Saffin answers a media critic as community disquiet over coal seam gas mining continues

Click on image to enlarge

 

The Daily Examiner opinion piece is wrong on so many levels because the journalist seemingly did not check source documents to see if his initial impressions/recall was correct.

 

Firstly, no-one has signed away the rights to mine the Clarence Valley for gas just yet.

All the petroleum mining applications/titles currently held on valley land are for exploration/prospecting.

Thus far, no-one has been granted a full coal seam gas mining and production licence and, although the O’Farrell Coalition Government is giving every indication that it will grant such licences as a matter of course, the door has not completely closed on case by case refusal of permission to proceed or even a reversal of CSG mining policy.

 

Secondly, the Southern Cross University preliminary fugitive emissions research was careful not to draw the firm conclusions stated by the journalist. Though based on what is known about established CSG production around the world, it is highly likely that a significant number of drilling sites would have marked levels of fugitive emissions.

 

As for the strange assertion that Ms. Saffin would be forced to toe the party line and vote in favour of the CSG industry if she was a state politician. This game of what if? flies in the face of the NSW Labor Opposition’s current policy position which is taking a more cautious approach to the issue.

 

Opposition Leader John Robertson is calling on the Government to suspend all current Coal Seam Gas exploration licenses to protect the State's precious water resources.
"Coal Seam Gas has the potential to damage our drinking water and compromise food security," said Mr Robertson.
"The Government must immediately suspend all Coal Seam Gas exploration licenses before irreparable damage is caused to ground water and aquifers.
"The NSW Opposition is also calling on the Government to cease issuing Coal Seam Gas extraction licenses and refuse any applications to expand existing operations.
"Until a water-tight regulatory framework is in place based on independent scientific research and conclusive evidence, we should not be allowing Coal Seam Gas mining to proceed unabated. [10 November 2011]

 

"Barry O'Farrell needs to heed the warning from scientists, experts and local communities and suspend all Coal Seam Gas exploration licences in NSW from today.
"The impacts of Coal Seam Gas mining on the environment are still not fully understood and the Government needs to hit the pause button on this industry before it's too late." [9 February 2012]

 

Despite the loose language used in The Daily Examiner opinion piece it is good to see a young journalist recognise the risk and take an anti-CSG mining stance, but one has to have some sympathy for Ms. Saffin’s response published in the same newspaper on 29 November 2012:
 

MP's response to DEX editorial
In Tuesday's editorial, reporter Lachlan Thompson attacked my credibility in speaking out over coal seam gas mining.
In response, I would like to provide members of the public with how I see it.
As a Federal Government backbencher it is not in my power to stop CSG mining with the stroke of a pen, particularly as mining approvals are state-based.
But that is not to say that I can't do anything.
All governments support mining and as elected leaders and community leaders it is incumbent upon us to lead where we can, to have the industry get it right.
Since early last year farmers and a broad cross-section of local residents have been coming to me to raise their concerns about CSG exploration and mining.
People come to me because they want me to speak out, to do what I can.
 I have always worked to protect our environment and our economy at the regional level.
I started my own research into this issue to see where the power lay to act on this.
I pushed the Federal Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke, to explore the nature and extent of his power vis-a -vis the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Federal Water Act.
But as I pointed out in my first statement on CSG in June 2011, mining and exploration, including the regulation of chemicals used in fracking, is primarily regulated by the states. This is not trying to blame but to inform about where responsibility lies. I kept talking to Minister Burke and Federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig about a co-ordinated approach with the states, and talked to independent MP Tony Windsor about bioregional water assessments.
In fact it was an adviser in the Prime Minister's office who was working on it, who said after reading my second statement, that he saw there was a way.
At the end of last year, Minister Burke announced the Independent Expert Scientific Committee to do bioregional assessments and oversee research along with a new National Partnership Agreement with the states that they take into account the Committee's advice over CSG and large coal mining projects.
I do not just speak out without taking action and following through.
I have been trying to build a case for having the mining for CSG requests considered carefully, taking into account water and the cumulative impacts.
I have done this by providing factual information, and by challenging the notion that if we don't have CSG mining we will be bankrupt and run out of gas.
This week in Parliament I spoke again on CSG and spelt out the National Water Commission's latest position on this and once again highlighted the Commission's point that: "the consequences of not managing the water risk and uncertainties associated with the economic benefits of CSG are substantial."
I do my research.
Lachlan claims to have the utmost respect for me.
I do believe him and thank him and a way of demonstrating this respect would be to do his research. My statements are on the public record and available on my website janellesaffin.com.au.
Janelle Saffin
Federal Member for Page

