O'Farrell Government admits heavy metal contamination in NSW North Coast waterways will last for millions of years.....

…….as it prepares to allow the reactivation of the Hillgrove antimony mine which is the focus of much of this contamination and, looks favourably on the prospect of the re-opening of another old antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek in the Nymboida River system within the wider Clarence River catchment.

NSW Parliament Legislative Council Hansard 8 September 2011:

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have to make an admission: the Government helped the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham with his question. That is why it is comprehensible and I am able to answer it. The Office of Environment and Heritage was notified that stormwater was overflowing from a dam at the Hillgrove mine, east of Armidale, at 11.45 a.m. on Monday 29 August 2011. The mine is currently not operating but is in care-and-maintenance mode. The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam. When the mine is operating the stormwater normally would have been used for mineral processing.

As a result, staff of the Office of Environment and Heritage in Armidale notified NSW Health, the Premier's regional coordinator and, subsequently, Kempsey Shire Council and appropriate district emergency officers, and began an investigation into the incident. Run-off from goldmines can contain heavy metals. Therefore, both the company Straits (Hillgrove) Gold Pty Ltd and NSW Health undertook water quality monitoring to provide information to inform the appropriate response. I am advised that historic mining from more than 100 years ago and erosion of highly mineralised soils have deposited a plume of material containing heavy metals in the river system from the Hillgrove area to the Pacific Ocean, an area of approximately 200 kilometres. That is quite a plume. I am further advised that the plume will continue to release elevated levels of heavy metals through physical, biological and chemical processes for millennia. [my bolding]

The response from Clarence Valley residents was predicably firm, as evidenced by this opinion piece written by The Daily Examiner editor on 12 October 2011:

Digging up dirt on mine

 “The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam.”

THE NSW Minister for Finance, Greg Pearce, may have inadvertently rung an enormous alarm bell for Clarence Valley residents with comments last month about the Hillgrove antimony mine, east of Armidale.

Mr Pearce, who represents the environment minister in the Upper House, was asked by Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham what the government was doing to ensure a proposed antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek did not pollute the Nymboida River.

Mr Buckingham said there had been evidence of contamination from the Hillgrove mine and wanted to know what was being done to prevent contamination of the Nymboida or further contamination of the Macleay from the existing pollution.

Mr Pearce initially shrugged off the question, suggesting he didn’t understand what Mr Buckingham was asking.

But later he returned and said: “The Office of Environment and Heritage was notified that stormwater was overflowing from a dam at the Hillgrove mine, east of Armidale, at 11.45am on Monday, August 29, 2011. The mine is currently not operating but is in care-and-maintenance mode. The spill occurred after continued wet weather produced excess stormwater which exceeded the amount of water that could be stored in the dam.”

“I am advised that historic mining from more than 100 years ago and erosion of highly mineralised soils have deposited a plume of material containing heavy metals in the river system from the Hillgrove area to the Pacific Ocean, an area of approximately 200km. That is quite a plume. I am further advised that the plume will continue to release elevated levels of heavy metals through physical, biological and chemical processes for millennia.”

Mr Pearce, we want absolute guarantees there will be no leaching of toxins into the Nymboida and subsequently the Clarence, and if that means no mining, so be it.

Photo of Greg Pearce from NSW Parliament House Full Ministry in Both Houses webpage

Dorrigo Environment Watch on the subject of mining at Wild Cattle Creek

Stuttering Frog

Dorrigo Environment Watch is on a mission to raise community awareness of risks to human and environmental health. The following can be found on its website at

http://www.dorrigoenvironmentwatch.org.au/index.html:

With 70% of NSW under mining exploration licences it seems no place is protected, regardless of known high conservation values and environmental legislation requirements.

There is considerable potential for endangered frogs to be at risk from renewed mining development on the Dorrigo Plateau. The site of the antimony deposit known as Wild
Cattle Creek is well known habitat of a number of rare and threatened frog species, in particular the Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus) listed as nationally endangered
and the Stuttering Frog (Mixophyes balbus) listed as nationally vulnerable. These frogs and their habitat are supposedly protected by the Australian Government’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC).

Dorrigo Environment Watch has located both the Giant Barred frog and the Stuttering frog in the streams just below the current drilling activity zone. Frog surveys, conducted by DEW members with scientific and environmental education expertise, have been underway since November 2010, with the data validated by an independent frog expert and sent to the DECCW Wildlife Database Unit.

Under the EPBC there are no third party referral procedures for an individual or community group to report these frogs to and it seems that proponents such as Anchor Resources Ltd are required to ‘self assess’ as to whether they would be required to submit ‘notice of an action’ to the Australian Government. Similarly under the NSW Department of Industry and Investment, Anchor Resources drilling program was considered low impact and deemed not to require a ‘Review of Environmental Factors’. DEW considers that both the Australian and NSW Governments are failing in their legislative responsibilities to protect these nationally listed frogs and their habitat. In particular it is concerning how this exploration licence managed to avoid
any environmental assessment under either State or Australian legislation given that a quick Google search of ‘Wild Cattle Creek NSW and frogs’ leads straight to the Government web sites for threatened frog species.

As required under the EPBC Act, DEW has written to the NSW State Government requesting that they notify the Australian Government of the need to trigger the EPBC for this mining development site and for a Review of Environmental Factors to be undertaken.

