Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Tuesday 28 August 2018
Australia's water evaporation levels are running at record rates in 2018
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
22 August 2018:
Australia's evaporation
levels are running at record rates, especially across eastern states,
increasing the misery for drought-hit
farmers and raising bushfire risks as the mercury starts to climb.
While rainfall
deficiencies have drawn much attention, stronger-than-usual winds, abnormally
sunny days and low humidity have combined to push up evaporation levels, Bureau
of Meteorology data shows.
Across the nation,
evaporation last month averaged 145.21 millimetres, well above the 128.6 mm
typical for July, and the most on record for data going back to 1975, said Karl
Braganza, head of climate monitoring at the bureau.
The national tally beat
the previous record in 2002. On a regional level, the evaporation rate was the
highest on record for Victoria, and also smashed previous records for eastern
Australia as a whole.
July
pan evaporation for Eastern Australia
1975-2018
Wednesday 1 August 2018
About water and belonging
Clarence River, New South Wales Far North Coast. Image at visitnsw.com |
Virginia Marshall, February 2017, Overturning Aqua Nullius: securing Aboriginal water rights, excerpt:
Water
landscapes hold meaning and purpose under Aboriginal laws. After thousands of
years, the spiritual relationship of being part of Country remains integral,
and despite the significant political and social change heaved upon the lives
of Aboriginal communities the sacredness of water shapes the identity and
values of Aboriginal peoples.
The
creation story that opens this chapter recognises the relationship of Nyikina
peoples to the river system, the land and the liyan (spirit) in its peoples and
all things on Nyikina Country. Nyikina peoples have a name for the river,
mardoowarra (the Fitzroy River), and yimardoowarra means Nyikina peoples
‘belong’ to the lower part of the mardoowarra. Underground water, which travels
through neighbouring Aboriginal land, creates a joint responsibility.
Aboriginal
water management, as discussed in a Northern Territory study of water values
and interests in the Katherine Region, represents a complex web
of relationships:
Every aspect of water as a phenomena
and physical resource as well as the hydro morphological features it creates is
represented and expressed in the languages of local Aboriginal cultures: mist,
clouds, rain, hail, seasonal patterns of precipitation, floods and floodwater,
river flows, rivers, creeks, waterholes, billabongs, springs, soaks,
groundwater and aquifers, and the oceans (saltwater).
The
inherent relationships of Aboriginal peoples with land and water are regulated
by traditional knowledge. For generations Aboriginal peoples have developed
significant water knowledge for resource use. Aboriginal water knowledge,
traditional sharing practices, climate and seasonal weather knowledge underpin
water use knowledge. Aboriginal customary water use cannot be decoupled from
the relationship with the environment and water resources because Aboriginal
water concepts are central to community and kinship relationships. Unlike
Western legal concepts, water cannot be separated from the land because
Aboriginal creation stories have laid the foundations for Aboriginal water
values.
Labels:
indigenous culture,
Native Title,
water
Friday 6 July 2018
A CERTAIN RMS ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT: Open Letter to NSW Premier & Liberal MP for Willoughby, Gladys Berejiklian, as well as Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight & Nationals MP for Oxley, Melinda Pavey
Dear Premier Berejiklian and Minister Pavey,
Communities in the Clarence River estuary are concerned about an aspect of the NSW Government's current Pacific Highway construction planning.
Below are some of those concerns expressed to local newspaper The Daily Examiner with regard to a Roads and Maritime Services
(RMS) plan
to install a temporary asphalt batching plant at Woombah on the Clarence River
flood plain.
The build is
scheduled to start this month and the plant will operate for the next two and a
half years.
Please note
the attitude – local residents are not amused at the high-handed way in which
the NSW Government and RMS went about a cursory declaration of intent.
“What they’re not happy
about is an asphalt batching plant being built right near their houses, using
their only connecting road to the villages”
“We want the highway,
and we want the asphalt plant to be somewhere, but we want it to be away from
our communities where it won’t impact on our health and safety”
“The plant will add a
reported 500 truck moments and 100 car movements per day at peak, or one every
minute, and residents are concerned the additional traffic will create safety
problems, and a bottleneck at their intersection, which they already describe
as “tight” after it was temporarily re-routed. They also cite concerns over
possible health affects the dust may cause for nearby residents.”
