2016:

The oil and gas independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has handed down its decision. It has once again knocked back BP’s environment plan. BP has shown it has learnt nothing from its Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP now has the opportunity to resubmit its application to drill in the Great Australian Bight as early as July. However, BP still hasn’t released its oil spill modelling, so we released independent modelling which shows some the far-reaching impacts of a potential spill.

https://youtu.be/B5OnMGtx1cQ

An explanation of NOPSEMA’s environmental approval process can be found here.

BP currently owes the United States of America an est. US$7.1 billion in fines and compensation for the environmental damage caused by it Deepwater rig oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

This multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021. Joining Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd in the race to drill and be damned.

Petroluem exploration leases current in 2016

In November 2013 the Abbott Government ordered a review of certain national marine reserves. In effect by establishing this review it sought to block any increase in level of environmental protection afforded the Great Australian Bight when the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve was extended to cover 45,926 km2 with a depth range of 15 to 6,000 metres as part of a wider extension of national marine reserves by the former Labor federal government.

At the time of writing unpublished review recommendations have been in the hands of the Turnbull Government since December 2015 and to date mining exploration is still allowed within the waters of these south-west marine reserves at the discretion of the government of the day.

Although the current petroleum leases appear to be adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve it is clear from the aforementioned major spill modelling that oil/chemical contamination would reach both this reserve and major commercial fishing grounds within the Bight and Bass Strait.

Before casting your vote on 2 July 2016  you might consider this question: Which major political party is likely to put the brakes on these risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

BP plc BACKGROUND AS A SERIAL OFFENDER

Corporate Research Project, accessed 18 May 2016:

Starting about 2000, BP attempted the difficult feat of depicting itself as an environmentally friendly oil company. Some of its initiatives were merely symbolic—adopting a sunburst logo and claiming that its initials now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”—while others were concrete steps, such as (modest) investments in solar power. BP’s campaign was all the more difficult because of its involvement in controversial Alaskan oil and gas production, and because its environmental compliance record was far from unblemished.

For example, in 1990 BP agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine as part of a settlement of an $11 million suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought against the company in connection with illegal discharges from BP's Marcus Hook refinery into the Delaware River. Several months later the state of California sued the company over a 400,000-gallon spill of crude oil that occurred in February 1990 near Huntington Beach.

In July 1991 BP was one of ten major oil companies the EPA cited for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground sources of drinking water. BP agreed to pay a fine of $74,000, and to clean up the contaminated water sources by the end of 1993.

In 1992 the EPA charged BP Chemicals with violating hazardous waste laws at its plant in Lima, Ohio, and sought almost $600,000 in penalties.

In 2000 a federal judge imposed a $500,000 criminal fine on BP for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope. The company was also ordered to establish a national environmental management system to prevent future violations. The total cost to the company from this and a related civil matter was said to be more than $20 million.

In 2002 BP was fined £1 million by UK authorities for violating safety regulations in connection with several accidents at a refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland (later sold by BP).

In 2003 California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District filed an omnibus complaint against BP, seeking $319 million in penalties for thousands of air pollution violations over an 8-year period at the company’s refinery in Carson. BP acquired that facility through its purchase of Atlantic Richfield in 2000. The agency later filed another suit against BP for $183 million. In 2005 the parties reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $25 million in cash penalties and $6 million in past emissions fees while spending $20 million on environmental improvements at the refinery and $30 million on community programs focused on asthma diagnosis and treatment.

In 2005 BP was accused of trying to cover up deficiencies in the anti-corrosion coating on the 1,000-mile-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. BP is the lead participant in the joint venture that operates the pipeline, the largest shareholder in the consortium that owns it, and the operator of the oil fields that supply it.

In March 2006 more than 250,000 gallons of crude oil spilled at BP’s Prudhoe Bay operations in the Alaskan tundra. Several month later, the company shut down the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field because of additional leakage caused by corrosion in the transit line that carried crude oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There were press reports that BP had been warned of the problem more than two years earlier. In May 2007 the House Energy Committee released documents suggesting that cost-cutting pressures weakened preventive maintenance and other safety practices in the period leading up to the leaks.

In October 2007 BP agreed to pay a total of $60 million in fines to the EPA. The amount included $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act in connection with the 2005 explosion at the Texas City, Texas refinery in which 15 workers were killed. The company also pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the act and was to serve three years of probation. Apart from the fine, BP agreed to spend $265 million for a facility-wide study of its safety valves and a renovation of its flare system to prevent excess emissions.

At the same time, BP agreed to pay the EPA a $12 million fine in connection with the March 2006 oil spill in Alaska, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, and was ordered to serve three years probation on this offense as well. The company was also required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at a cost of $1.56 billion.

Later, in October 2010, BP agreed to pay $15 million in Clean Air Act penalties in connection with violations at the Texas City refinery.

In 2008 BP and several other oil majors agreed to pay $422 million to settle suits that had been brought by public water systems in 20 states and consolidated in federal court relating to the contamination of groundwater supplies by the carcinogenic gasoline additive MTBE.

At its annual meeting in mid-April 2010, BP faced a barrage of criticism over its involvement in controversial tar sands oil production in Canada.

Only days after that meeting, BP had to contend with a much bigger problem: an explosion at its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and opened a massive underwater oil leak. While the disaster continued, government investigators were looking into indications that BP pushed for work on the well to move ahead despite evidence of unsafe conditions……

Read the full post here.

The facts about the O'Farrell Government's October 2013 announcements as they relate to coal seam gas exploration and mining on the NSW North Coast

CSG exclusion zones are in force from 4 October 2013 for existing residential areas and areas zoned as villages across the state, and the North West and South West Growth Centres of Sydney.....