As yet, the EPBC has not been triggered on any NSW mining exploration licences. Wild Cattle Creek Dorrigo provides both the NSW and Australian Governments an opportunity to use the legislation they have enacted to protect threatened species and to regain a balance of appropriate land use in rural Australia currently dominated by the mining sector.

Giant Barred Frog

Tweed Heads Says NO To Coal Seam Gas, Sunday 16 October 2011

On Sunday, October 16 at 11:00am to  3:00pm concerned citizens will be at a rally at Jack Evans Boat Harbour,  Tweed Heads to make their voices heard on coal seam gas exploration and mining on the NSW North Coast.

A group photo at 12 Noon to be sent down to the National Tally for the National Day of Action.

Background information at http://lockthegate.org.au/

'Lock the Gate Alliance' Mining Forum, North Coast Regional Botanic Garden, Coffs Harbour at 2pm 31 July 2011

From A Clarence Valley Protest

The Coffs Coast Advocate, Forum to explain mining plan, 27 July 2011:

The Lock the Gate Alliance has convened a Mining the Coffs Coast forum at the North Coast Regional Botanic Garden in Coffs Harbour at 2pm.Alliance spokesman Michael McNamara said the session was the result of “unprecedented pressure to mine sensitive parts” of our region.
“With proposals to mine coal seam gas throughout the Clarence Valley, antimony in the headwaters of Coffs Harbour's drinking water supply, and gold throughout the forested hinterland, there has never been as much pressure on the mineral resources of the region,” Mr McNamara said.
“There are serious conflicts between mining and the internationally-significant biodiversity of the region and even more serious conflicts between toxic mining practices and the protection of clean water supplies.”
Mr McNamara said he and his wife, Julie, were so passionate about the issue they were undertaking a promotional speaking tour of NSW during August and September to promote National Day of Action on October 16, also the start of National Water Week.....

Will NSW Premier O'Farrell protect local government investment in NSW North Coast sustainable urban water infrastructure?

 

From A Clarence Valley Protest on 18 July 2011:

There are ninety kilometres (90 km) of underground pipelines linking the Nymboida River with the Shannon Creek Dam in the Clarence Valley, the Rushforth Road Reservoir at South Grafton and the Karangi Dam near Coffs Harbour.  The combined value of this infrastructure to Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour local government has been estimated at $200 million.

On 18 July 2011 The Coffs Coast Advocate reported Coffs Harbour City Cr. Mark Graham as stating:

…he had inspected a site on Wild Cattle Creek where Anchor Resources was exploring for antimony and there were already large plumes of antimony which could leach into Wild Cattle Creek and into the Nymboida River.

“There is a massive plume washing from the exploration site into the headwaters of our drinking water catchment,… There is a great need to protect the catchment of the regional water supply and our collective investment of about $200 million"

If these plumes are as reported, then the China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd through its Australian mining exploration arm, Anchor Resources Ltd, is placing local government investment, an urban water supply (which supports an estimated 3 million residents and visitors/tourists each quarter across Clarence Valley-Coffs Harbour regions) and, a high-value natural environment, at risk even before antimony mining and processing has begun.

According to a report commissioned by Clarence Valley Council in 2008; On average, domestic overnight visitors spent $118 per night, International overnight visitors spent $76 per night and domestic day trippers spent $80 per trip.

Will NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister for Resources and Energy Chris Hartcher ignore potential risks to the interests of Northern Rivers and Mid-North Coast communities in order to facilitate the interests of this international mining corporation?

GRACE: mapping Earth's water supplies 2002 to 2010

The GRACE Tellus program has been running for nine years now and is a collaboration of the US and German space agencies (NASA and DLR) whose key partners are the University of Texas Center for Space Research, Geoforschungszentrum Potsdam and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Its twin satellites, launched 17 March 2002, are making detailed measurements of Earth's gravity field over land and ice and over the oceans to investigate Earth's water reservoirs .

Earth’s gravity from space

WHAT IS 'EQUIVALENT WATER THICKNESS'?

The observed monthly changes in gravity are caused by monthly changes in mass. The mass changes can be thought of as concentrated in a very thin layer of water at the surface, whose thickness changes. In reality, much of the monthly change in gravity is indeed caused by changes in water storage in hydrologic reservoirs, by moving ocean, atmospheric and cryospheric masses, and by exchanges among these reservoirs. Their vertical extent is measured in centimeters, much smaller than the radius of the Earth or the horizontal scales of the changes, which are measured in kilometers. Some changes in gravity are caused by mass redistribution in the 'solid' Earth, such as that following a large earthquake, or that due to glacial isostatic adjustment; in those cases the concept of 'equivalent water thickness' does not apply, even though it is possible to compute the quantity...

As GRACE travels over areas of snow and ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica, changes in mass will be recorded. This information, along with measurements from the ground and other satellites will enable scientists to determine if these areas are growing or shrinking. Knowledge of this mass variation is key to understanding the effects of climate change and sea level rise.

WATER

LAND

So the Gillard Government's response to keeping the Murray-Darling Basin river systems alive is going to be a purely political one after all?

In The Age on 21 May 2011 it was reported in Key scientists cast doubt on Murray water return that:

LEADING scientists have walked away from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority because of serious concerns over changes being made to the volume of water to be returned to the river.
The Wentworth Group of scientists were advising the authority but have called on it to hold an independent review of the science that determined the volume of water to be returned to the river system after hearing that the proposed amount is now 2800 gigalitres.
The original draft plan found that 3856 gigalitres would be a minimum volume of water that would need to be acquired from the 11,500 gigalitres of irrigators' entitlements to maintain the river……
The group did not attend a two-day science forum on the project on the basis that it did not believe the science being discussed was independent. It was there that the executives revealed the authority was going to draft a plan that recommended returning just 2800 gigalitres.