We have a resident as
close as 450 metres from the plant who is suffering from lung cancer….Although
Pacific Complete have been made aware of this, since they were first told they
have failed to take action to acknowledge her.”
“We live within one
kilometre of the plant and we found out two weeks ago by letterbox drop”
“We found out last Wednesday
they didn’t tell anyone else. We’ve been around to other residents who are just
outside the area and they had no idea the plant was coming at all.”
I also draw your attention to the content of emails coming out of Iluka:
“Woombah
is surrounded by World Heritage National Park. Within the waterways affected by
run off from the proposed asphalt plant is the organic Solum Farm. Woombah
Coffee will also be affected. Not to mention the multiple organic gardners who sell
at the Yamba Markets and those who grow their own food.
The small community of
Woombah and its neighbour Iluka are places that welcome tourists for the
natural and clean beauty of the environment. An asphalt plant WILL threaten
that.
In addition, the Esk
River at Woombah is fed by many of the creeks and waterways in the bushland
where the asphalt plant is proposed. They will be adversely affected, which
will flow into the Esk which will flow into the Clarence which will affect the
fishing, oyster and prawn industries, on which many make their living. Not to
mention the tourist industry that survives because our area offers a clean
environment with unpolluted air and water.
This proposal is an
outrage. Teven said NO. Woombah says NO as well.”
“What about our kids on
school buses with no seatbelts and the increase in traffic particularly trucks”
“Iluka Naturally, turn
off at the asphalt plant, how ironic.”
For my own part I would add to these expressions of concern the fact that the 80ha, NPWS-managed Mororo Creek Nature Reserve is only est. 98 metres from the western end of the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt batching site.
This protected land parcel is one of the reserves which form part of a forested corridor linking Bundjalung National Park to the east and the protected areas of the Richmond Range to the west. It lies within the boundaries of the Yaegl Local Aboriginal Land Council area, the Clarence Valley Local Government Area and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
The Mororo Creek Reserve conserves areas of endangered swamp sclerophyll forest, coastal saltmarsh, subtropical coastal floodplain forest and swamp oak floodplain forest.
For my own part I would add to these expressions of concern the fact that the 80ha, NPWS-managed Mororo Creek Nature Reserve is only est. 98 metres from the western end of the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt batching site.
This protected land parcel is one of the reserves which form part of a forested corridor linking Bundjalung National Park to the east and the protected areas of the Richmond Range to the west. It lies within the boundaries of the Yaegl Local Aboriginal Land Council area, the Clarence Valley Local Government Area and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
The Mororo Creek Reserve conserves areas of endangered swamp sclerophyll forest, coastal saltmarsh, subtropical coastal floodplain forest and swamp oak floodplain forest.
Most importantly, Mororo Creek and several of its tributaries which run through this reserve empty into the Clarence River Estuary less than est. 2km from the proposed asphalt batching site.
Now I have no
idea why the NSW Government decided that a brief three-page information sheet
and invitation to comment published online at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/northern-nsw/woolgoolga-to-ballina/w2b-woombah-batch-plant-notification-2018-06.pdf
was to be the limit
of its community consultation effort or why a similar document was sent at
short notice to such a small number of Woombah residents.
I don’t
pretend to understand why the information sheet contained just one small image
of a section of a Pillar Valley temporary asphalt batching plant with no description
of typical batching plant infrastructure and no Woombah site layout plan at
all, much less one to scale.
There was not
a hint in the information sheet of the range of known issues which can arise during site
construction, plant operation and site rehabilitation.
Those
residents who were originally invited to comment were supplied with less than
rudimentary information on which to assess the desirability of a batching plant
on the designated site.