The CSG exclusion zones prohibit new coal seam gas exploration and development in and within a 2 kilometre buffer around existing residential and village areas in all 152 councils across the state, and the North West and South West Growth Centres of Sydney. [NSW Dept. of Planning & Infrastructure,4 October 2013]

More than 250,000 hectares in the Mid and Far North Coast regions have been identified as high-quality farmland as part of Government initiatives released today to better protect agricultural land from mining and coal seam gas (CSG) projects. [Minister for Planning & Infrastructure and Minister for Primary Industries,joint media release,4 October2013]

Pipelines associated with CSG development will also be prohibited within the exclusion zones, but are permitted within the two kilometre buffer zone, subject to development approval. [NSW Strategic Land Use Policy,FAQ sheet,October 2013]

Existing coal seam gas pilot/test and production wells in exclusion zones and within the 2km buffer zones are not affected by this announcement and, presumably any existing tenements which are under active exploration are also exempt from these provisions. It is also possible that current exploration licences per se may be exempt from these exclusion and buffer provisions.

High quality Northern Rivers agricultural land is not automatically exempt from coal seam gas exploration and mining – it must be assessed by the gateway panel against any proposed coal seam gas development application. This panel does not have the power to reject any development proposal and can only recommend further studies or modifications to the application under consideration.

Legislation has been drafted which makes it mandatory that the estimated economic significance to the state is to take precedence over environmental, agricultural or social considerations when a coal seam gas development application is being considered. 

In addition, the NSW Government has failed to implement a process to refer CSG projects to a federal scientific committee that considers water quality issues.

No Northern Rivers agricultural land appears to be is within an identified critical industry cluster.

A limited amount of land on the NSW North Coast has been identified as subject to exclusion zones, as it has been classified by the NSW Government as future residential growth land.

None of the smallest rural villages appear to be formally in exclusion zones at this stage (with the exception of part of Goonengerry in Byron Local Government Area found to meet village criteria for exemption) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas) 2013 is yet to passed by the NSW Parliament.

Metgasco Limited’s plans for an estimated 1,000 gas wells in the Casino district may be affected by these recent NSW Government announcements. This exploration, mining and production company has itself revised down its gas reserve potential by 20 per cent in anticipation of new legislation and industry regulations.

Whether the company's attempt in the Casino area to classify tight gas (which is highly likely to require fracking) as conventional gas survives scrutiny, should one or more local residents take any development consent to court, remains to be seen.

Metgasco’s ordinary share price has never fully recovered from the combined effects of the market’s knowledge of widespread community opposition to its commercial plan for the region, its cessation of mining activity and loss this year of yet another potential farm-in partner. 

The market is again reacting with a 12.5 per cent fall in Metgasco's share price holding at close of business on 4 October.

UPDATE:

In apparent anticipation of the foreshadowed changes to land use policy, in 2012  Macquarie Energy, a subsidiary of Dart Energy, said it would move to the Northern Rivers region of NSW, where it holds exploration licences that cover Byron Bay, Ballina and Lismore and surrounding rural areas.

* Dart Energy advised in September 2013  that the transfer of Petroleum Exploration Licence 445 (PEL445) from Arrow Energy has been completed. PEL445 is a sizeable licence, covering 7,076km² of the Clarence-Moreton Basin, in northern New South Wales

* According to the government, the exclusion zones leave 90 per cent of the state's energy resources untouched...

Truth in advertising and the coal seam gas industry

 

So confident is the coal seam gas industry of widespread political support across all three tiers of government and  so certain of the fickle attention span of the mainstream media, that its spokespeople knowingly utter falsehoods as easily as they breathe in and out.

 

They film an industry employee on land they don't have permission to enter in an effort to mislead the general public into believing that the employee is a farmer standing on his own land extolling the virtues of coal seam gas.

 

They make a blatantly false statement in print that has to be rebutted by CSIRO scientists:

 

CSIRO rejects claims made by APPEA regarding groundwater and coal seam gas

 

CSIRO rejects the claim made in a television commercial aired on Sunday 2 September that ‘CSIRO [and government studies] have shown that groundwater is safe with coal seam gas’.

• 4 September 2012

At no time has CSIRO made such a statement, and nor do the results of CSIRO research support such a statement.

CSIRO continues to undertake research to better understand the impacts of coal seam gas extraction on groundwater quality and quantity.

CSIRO has stated on the public record that coal seam gas extraction is likely to pose a ‘low risk’ to groundwater quality through contamination. CSIRO has also indicated that groundwater levels will fall as a consequence of coal seam gas extraction. In some places this could see aquifer levels subside by tens of metres for tens of years; in others it is likely to reduce aquifer levels by several metres for several hundred years.

CSIRO continues to undertake research to better understand the impacts of coal seam gas extraction on groundwater quality and quantity.

CSIRO became aware of the advertisement produced by Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) via a scan of social media on Friday 31 August and requested for the commercial to not be aired.

 

Because of this whatever-it-takes business culture which is loose with the truth, one has to question copies of print advertising the industry has displayed on one of its websites www.wewantcsg.com.au.

 

Who is this woman pictured below? Does she really come from Casino on the NSW North Coast? Is she a genuine school teacher or is she an industry employee or even a paid advertsing model? Is she related to someone who works for a mining company? Is she on the staff of a politician who is pro-coal seam gas?
Does she really want CSG?

Perhaps an NCV reader can answer these questions.

 

Ethical Investors Please Note: Metgasco gets a little free advertising



Just a normal working day for Metgasco as it enters PEL426 to commence exploratory
drilling with a police tactical response group escort on 7 January 2013 

Is it any wonder that Metgasco's share price is still heading south?

North Coast residents have stated that they will be at the drilling site again today, making this by my count the 49th day of continuous protest there.