One has to suspect this wide divergence, from those rather conservative science-based recommendations found in the original Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (produced by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority), has a political basis and one doesn’t have far to look for the former state politician and lobbyist a beleaguered Gillard Government placed in a position to recommend this short-sighted, piecemeal ‘fix’ once Tony Abbott et al had stirred up a high level of rural hysteria against the government of the day.

A fix, I might add, which will continue to leave NSW east coast rivers exposed to the possibility that continuing problems with Basin water security will see one or more of these coastal rivers dammed and diverted to meet the unrealistic expectations of Basin communities, agriculture and industry.

Excerpt from transcript of evidence given before the House Standing Committee on Regional Australia’s Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia on 25 March 2011 by Mr. Craig Knowles, Chair, Murray-Darling Basin Authority:

Mr Knowles—Thanks, Tony, and thank you to the members of the committee. I apologise right at the outset for not being able to be with you, but as I suspect you know I am on a fairly extensive move around the basin over the last few weeks and for the next couple of weeks. I am more than happy to catch up again in the future, if that is what you would like to do. I think I should put on the record right at the outset my position as I have explained to people as I go around the basin in relation to the guide and all of the problems that arose out of it.
Whatever failures individuals might think it had, my principal concern was that it showed very little respect to people and their efforts, both historically and indeed their desire to be involved in matters that are obviously very dear to them when it comes to water management. That is why I have said, frankly, that I do not have a high degree of ownership of it and I would like to think that, symbolically, my appointment offers the hope of a fresh start and an opportunity to reengage with communities and incorporate their wisdom and their desires, as best as they possibly can be, into the work that I will do with the authority over the next little while.
I talk about also the need to better acknowledge history of effort in things that relate to water savings, whether they are various state programs or some of the Commonwealth programs historically. The work that has been done by many of us over many years seemed to be absent from the guide and from the dialogue with communities. I think probably your committee, Tony, is hearing the same things that I hear as I get around the basin and that quite clearly is, ‘Not only do we want to be heard but we want some of the things we’ve done historically taken into account, because we believe that we have made a contribution to this concept of a healthy working basin. We believe if we are farmers that we respect and understand the need for good environmental health of our landscapes and our riverscapes and to be put in a position where we have to defend that knowledge and that history is what rankles a lot.’
Equally, I liken the basin guide to a bit of a blunt instrument. It certainly created the impression, whether it was intended or not, that whatever number you picked it was a big cut all happening on one day and that clearly is not the case. First of all, whatever the number is, the thing I am trying to pursue at the moment is how much have we already done and what is left to do and how much time do we have to do it, because it certainly will not all happen on one day and it certainly will not happen with things like water cuts or buybacks alone. There will be any number of Commonwealth and state programs in infrastructure and the activities of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state water holders and all those sorts of things which will make up a more complete set of initiatives over time to achieve the desired concept of a healthy working basin.
With that in mind, I have been talking to stakeholders about how we go about engaging them again, hoping to re-establish relationships where they have been fractured, and that includes also the Commonwealth and state agencies. I am talking about SEWPaC in particular, but of course the state agencies who play a vital role in all of this. In the end, in terms of implementation, they have had well in excess of 100-odd years of doing this and have enormous resources and skills that need to be incorporated.
But the most fundamental thing I talk to people about and I hear back in my journeys around the basin—and, I suspect, nothing different to what your committee has heard, Tony—is the need for much higher levels of localism in the implementation and, indeed, the engagement of the processes to make this work in a far more fine-grained sense in the recognition that what might work in one place almost certainly will not work in another because catchments are different, hydrologies and geologies are different and we have to respect all of that and have structures in place that both encourage localism as best we can and make sure that that fits into the overarching strategic directions.
There are many models for localism. At this stage I have refrained from putting my own views about what localism might look like, but I have certainly been throwing the imagery out there, encouraging individual groups and states and territories to consider what localism might look like to them. I do not think it will be a one-size-fits-all approach, but certainly if I could encourage your committee to consider anything. It is again how you go about devolving as best as is possible opportunity, responsibility, capability and resources, of course with all the necessary accountabilities, to ensure that we go about not having this as my plan or the authority’s plan or the Commonwealth’s plan or the states’ plan, but that people have a far greater degree of ownership in it; so the better alignment of all those Commonwealth and state programs imbued with anything I might do, the concept of a healthy working basin, and creating an opportunity for people to actually genuinely be involved.
You would have all seen, I am sure, as I have after many years away from water policy, the quite excellent efforts of local communities in managing both water for consumption and production and for environmental management. Very frequently local communities are filled with people with diametrically opposed interests but, because they all know each other, they tend to turn up at each other’s cricket matches on Saturdays and things like that, they can sort it out far better than the sort of totemic arguments that take place with the peak groups and lobby groups, as important as they are. But in the end this is about making sure things happen in local settings, recognising local constraints and local needs, and I would obviously seek to impress upon the committee the strong view that I have that this is an important feature of anything we might do going forward. I will stop there because I am conscious that there will be many questions. Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIR—Thanks, Craig. We are hearing similar messages and obviously if we had our ears open we would all be hearing similar messages. The localism issues, the local solutions, as we have moved through a number of the subcatchments, when you do engage with people they do come up with various scenarios.
Mr Knowles—Yes. Tony, it sort of reinforces that concept that there just cannot be a one-size-fits- all approach here. It has to be valley by valley, catchment by catchment and even subcatchment by subcatchment. It does not have to be lowest common denominator stuff. In fact, a lot of the organisations and groups, catchment management authorities and so on are heavily imbued with very competent people who are more than capable of incorporating good, quality information into sensible and appropriate tailor-made approaches to managing their system, both in terms of environmental imperatives and environmental health, as well as strong productive capacity.
Mr Knowles—Do you mind if I call you Sharman?
Dr STONE—Please do.
Mr Knowles—Sharman, I have been asked this. I have a number of components to my response, so I will try and be as brief as I can. First of all, importantly, I am comfortable that I have enough room and scope within the act for me to proceed in the way I wish to and I think my public position about not being able to separate or provide precedence to one of the triple bottom line objectives is well recorded. I just cannot conceivably understand how you could not have the balance of environmental, social and economic objectives, and that is the way I wish to work.
I say that for a couple of reasons. One is that the legal advice that has been tabled is highly consistent with anything else I have seen. I think I can assert reasonably that I have done a considerable amount if not a large amount of my own environmental legislating over the years, in forestry, catchment management, native vegetation and water, and I have had all of those various—Ramsar and JAMBA and CAMBA—agreements to wrestle with, and there is no difference with this Water Act.
Importantly, my point that I do make to people is that in many ways it is really not my problem. The parliament, and your work, and indeed the Senate inquiry that Senator Joyce has got up and running, is the place for this conversation, particularly the specific references of the Senate inquiry. Parliaments make the laws. Parliaments change the laws. If there is a view that it needs to be amended, I think the inquiry should work that out, but in the meantime I think somebody has got to get on with the job.
The reason I say that is that I too hear—as you have heard in the evidence you have received from some of those interest groups—the commentary about the act, but it does tend to be limited to the peak lobby groups, the professional lobbyists and indeed—with no disrespect; I was one once myself—the politicians out there on the ground. I rarely hear it raised with me unless those peak groups are with me on the road, and they have been over the last few weeks. Importantly, most people just say to me, ‘Would you please get on with this.’ They are less interested in the lawyers’ picnic that surrounds these arguments, they are more interested in somebody getting on with it, and I think the prospects of success are getting on with it and working on those objectives that I have outlined in as balanced a fashion as I possibly can.