Given that
the proposed Woombah asphalt batching plant site is est. 2 to 2.5kms as the crow
flies from Clarence River estuary waters
which:
(1) are
covered by Yaegl Native Title;
(2) at certain points are covered by international treaties, including JAMBA, CAMBA,
ROKAMBA;
(3) contain
the second largest area of seagrass (83 ha), the largest area of mangroves (765
ha) and the third largest area of saltmarsh (290ha) in the northern rivers
region [Williams et al 2006 in Northern Rivers
Regional Biodiversity Management Plan 2010];
(4) are part
of the largest combined river-ocean fishery in NSW containing high fisheries value
marine species; and
(5) are a
vital component of regional tourism,
perhaps Premier
Berejiklian and Minister Pavey can answer two vital questions.
1. Is the Woombah asphalt batching plant
site above the 100 year flood level for the lower Clarence Valley flood plain?
Because if it
is not, then the NSW Government’s cavalier attitude to flood risk management
would potentially see toxic waste from asphalt batching flow into the Clarence
River estuary during a flood event – including solid waste and any organic
solvents/hydrocarbons captured in holding ponds for the life of the plant –
along with any nearby excavated plant/road construction materials. After all, extreme flood event
height predictions for that general area are 3.5 to 4.5 mAHD.
2. Why on earth was a decision made to
site the asphalt batching plant and access road at a point along the Pacific
Highway where it would cause the maximum damage to Iluka’s clean, green destination
image and vital tourism trade?
When the NSW Government
first mooted the Pacific Highway upgrade on the North Coast one of the
advantages it canvassed was an increase in tourism numbers due to better road
conditions.
In the 2015-16
financial year annual visitor
numbers to the Clarence Valley were approximately 986,000 persons and their
estimated spending was in the vicinity of $383.3 million. By
the end of the 2016 calendar year the tourism
visitor count for that year had reached over 1 million.
Most of these
visitors holidayed along the Clarence Coast and Iluka is a strong component of that
coastal tourism.
If the NSW Government seriously believes that leaving Woombah-Iluka with only one safe, unimpeded access point
for day, weekend and long-stay visitors, the Yamba to Iluka foot passenger
only ferry, will
not significantly affect tourism numbers over the course of two and a half
years, one has to wonder if it bothered to investigate the issue at all before signing off on the proposed plant site.
The effect of
siting the asphalt batching plant and access road on the designated site will
in all likelihood have the effect of diminishing not growing tourism traffic to
Iluka for a period beyond the years it actually takes to complete the Maclean
to Devil’s Pulpit section of the highway upgrade, as visitor perception of a holiday area can change when industrial level activity becomes visually prominent.
When it comes to commitment to the community consultation process, the NSW Government obviously hasn’t insisted that Roads and Maritime Services live up to its undertaking to engage
with communities to understand their needs and consider these when making
decisions.
In fact,
looking at satellite images of the site one cannot escape the suspicion that pre-construction
ground preparation had already commenced before any information was sent out to
selected Woombah residents.
Since news of the asphalt batching plan site reached the Lower Clarence and residents began to approach their local state member, there appears to have been a promise made to hold a "drop-in information session" at an unspecified date.
Having experienced NSW departmental drop-in information sessions, I am well aware that they are of limited value as purveyors of anything other that the meagre degree of information found in the aforementioned three page RMS document and, ineffectual as vehicles for genuine community consultation.
The people of Woombah and Iluka deserve better. They deserve a formal information night which canvasses all the issues, with representatives from RMS and the Pacific Highway project team prepared to address concerns and answer questions, as well as representatives of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight in attendance as observers.
Since news of the asphalt batching plan site reached the Lower Clarence and residents began to approach their local state member, there appears to have been a promise made to hold a "drop-in information session" at an unspecified date.
Having experienced NSW departmental drop-in information sessions, I am well aware that they are of limited value as purveyors of anything other that the meagre degree of information found in the aforementioned three page RMS document and, ineffectual as vehicles for genuine community consultation.
The people of Woombah and Iluka deserve better. They deserve a formal information night which canvasses all the issues, with representatives from RMS and the Pacific Highway project team prepared to address concerns and answer questions, as well as representatives of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight in attendance as observers.
I’m sure that
all residents and business owners in both Woombah and Iluka would appreciate
both Premier and Minster taking the time to consider these questions and ensure government genuinely consults with both village communities before considering proceeding with any Roads and Maritime Servces site proposal.
Sincerely,
Clarence Girl
Wednesday 20 June 2018
Over $4 billion of taxpayers money being spent on Snowy 2.0 and they get what?
The Turnbull Coalition Government in
Canberra and the Hodgman Liberal
Government in Tasmania have laboured to produce two new energy schemes - Snowy 2.0
and the "Battery
of the Nation".
These schemes
are being touted as ‘clean energy’ providing stability across the nation’s
power networks, supply into the future and cheaper consumer costs.
One small
problem……
Both are pumped hydro systems which will actually
use more power than they generate as their electricity consumption will be
high.
That is, the
total megawatts of electricity from other sources required to pump the water into
the hydroelectric plant will exceed the megawatts of electricity produced by
the plant.
Not all
the potential electricity produced by the plant is realised, because pumping
water uphill and, the conversions of the potential energy to kinetic energy to
electricity is less than 100% efficient across each stage of the entire process.
It seems efficiency loss would run somewhere between 20% to 40%.
Then there
are the environmental effects.
According to Union
of Concerned Scientists:
Hydropower projects can
reduce the flows in rivers downstream if the upstream flows are trapped behind
a reservoir and/or diverted into canals that take the water off stream to a
generation unit. Lowering the flows in a river can alter water temperatures and
degrade habitat for plants and animals. Less water in the river can also reduce
oxygen levels which damage water quality.
Water is typically
stored behind a dam and released through the turbines when power is needed.
This creates artificial flow patterns in the downstream river that may be very
different from the flow patterns a river would naturally experience. For example,
rivers fed mostly by snowmelt may experience much higher flows in the winter
and spring than the summer and fall. Hydropower operations may differ from
these natural flow patterns, which has implications for downstream riparian and
aquatic species. If water levels downstream of a hydropower project
fluctuate wildly because of generation operations, fish could be stranded in
suddenly shallow waters. If operations cause a more static flow schedule
throughout the year than what the river would normally experience, the movement
of sediment along a river section could be disrupted, reducing habitat for
aquatic species. Fewer seasonal flow events could also cause a riparian
corridor to thicken into a less dynamic channel as saplings that would usually
be seasonally thinned by high flows are able to mature.
Dams can also block the
migration of fish that swim upstream to reach spawning grounds.
In addition, large dams
created in heavily forested areas have been known to produce high levels of
methane into the water and air in the period following construction.
The Snowy
Mountains Scheme already contains one power station which includes capacity for
pumped hydro - Tumut 3 Power Station at
Talbingo Dam. It has a maximum 600 MW capacity and reportedly rarely uses its
pumped hydro due to at least 30% efficiency loss. For every 1MWh of
pumping the amount of generation that results is only 0.7 MWh of electricity. Operating
hours when storage full is 40 hours.
The proposed Snowy 2.0 hydro scheme will have a
maximum 2,000 MW capacity and will run an energy deficit as there will
be an est. 24% difference between the amount of energy required to pump the
water in and turn it into electricity and the amount of electricity the scheme actually
produces. Operating hours when storage full is expected to be up to 7.3 days.
Its pumping storage
is expected to have a life time of 40-60 years and for that the Australian taxpayer
is expected to watch at least $4.5$ billion leave general revenue and go towards
its construction.
It will the
eighth power plant constructed within the Snowy Mountain Scheme.
Snowy 2.0 will
be inserted 1km underground somewhere between Talbingo and Tantangra reservoirs.
Rivers which feed the Snowy Mountain Scheme are the Tumbarumba, Tooma, Tumut, Eucumbene,
Snowy, Jindabyne and Goodradigbee - their flows are expected to
decrease over time due to climate change and, it is predicted that median water runoff
into the scheme will be 13% lower within the next 50 years.
The bottom line is that the entire Snowy Mountains scheme (including 2.0) will very likely be water hungry in the lifetime of today's primary school kids and operating on ageing infrastructure. It is also likely that by that time the amount of electricity it can produce will have fallen.
It is a
continuing marvel that the Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments all only
seriously considered those energy schemes which are at
the higher end of the negative impact scale.
The 2006 Howard Government's Switkowski report into the feasibility of nuclear power generation is a case in point. Now in approaching a large-scale renewable energy project this current federal government again choses one with a long list of potential negatives.