Saffin hits back at Cansdell over coal seam gas jibe

In response to NSW Nationals MP for Clarence and member of the O’Farrell Government, Steve Cansdell, who appeared more intent on supporting mining interests and attempting to score political points against the ALP in yesterday’s The Northern Star article MP Cansdell stands by Metgasco (rather than listening to the concerns of his constituents) the Federal MP for Page issued this media release:

Saffin hits back at Cansdell on coal seam gas

Page MP Janelle Saffin has hit back at Clarence MP Steve Cansdell over his claims that local opposition to coal seam gas mining is largely inspired by the U.S documentary, ‘Gaslands’.

“I would point out to Steve that people in our community, particularly farmers and landholders – traditionally National Party supporters - first raised alarm bells over coal seam gas exploration well before ‘Gaslands’ came out.

“I also take exception to his suggestion that public figures’ support for a Coal seam gas moratorium is partly ‘based on a desire to be everyone’s friend’.

 “I can assure Steve that if I was concerned with being everyone’s friend, it would be a lot easier to sit back and keep quiet.

“As I did with the issue of aerial chemical spraying of forest plantations in Coaldale and other local areas, I have listened to the community, investigated the issue and then raised my concerns.

“Public figures have a duty to listen, to lead and to guide and where there are community concerns, particularly involving possible health and environmental risks, we are obliged to raise questions and seek assurances.

“It is for that reason, and not ‘a desire to be everyone’s friend’, that I have now thrown my support behind the call for a coal seam gas moratorium by Lismore, Kyogle and Ballina councils, Rous Water County Council and Northern Rivers Tourism.

“The moratorium may not happen, but I support the process and recognise the concerns of farmers and landholders and other local residents.

“I notice Steve says that any gas miner that breached laws and damaged aquifers needed to face heavy fines.  That is not the sort of process that inspires confidence in the community.  We need to make sure that our aquifers are not at risk in the first place.

“I have no problem with Metgasco and I welcome clean, safe, natural gas production in our region. 

“But the community needs to be assured that any mining in our region is clean and safe.” Ms Saffin said.

“At this stage, they are not assured.”

Ms Saffin plans to attend the public meeting on coal seam gas mining at the Grafton Ex-Services Club on Thursday evening, 19 May.