The 2006 Howard Government's Switkowski report into the feasibility of nuclear power generation is a case in point. Now in approaching a large-scale renewable energy project this current federal government again choses one with a long list of potential negatives.
For the life
of me I cannot see why solar, wind and wave power frightens Liberal and
Nationals MPs and senators so much, when overseas experience shows just how
successfully these can be harnessed by national governments that believe in climate change and the need for mitigation measures.
Reference Material
Snowy 2.0 feasibility
study information and reports:
A short summary booklet
on the feasibility study is available, click
here.
To view the publicly
available chapters of the feasibility study, go
to the 2.0 Feasibility Study page here.
The Marsden Jacob
Associates report (an independent expert economic analysis of the changing
energy market) commissioned as part of the Snowy 2.0 feasibility study is
available, click
here.
Sunday 10 June 2018
The political endorsements of extinction by Turnbull, Berejiklian and Palaszczuk governments continue
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
5 June 2018:
Wild fish stocks in
Australian waters shrank by about a third in the decade to 2015, declining in
all regions except strictly protected marine zones, according to data collected
by scientists and public divers.
The research, based on
underwater reef monitoring at 533 sites around the nation and published in
the Aquatic Conservation journal, claims to be the first
large-scale independent survey of fisheries. It found declining numbers tracked
the drop in total reported catch for 213 Australian fisheries for the 1992-2014
period.
The biomass of larger
fish fell 36 per cent on fished reefs during 2005-15 and dropped 18 per cent in
marine park zones allowing limited fishing, the researchers said. There was a
small increase in targeted fish species in zones that barred fishing
altogether.
"Most of the
numbers are pretty shocking," said David Booth, a marine ecologist at the
University of Technology Sydney. “This paper really nails down the fact that
fishing or the removal of large fish is one of the causes” of their decline.
Over-fished stocks
include the eastern jackass morwong, eastern gemfish, greenlip abalone, school
shark, warehou and the grey nurse shark. The morwong catch, once as common as
flathead in the trawl fishery, dived about 95 per cent from the 1960s to 109
tonnes in the 2015-16 year to become basically a bycatch species……
…Peter Whish-Wilson, the
Greens ocean spokesman, said the new research was largely based on actual
underwater identification – including the Reef Life Survey using citizen
scientists. It suggests fishing stocks "are not as rosy as the industry or
government would like us all to think".
"This study also
shows that marine parks can be successful fisheries management tools but we
simply don’t have enough of them or enough protection within them to deliver
widespread benefits," he said.
"The new
Commonwealth Marine Reserves are woefully inadequate and won’t do anything to
stop the continuing decline in the health of our oceans."
Environmental Defender's Office NSW, July 2017:
Humane Society
International Australia (HSI), represented by EDO NSW, is seeking independent
review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) decision to
approve a lethal shark control program in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
HSI has lodged an appeal
in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which will require a full
reconsideration of the approval of the shark control program. The 10 year
lethal control program targets 26 shark species in the Marine Park, including
threatened and protected species. The appeal is based on the public interest in
protecting the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.....
As apex predators,
sharks play a vital role in maintaining the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
HSI is concerned about the ongoing impacts caused by the use of lethal
drumlines which are known to impact not only on shark species but also
dolphins, turtles and rays. HSI is calling for non-lethal alternatives for
bather protection.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
27 May 2018:
Forest covering an area
more than 50 times the size of the combined central business districts of
Sydney and Melbourne is set to be bulldozed near the Great Barrier Reef,
official data shows, triggering claims the Turnbull government is thwarting its
$500 million reef survival package.
Figures provided to
Fairfax Media by Queensland’s Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
show that 36,600 hectares of land in Great Barrier Reef water catchments has
been approved for tree clearing and is awaiting destruction.
The office of
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg did not say if his government was
comfortable with the extent of land clearing approved in Queensland, or if it
would use its powers to cancel permits.
The approvals were
granted by the Queensland government over the past five years. About 9000
hectares under those approvals has already been cleared.