May 18, 2011

Media contact:  Lee Duncan 0448 158 150

Metgasco spinning in all directions on the subject of fracking coal seam gas on the NSW North Coast

Metgasco Ltd whose coal seam mining operating licences cover approximately 5,800 km² in the New South Wales section of the Clarence-Morton Basin is having a little trouble deciding which line to spin North Coast communities and their elected representatives………

Fracturing, or ‘fracing’ as it is referred to in the CSM industry, is a technique used to improve the flow of gas from the coal seam. It is not anticipated at this time that fracing will be required; however information on typical fracing impacts and management has been provided in case this should change in the future. The main impacts are associated with an increase in noise from the high pressure pumps during the fracing operation and the potential for cross contamination of beneficial use aquifers in the adjacent area.[Metgasco Ltd Environmental Assessment - RVPS & CGP: Executive Summary, August 2008]

Metgasco told the government its drilling would have little effect on aquifers since all wells are encased in cemented steel casing ''so there is no perceivable impact to ground water [as] a result of the fracture treatment'' [Metgasco spokesperson in The Sydney Morning Herald, Gas drilling goes ahead without any checks, 15 November 2010]

Metgasco takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously and is open and transparent in its activities [Metgasco Managing Director David Johnson, in The Sydney Morning Herald, letter to the editor, 24 November 2010]

The final investment decision on into production through stimulation techniques such as this project remains subject to satisfactory progress on fracture stimulation [Metgasco 2010 Annual Report]

Metgasco, had been given a licence to mine using the controversial hydraulic fracturing technique, also known as “fracking”….this method of extracting natural gas from coal seams involved pumping material that often including poisonous or carcinogenic materials into the rock to create fractures that allowed the gas to escape [Education officer for the Environmental Defenders Office NSW Northern Rivers Mark Byrne in The Daily Examiner, Poison warning as gas mining starts, 25 January 2011]

Locally Metgasco have given assurances that they don’t use any chemicals, and don’t do fracking [Steve Cansdell NSW MP for Clarence in The Northern Rivers Echo,Gas seams to be a cloudy issue, 24 February 2011]

the company had done one hydraulic fracture in the Northern Rivers region, at the Kingfisher site near Casino…. We’re happy to give a list of chemicals, the names aren’t generally recognisable but they’re all relatively common chemicals; every one of the chemicals will be in most people’s houses,….The Kingfisher frack was done at 1450m [Metgasco’s chief operating officer Mick O’Brien in The Northern Rivers Echo, Metgasco goes deep into CSG, 3 March 2011]

the company did not use hydraulic fracturing…..nor poisonous chemicals in the well-drilling process [Metgasco’s chief financial officer Glenda McLoughlin in The Northern Star, Metgasco spruiks its transparency, 16 March 2011]

we don’t use fracking in coal seam gas exploration [Metgasco operations manager Aidan Stewart in The Northern Rivers Echo, Gas meeting fails to fire, 17 March 2011]

Metgasco tell us they are not using this process [Janelle Saffin Federal MP for Page, media release, 16 May 2011]

Metgasco applies advanced drilling and production techniques to extract coal seam gas. We produce gas from certain seams by drilling a vertical well to between 300 to 700 metres from the surface. The well is then cased to prevent any water from upper acquifers leaking into the well. We then drill horizontally along the coal seam to a distance of up to 1,000 metres. The well is then lined with perforated steel casing. Water and gas are then pumped from the well and separated at the well head. This process of taking water out of the coal seams lowers the pressure in the well and allows gas to flow to the wellhead. [Metgasco website, 17 May 2011]

Federal Member for Page Janelle Saffin's statement concerning coal seam gas extraction on the NSW North Coast

JANELLE SAFFIN’S STATEMENT ON COAL SEAM GAS

Many local people have contacted me raising strong concerns about Coal Seam Gas (CSG) exploration and mining in our region and its potential damaging effect on the community, environment and agriculture.

It is clear from the recent community rallies and meetings that we need to know more about CSG exploration and its impact, particularly on our water. I support the calls for a moratorium on CSG exploration made by Lismore, Ballina and Kyogle councils, Rous Water County Council and Northern Rivers Tourism.

Like many in the community I was pleased with news of a possible natural gas source in the region as an alternative to coal powered electricity and I welcomed the interest of Metgasco in the Richmond Valley area. But I share the growing concerns about hydraulic fracturing or ‘fraccing’. While Metgasco tell us they are not using this process, I believe the community deserves much more information on this.

The mining companies have an obligation to tell us clearly the precise nature of their gas extraction methods; if they are using fraccing, what chemicals they use, what studies they have done and any known impacts on our water, land and us.

I have asked the Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, what powers he has in this area,  and it appears the Commonwealth’s role in regulating coal seam gas proposals is currently limited to matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act  1999 (EPBC Act). This refers to matters including protection of threatened species and ecological communities.

I have had talks with Independent MP Tony Windsor about his plans to introduce changes at the federal level to require region-wide water assessments before new mining proceeds.

I am also exploring whether the National Water Commission can help us to better protect our water resources. The Commission has warned that ‘the consequences of not managing the water risk and uncertainties associated with the economic benefits of CSG are substantial’.

Otherwise, mining and exploration, including the regulation of chemicals used in fraccing, is primarily regulated by the states.

Local farmers are particularly concerned about the state development approvals given to mining companies to explore and exploit mining resources, with little rights for the property owner. This has caught many by surprise as gas is spread over a large number of land holdings.

As I said to Ian Gaillard and Chris Allen from the Keerrong Gas Squad when they came to see me, this issue is gaining the momentum of the rare earth issue of a few decades back when thousands marched against a rare earth plant in Tuncester.

Mineral resources are owned by the Australian people, held in common by Government. Mining companies make very good profits using the resources that the people own and they have social obligations to the community. They need to demonstrate that social responsibility by their actions on this issue now.

Last year the Kenneally State Government announced it would introduce tough new rules for CSG exploration licences, including rigorous community consultation and tighter environment controls.

It is incumbent upon our local State MPs and the new State Government to follow this lead and take decisive action to inform and protect the community and give improved rights to farmers and landholders.

 

16 May, 2001

Media contact:  Lee Duncan 0448 158 150

Bourke sprung touting Clarence River water raid

A Clarence Valley Protest blog post on Monday 14 March 2011:

From the Hansard transcript of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia’s Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on regional Australia - Bourke hearing on Tuesday, 15 February 2011:

Cr. John Holmes, Bourke Shire Council

There are other ways to rectify this river system than to starve out your little towns, which is going to happen. There has been mention of diverting water from the Clarence. Not only would you get water to shore up some of these rivers; you would also get another 28 meg of power.

Wayne O’Malley, former mayor of Bourke Shire Council

When talking about some sort of solution for the future, we need a fundamentally different approach. We need the conservation of more water to deal with the boom and bust nature of our climate. I put on the table again the diversion of the Clarence needs to be reconsidered, or at least some other major water infrastructure project not only for this part of the state but also for Australia. As a nation we have to be more mindful of our ever-increasing population, and we have to do more planning to provide water for them for the future.

Bourke Council was not alone in putting the case of the water raiders from over the Great Divide. During the hearing held at Gunnedah, the Citizen’s Electoral Council took this line with the Committee - rather strangely asserting that NSW flooding was confined to Grafton in 2010 and more oddly admitting that Bradfield was "not very bright":

Mr Witten

There are things such as the Clarence River scheme, which was mooted some 70 or 80 years ago by some idiot called Bradfield—and of course you know he was not very bright or did not have much ability. Nevertheless, he dreamt up a massive scheme to develop this nation…… The use of the Clarence River scheme, we believe, would inject around a thousand gigalitres into the system, plus provide electricity for our dying power supply.

Mr Stringer

We desperately need some of the eastern fall water up and down the New South Wales coast—and the Clarence is but one of these rivers; you have the rivers heading down towards Macleay. That water could come across to the Namoi, no problem. It is all going to waste. How many floods have we had in Grafton in 2009? How many floods in 2010? They are all in Grafton, and all the water goes to the sea, wasted.

Who knew the water raiders had a chapter so close to home?

Regional Development Australia (Mid North Coast) is according to its own website; an Australian Government initiative that brings together all levels of government to enhance the growth and development of regional Australia. To find out more please download the PDF here. The Mid North Coast covers the local government areas of Greater Taree, Port Macquarie Hastings, Kempsey, Nambucca, Bellingen and Coffs Harbour……
With our high, regular rainfall on the Mid North Coast, conditions suit many irrigated agricultural crops currently grown in the Murray-Darling Basin, including fruit and nuts, (grapes, citrus, stone fruits, tomatoes), vegetables (peas, green beans, cabbages, cauliflowers, pumpkins, onions, asparagus and potatoes), cut flowers, cultivated turf and hay production. Opportunities also exist for relocation of dairy and beef cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, goats, deer, bees, ostriches, alpacas and horses…
Much work has already been done in initiatives to improve water quality and capacity here…..

Presumably RDA Mid North Coast is a not for profit community-based organisation auspiced by the Federal Government.

What is fascinating about this entity is that it made a submission to the House Standing Committee for Regional Australia INQUIRY INTO THE PROPOSED MURRAY‐DARLING BASIN PLAN endorsing intensive farming practices which also stated; We believe members of the Murray-Darling Basin communities who are unable to sustain high irrigation farming practices in their locality may benefit from relocating to the Mid North Coast and being able to continue their farming practices, and provide skills and an increased agricultural base in the Mid North Coast.

Small problem with this generous offer though – irrigation farming requires water and under the NSW Water Management Act 2000 there are existing extraction limits set for most water sources in coastal regions.

Additionally, one local government area covered by RDA Mid North Coast relies heavily on interbasin water transfer to survive and, this water comes from the Clarence River catchment.

It seems the more the Clarence Valley attempts to honour an historical link with Coffs Harbour, the more that area is likely to demand as a 'right'.

What part of the Not A Drop campaign to stop water raids on the Clarence River and its tributaries doesn't this merry band of board members understand?

Don't look for openess and transparency from the HoR Standing Committee on Regional Australia

After the selective (and still incomplete) publication of submissions ahead of rather hurried interim findings being presented to the Federal Water Minister when there are at least seven more days of evidence still to hear, the House Standing Committee on Regional Australia is beginning to look less like a body conducting a genuine inquiry and more like an example of parliamentary match fixing.

So on a day when the Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia only had a NSW state minister and various senior public servants on its official witness list for a public hearing held in Canberra, it was hardly surprising to find this statement appearing in the transcript not once but twice:

Evidence was then taken in private but later resumed in public—

Says it all really…………..

Gillard announces income assistance and Shorten tax assistance for 2011 flood victims

MEDIA RELEASE 10 January 2010:

Income recovery subsidy assistance to help those affected by the floods

The Gillard Labor Government today announced that it will provide additional support for employees, small businesses and farmers who have lost income as a direct result of the floods crisis.

Currently, over 150 Local Government Areas across Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia have been declared natural disaster zones as a result of flooding and severe weather conditions since November last year.

The Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy is a fortnightly payment of up to the maximum rate of existing Newstart Allowance for a period of 13 weeks. The subsidy will be available to those who have experienced a loss of income as a direct result of the flooding and are not currently receiving, or eligible for, any other income support payment.