Despite the dire
consequences of land clearing for the Great Barrier Reef – and billions of
dollars of public money spent over the years to tackle the problem – neither
Labor nor the government would commit to intervening to stop the mass
deforestation.
Environmental Defender's Office NSW, 25 May 2018:
Freedom of information
laws are an important mechanism for making government decisions transparent and
accountable. But the existence of such laws doesn’t mean access to information
is easy.
It took a three-year legal
process for the Humane Society International (HSI), represented by EDO NSW,
to access
documents about how the Australian Government came to accredit a NSW
biodiversity offsets policy for major projects.
The NSW policy in question
allowed significant biodiversity trade-offs (that is, permitting developers to
clear habitat in return for compensatory actions elsewhere) seemingly
inconsistent with national biodiversity offset standards. HSI wanted to know how
the national government could accredit a policy that didn’t meet its own
standards.
Despite Australia being
a signatory to important international environmental agreements and accepting
international obligations to protect biodiversity, in recent years it has been
proposed that the national government should delegate its environmental
assessment and approval powers to the states, creating a ‘one stop shop’ for
developers.
The original FOI request
in this case was submitted in early 2015, during a time when Federal and State
and Territory Governments were actively in consultation on handing over federal
approval powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This was to be done in the name of
efficiency, with the assurance that national standards would be upheld by the
states.
Over 60 documents
finally accessed by HSI show this was a false promise. The documents reveal
that federal bureaucrats in the environment department identified key areas of
the NSW policy that differed from federal standards.
Despite this, the policy
was accredited.
Accreditation meant that
the NSW policy could be used when approving developments with impacts on
nationally threatened species found in NSW, instead of applying the more
rigorous national offsets policy.
In the time it took to
argue for access to the documents, NSW developed a new biodiversity offsets
policy as part of broader legislative reforms for biodiversity and land
clearing. Unfortunately, the new NSW biodiversity offsets policy continues to
entrench many of the weaker standards. For example, mine site rehabilitation
decades in the future can count as an offset now; offset requirements may be
discounted if other socio-economic factors are considered; and supplementary
measures - such as research or paying cash - are an alternative to finding a
direct offset (that is, protecting the actual plant or animal that has been
impacted by a development).
While there have been
some tweaks to the new policy for nationally listed threatened species, there
is still a clear divergence in standards. The new policy, and the new NSW
biodiversity laws, are now awaiting accreditation by the Australian Government.
How our unique and
irreplaceable biodiversity is managed (and traded off) is clearly a matter of
public interest. And on the eve of a hearing at the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, the federal environment department agreed and released over 60
documents. While it was a heartening win for transparency and the value of FOI
laws, it was a depressing read when these documents revealed the political
endorsement of extinction.
Friday 16 February 2018
Failed coal seam gas mining company Linc Energy's 9 week trial underway in Queensland, Australia
As the story unfolded.........
ABC
News, 16
April 2016:
Oil and gas company Linc
Energy has been placed into administration in a bid to avoid penalties for
polluting the environment, a Queensland green group says.
It was announced late
Friday that administrators PPB Advisory had been called in to work with Linc's
management on options including a possible restructure.
In a statement to the
ASX, the company said after receiving legal and financial advice and
considering commercial prospects the board decided it was in the best interests
of the company to make the move.
It comes one month after
the company was committed to stand trial on five charges relating
to breaches in Queensland's environmental laws at its underground coal
gasification site.
The state's environment
department accused the company of wilfully causing serious harm at its trial
site near Chinchilla on the Darling Downs.
Drew Hutton from the
Lock the Gate Alliance said the company could face up to $56 million in fines
if found guilty, but the penalty might never be paid.
"It is going to be
difficult to get any money out of this company now that it is in
administration," he said.
Mr Hutton said going
into administration was a common legal manoeuvre to dodge fines and costly clean-ups......
Queensland Government, Dept. of Environment
and Heritage Protection,
29 January 2018:
Environmental Protection
Order directed to Linc
Prior to Linc entering
liquidation, DES issued Linc with an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) which
required it to retain critical infrastructure on-site, conduct a site audit and
undertake basic environmental monitoring to characterise the current status of
the site.