The floodwaters and storms have hit people's livelihoods and made it difficult for people to continue their everyday lives - including going to work or operating their small businesses.

With such significant and widespread disruption to businesses and their employees, it is clearly in the national interest to provide support to those who have temporarily lost their income as a direct result of the flooding, as well as maximise the chance that local businesses will be able to retain their labour force for the eventual resumption of normal business.

The Commonwealth Government will support these people who have been unable to work through no fault of their own.

Employees, small businesses and farmers who reside or derive an income from disaster declared areas in these States will be eligible to claim the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy should they fulfil the criteria.

Centrelink will start processing claims for the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy immediately and first payments are expected to begin rolling out early next week.

This additional support is the latest in the range of assistance provided by the Australian Government for people affected by floods or severe storms in affected areas.

The Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy is in addition to the Australian Government's ongoing assistance to individuals, state and local Governments in the flood and severe weather affected areas across Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia.

For more information or to claim the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy, people should contact the Australian Government Emergency Information line on 180 22 66 to register their details.

MEDIA RELEASE 6 January 2011:

Tax Assistance for Flood Assistance

Flood victims in Queensland can get their tax payments deferred and refunds fast-tracked after the Government announced a series of measures to make things a little easier for people dealing with the devastation of the worst floods in recent memory.

Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, said today "The Queensland floods have been devastating for thousands of Queensland families and businesses. As well as the range of support and payments the Commonwealth Government is providing, the Australian Taxation Office is implementing a range of support strategies for those affected by floods."

"Queenslanders who have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods have bigger concerns than worrying about letters from the tax office, or getting their activity statements in on time."

"Anyone affected by the floods can simply contact the ATO and they will work with you to sort out your tax affairs, or give you enough time to deal with the effects of the floods before you have to worry about tax issues."

The ATO can provide the following services:

•Fast tracking refunds
•Providing people and businesses extra time to pay debts – without interest charges
•Giving extra time to meet activity statement, income tax and other lodgement obligations – without penalties
•Helping to reconstruct tax records where documents have been destroyed, and make reasonable estimates where necessary
•Assisting people if they are experiencing serious hardship.
"Businesses in particular are encouraged to take advantage of the offer of a free record reconstruction service, which can help put together replacement records for those lost in the floods," Mr Shorten said.

To request a free 'record reconstruction visit' register online at www.ato.gov.au/assistancevisit. Tick only the box for record reconstruction.

"The Gillard Government is determined to provide whatever assistance is necessary to people in need as a result of the Queensland floods crisis. This support by the ATO is one small but very real way we can make things just that little bit easier for people," Mr Shorten said.

The ATO has set up a dedicated emergency support info line – 1800 806 218 – or visit the website at http://www.ato.gov.au/.

HOWEVER the ATO is yet to confirm that this tax assistance also extends to victims of the 2011 floods in Northern New South Wales.

In case you thought Monsanto only produces genetically modified seed now

That wonderful biotech company Monsanto & Co, which helped bring forth the deadly Agent Orange before it decided to move on and attempt to commercially crowd out natural food crops world-wide, still produces herbicides/pesticides.

Lest you think that this is confined to the well-known Round Up - here is one new product announced in 2010:

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 2, 2010 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced it has received approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the sales of a new formulation of acetochlor for early post-emergence use in cotton and soybeans. The product will be marketed as MON 63410 Herbicide for the 2010 growing season.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this herbicide has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and is considered dangerous in community water supplies at an annual concentration ≥ 2.0 ppb.

Monsanto & Co. has been partly owned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation since at least 2008 and if The Guardian newspaper is to be believed the foundation increased its shareholdings in 2010.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Image from Infowars Ireland

Murray Darling Basin Plan brings the loons down from the hills

I can almost feel sorry for those small irrigation cockies who face the prospect of having the national water nipple plucked from their gaping mouths and really try to tolerate their irrational rants against the coming Murray Darling Basin Plan.
However, if ever I needed proof that conspiracy theories aren't just the province of the American far-right then this media release from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia provides ample proof.
Read and enjoy this particular absurdity:

Media Release 9th of November 2010
Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

Isherwood: Murray-Darling is another British imperial land-clearance; i.e. genocide

In an emergency address to the nation, Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood charged that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s Basin Plan to shut down Australia’s food bowl was part of the British Empire’s drive to slash the world’s population down to only two billion or fewer people from its present almost 7 billion, using a characteristic tool of British imperialism—“land clearances”, which the British historically deployed to genocidal effect against Ireland, Scotland and more recently sub-Saharan Africa.

Click here to view Craig’s national address, delivered in Brisbane on 6th November.

Craig exposed that the British Crown, through Prince Philip’s World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), established in 1961 to reduce global population under the cover of “saving Nature”, has directed every aspect of the process that has culminated in the MDBA Plan:

• The John Howard-led Coalition government passed the Water Act 2007 not for any ostensible domestic reason, but in slavish fealty to the diktats of the 1971 Ramsar International Convention on Wetlands, which was written by the WWF, in particular by longtime Ramsar chief, Dr Luc Hoffmann, who has been a director of Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund since 1963; to this day, the WWF is the major Partner Organisation of Ramsar.
• Prince Philip personally founded the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in 1963 as an arm of his WWF, and it is the ACF, together with the WWF-founded and bankrolled Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists [sic], that have spearheaded the years of lobbying and PR to shut down the basin’s agriculture, in accordance with the Prince’s expressed creed, “You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realise this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world. … Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.” [emphasis added]
• Given the intense opposition to shutting down Australia’s food bowl, Prince Philip has sent in Ian Sinclair, a longtime member of his Privy Council—the official ruling body of the British Empire—to chair the token consultation meetings, to ram through the WWF/Ramsar policy on “wetlands”.
• Craig detailed three historical examples of this British imperial policy of “land clearance” now being applied in the Murray-Darling Basin, in which entire peoples are simply forced off the land in pursuit of British imperial goals, foremost of which is “population control”:
• Ireland, especially in the 17th and 19th Centuries, which the British sought to “replant” with Englishmen of “superior breed”, by confiscating 80 per cent of arable land, extracting almost all the food—except potatoes—as “rent”, and killing millions of Irish in the process.
• The Scottish Highland land clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries, when hundreds of thousands of Gaelic-speaking Scots were forcibly-evicted from their homes in the Scottish Highlands by English and Scottish aristocrats—the British oligarchy—to either perish, to move to narrow strips of poor land along the coast, or to emigrate to North America, Australia and New Zealand, where to this day live far more descendents of Scottish Highlanders than in Scotland.
• The post-1961 genocide of sub-Saharan Africa by Prince Philip’s WWF, which financed the sequestering of vast swathes of the African continent as “nature preserves”, for which, in British East and south-central Africa, evictions on a scale far larger than the Highland Clearances were carried out. Entire tribes were forced from their traditional homes, to the point that already by the late 1960s, 20 per cent of the land of many African states which had supposedly been given “independence” by the Crown, had in fact passed under permanent supranational control as “wildlife parks” and “nature preserves”, and the process has greatly expanded since. The WWF was involved in the mass-murder of Africans using ex-British SAS mercenaries, agent-provocateur operations which killed thousands in South Africa, and providing staging points under the cover of nature preserves for attacks on nations, including the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Craig blasted the mentality of Australian victims, who protest against the oppressive and genocidal free trade and/or green policies that destroy their livelihoods, and which are destroying their very nation, but refuse to look at, and thus fight, the British Crown source of those policies, and its imperial system, based on a genocidal hatred of nation-states, and human beings.

A message for those who think water that runs into the sea is a waste

Recommended reading for persons who support the diversion of Australia's east coast rivers.

Today's edition of The Age carries a succinct letter to the editor that just about says it all.

Paradoxical view

THE view that water that runs to the sea is a waste (''The trouble with water'', The Age, 23/10) is the sort of informed theorising normally heard in a bar or taxi. Yet this flat-earth view is held by people managing our most valued resources: land and water. It illustrates the abiding paradox of Australian land use. To work our landscapes, it is not considered necessary to understand them. 

John Bond, Wandin North

Now media tart Howes enters the water security debate

Adding nothing to the Murray Darling Basin Plan debate except more politics and personal ambition, here comes P-A-U-L!

"Today, wide-ranging groups from union officials to irrigators have been meeting in Sydney to discuss the impacts of the draft basin plan.

Paul Howes from the National Workers Unions says the plan points to significant job losses - and that is the union's main concern.

"The Murray-Darling Basin itself is the heartland of AWU - it is where we are from," he said.

"It is where we still have a bulk of our members who work in the horticultural and agricultural industries and we will work with those other organisations in those areas who have concerns.

"We are not going to jump the gun. We understand that this is a proposal from an independent commission.

"We are not going to be alarmist and we are certainly not going to play into the hands of the Opposition on this, but equally we are going to make sure we live up to our responsibility which is to make sure AWU members' job security is protected and we are not going to be supporting or backing any proposal from the commission that would see even a single job of an AWU member lost."

Taking water for irrigation from the Murray-Darling Basin [poll]

The Essential Report for 25 October 2010 had this result on the subject of water extraction in the Murray-Darling Basin:

Click on image to enlarge

47% agreed that “strong action must be taken to restore the health of the Murray Darling river system even if it means some job losses or other economic impact “ while 31% agreed more with the statement “protecting the economic well being of local communities and jobs must be the first priority”.
A majority of Labor (52%) and Greens voters (74%) agreed that “strong action must be taken to restore the health of the Murray Darling river system even if it means some job losses or other economic impact” while Liberal/National voters were split (42%/42)%.

# The survey was conducted online from 19th October to 24th October 2010 and is based on 1,002 respondents.

The water madness continues.....

Reported in The Daily Examiner on October 23 2010:

THE grab for Clarence water continues in political circles with South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon calling for the Murray Darling Basin Authority to examine the viability of diverting the river.
Senator Xenophon was joined by Family First Legislative Council Member Robert Brokenshire in pushing for diversion as a solution to irrigation problems in the Murray Darling Basin.
With the massive social impacts to communities in the basin and the enormous cost of water buybacks estimated at $6 billion, plus an agricultural production loss of between $1 billion and $2 billion, Senator Xenophon said diversion was becoming a financially attractive proposition.
Going in to bat for farmers in the basin, he said diverting 4000 gigalitres annually into the river system would alleviate the need for irrigation cuts and secure environmental flows.
Mr Brokenshire said the Clarence River scheme could deliver the same amount of water to the Murray Darling system as utilised by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme, by building a 25km network of tunnels across the Great Dividing Range.
This week, Senator Xenophon asked independent New England MP Tony Windsor, the head of the inquiry into the social impact of irrigation allocation cuts in the Murray Darling, to look at alternate water sources for farmers in the basin.