Linc’s liquidators
launched a legal challenge associated with this EPO in the Supreme Court
seeking orders that they were justified in not causing Linc to comply with the
EPO (or any future EPO). DES opposed this application.
In April 2017, the
Supreme Court directed that Linc’s liquidators are not justified in
causing Linc not to comply with the EPO. The Court accepted DES’ argument that
the relevant provisions of the EP Act prevail over the Commonwealth Corporations
Act and that Linc’s liquidators are executive officers of the company.
Subject to any appeal decision, this confirms DES’s ability to enforce
compliance with environmental obligations owed by resource companies who have
gone into administration or liquidation.
Linc’s liquidators have
since appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was heard in
September 2017 and the decision was reserved.
Environmental Protection
Order directed to a related person of Linc
DES used the ‘chain of
responsibility’ amendments to the EP Act to issue an EPO to a ‘related person’
of Linc. The EPO requires the recipient to take steps to decommission most of
the site’s dams and provide a bank guarantee of $5.5 million to secure
compliance with the order.
The recipient of the EPO
has appealed to the Planning and Environment Court and that litigation is
ongoing.
The recipient of the EPO
also applied for an order that the appeal be allowed and the EPO be set aside
on the basis that DES denied him procedural fairness. The Planning and
Environment Court dismissed that application. The recipient of the EPO appealed
that decision to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was heard in March 2017 and
judgment in favour of DES was delivered in August 2017. Subject to any further
appeal, this decision confirms that the recipient was not denied procedural
fairness and that DES’ interpretation of the EP Act was correct.
The earlier appeal in
relation to the EPO (regarding the substance of the document) is yet to be
heard by the Planning and Environment Court.
Investigation and
prosecution of Linc and former executives
Linc Energy Limited will
stand trial in the Brisbane District Court, commencing 29 January 2018, on five
counts of wilfully causing serious environmental harm, in contravention of the Environmental
Protection Act 1994.
All counts relate to
operations at the Linc Energy underground coal gasification site near
Chinchilla, from approximately 2007 to 2013, and allege that contaminants were
allowed to escape as a result of the operation.
In addition, the
Queensland Government has charged five former Linc Energy executives over the
operation of the UCG site in Chinchilla. A committal hearing in the Brisbane
Magistrates Court is expected to take place in mid-2018.
As these matters remain
before the courts, DES is unable to comment further on the legal proceedings.
Media releases
11 March 2016—Linc
Energy committed for trial
ABC
News, 30
January 2018:
A landmark case
described by a District Court judge as "unusual" will hear how gas
company Linc Energy allegedly contaminated strategic cropping land causing
serious environmental damage to parts of Queensland's Western Downs.
Linc Energy is charged
with five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing environmental harm between
2007 and 2013 at Chinchilla.
The charges relate to
alleged contamination at Linc Energy's Hopeland underground coal gasification
(UCG) plant.
The trial will enter its
second day today in the District Court in Brisbane, with crown prosecutor Ralph
Devlin QC expected to begin his opening address to the empanelled jury later
this morning.
Former Linc Energy
scientists, geologists, and engineers as well as several investigators from the
Queensland Environment Department are among those expected to give evidence.
Echo
NetDaily, 30
January 2018:
BRISBANE, AAP – A
failed energy company accused of knowingly and illegally polluting a
significant part of Queensland’s Darling Downs has faced trial in a landmark
criminal case in Brisbane.
Linc Energy is charged
with five counts of wilfully and unlawfully causing environmental harm between
2007 and 2013 after allegedly allowing toxic gas to leak from its operations.
The Brisbane District
Court trial has heard Linc’s four underground coal gasification (UCG) sites and
water were polluted to the point it was unfit for stock to consume but the
company kept operating.
Crown prosecutor Ralph
Devlin QC told the jury the company allowed hazardous contaminants to spread
even after scientists and workers warned about gases bubbling from the ground.
Linc operated four UCG
sites in Chinchilla where it burnt coal underground at very high temperatures
to create gas.
In his opening address
on Tuesday, Mr Devlin said scientists warned senior managers about the risk
environmental harm was being caused throughout the operation…..
‘Bond prioritised Linc’s commercial interests
over the requirements of operating its mining activity in an environmentally
safe manner,’ Mr Devlin said.
‘Linc did nothing to
stop, mitigate or rehabilitate the state of affairs that Linc itself had
caused.’
As part of the UCG
process, Linc injected air into the ground, which created and enlarged
fractures.
It tried to concrete
surface cracks and use wells to control pressure but they didn’t sufficiently
reduce risks or damage, the court heard.
‘Linc kept going, even
knowing the measures weren’t working,’ Mr Devlin said.
Scientists who visited
the site are due to give evidence during the nine-week trial, but no senior
managers from the company, which is in liquidation, will take the stand.
The trial continues.
ABC
News, 8
February 2018:
Workers at an
underground coal gasification plant on Queensland's Western Darling Downs were
told to drink milk and eat yoghurt to protect their stomachs from acid, a court
has heard.
The gas company
has pleaded not guilty to five counts of causing serious
environmental harmfrom its underground coal gasification operations between
2007 and 2013 in Chinchilla.
The corporation is not
defending itself as it is in liquidation so there is no-one in the dock or at
the bar table representing the defence.
A witness statement by
former gas operator Timothy Ford was read to the court, which he prepared in
2015 before his death.
The court was not told
how Mr Ford died.
He said the gas burnt his
eyes and nose and he would need to leave the plant after work to get fresh air
because it made him feel sick.
"We were told to
drink milk in the mornings and at the start of shift… we were also told to eat
yoghurt," he said.
"The purpose of
this was to line our guts so the acid wouldn't burn our guts.
"We were not
allowed to drink the tank water and were given bottled water."
Mr Ford said he always
felt lethargic, suffered infections and had shortness of breath.
"During my time at
the Linc site, would be the sickest I have been," he said.
"It is my belief
that workplace was causing my sickness.
"I strongly feel
that the Linc site was not being run properly due to failures of the wells and
gas releases.".....
Sunshine
Coast Daily,
9 February 2018:
A CONCRETE pumper says he
saw 'black tar' seeping up at a Linc Energy site and raised concerns with the
company.
Robert Arnold has told a
court he noticed some odd occurrences when he went to the Chinchilla site in
late 2007……
On Thursday, Mr Arnold
told jurors he noticed several phenomena at the site.
"We saw bubbles
coming up ... and a black tar substance. We commented back to Linc about
it."
"A few of us went
over and had a look ... basically it just looked like a heavy black oil ... it
was in the puddles as well, in the same area," Mr Arnold added.
"We couldn't place
our equipment close to the well because of these overhead pipes ... it was
dripping out of the joints."
Prosecutor Ralph Devlin
earlier claimed a "bubbling" event happened on the ground after
rainfall at the coal gasification site.
Mr Arnold told jurors
that after discussing the oozing substance, concrete trucks turned up and he
pumped the concrete into a well.
Mr Arnold said he felt
the concrete used that time was "very light" but the on-site
supervisor made that decision.
Prosecutors previously
told the court concerns were raised at various times with Linc leadership about
the quality of cement and geological data used at the site.
The Crown has also
claimed Linc used its underground wells in a way that made them fail, and
allowed contaminants to escape far way, to places Linc could not remove them.
BACKGROUND
Wikipedia, 5 February 2018:
Linc started its
Chinchilla Demonstration Facility in July 1999. First gas was produced in that
very same year. Initially Linc Energy used the underground coal gasification
technology worked out by Ergo Exergy Technologies, Inc, of Canada.
However, in
2006 the cooperation with Ergo Exergy was terminated and the cooperation
agreement for technology usage, consultation and engineering services was
signed with the Skochinsky Institute of Mining and
the Scientific-Technical Mining Association of Russia.[2]
In 2005, Linc signed a
memorandum with Syntroleum granting a licence to use the Syntroleum's
proprietary gas-to-liquid technology and started to build a
GTL pilot plant in November 2007 at the Chinchilla facility. The plant was
commissioned in August 2008. The first synthetic
crude was produced in October 2008.[3]
Labels:
Coal Seam Gas,
environment,
farming,
law,
mining,
pollution,
water
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)