Julia Gillard's 'crime'

Writing in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, Mike Carlton put a proper light on recent events:

Yes, she (Julia Gillard) once had a dud boyfriend, until she dropped him like a hot brick. Show me a woman her age who hasn't. Even the sanctimonious but risibly ineffectual Julie Bishop might have to plead guilty to that heinous offence.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 1/12/2012

Support your local climate sceptic this Xmas?

Twenty bucks plus another eight in postage will get you this little self-published book.

A perfect gift for those rednecks perched on back branches of the family Chrissie tree.
Throw in something shiny and a bootlegged copy of Duelling Banjos and they won't bother you for the next twelve months.  
              

http://www.lighthouses.com.au/

NSW Attorney-General and two separate defamation actions

 

Same court, same courtroom - on one day the respondent & on another the applicant.

 

Click on image to enlarge

Does Tony Abbott have permission to use a comb-over?

 

Well Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s comb-over is now almost complete and well on the way to full bouffant.

 

However, the question remains – did he seek permission or is he in danger of breaching a 1977 patent?

 

Will there be a judicial inquiry into this hair-raising issue?

 

 Patent number: 4022227

 

Tweet of the Week

 

Latika Bourke ‏@latikambourke

 

What are the odds that at the same time on the same day Julie Bishop, Mike Smith, Ralph Blewitt and Steve Lewis are randomly on same st?

Member for Page rejects Metgasco's claim it has a social license

 

Commonwealth Hansard House of Representatives 26 November 2012:

 

Coal Seam Gas

 

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (22:26): I want to speak about three aspects of the coal seam gas debate. It is a vexed issue in my seat of Page. Overwhelmingly the community is saying no. State government legislation says yes, and one local company, Metgasco, says this gives them a social licence because they have the approval of the state government. But they do not have community acceptance and therefore they do not have the social licence.

The key issue is water. In 2010, the National Water Commission produced a position statement on coal seam gas called 'The coal seam gas and water challenge'. Under the heading 'Potential risks to sustainable water management,' it says:

Extracting large volumes of low-quality water will impact on connected surface and groundwater systems, some of which may already be fully or over allocated, including the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin.

Impacts on other water users and the environment may occur due to the dramatic depressurisation of the coal seam, including:

Changes in pressures of adjacent aquifers with consequential changes in water availability

Reductions in surface water flows in connected systems

Land subsidence over large areas, affecting surface water systems, ecosystems, irrigation and grazing lands.

The production of large volume of treated wastewater, if released to surface water systems, could alter natural flow patterns and have significant impacts on water quality, and river and wetland health. There is an associated risk that, if the water is overly treated, 'clean water' pollution of naturally turbid systems may occur.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fraccing, to increase gas output, has the potential to induce connection and cross-contamination between aquifers, with impacts on groundwater quality.

The reinjection of treated wastewater into other aquifers has the potential to change the beneficial use characteristics of those aquifers.

The position statement goes on to say:

The Commission is concerned that CSG development represents a substantial risk to sustainable water management given the combination of material uncertainty about water impacts, the significance of potential impacts, and the long time period over which they may emerge and continue to have effect. Therefore, an adaptive and precautionary management approach will be essential to allow for progressive improvement in the understanding of impacts, including cumulative effects, and to support timely implementation of 'make good' arrangements.

It goes on to detail 11 principles:

Specifically, the Commission proposes the following principles be applied by state and territory jurisdictions to managing the cumulative impacts of CSG water:

The interception of water by CSG extraction should be licensed to ensure it is integrated into water sharing processes from their inception.

In the conclusion, it says:

The consequences of not managing the water risks and uncertainties associated with the economic benefits of CSG are substantial.

In 2012 the commission updated that statement, and in essence it says that the framework outlined in 2010 is still the framework that applies today.

The second issue is that the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development has been established as a statutory committee—that was a national partnership agreement with states and territories—and in essence the independent expert scientific committee in certain areas will conduct bioregional assessments that look at particularly the impact on water with mining and coal seam gas mining, and until we know the result of that process my view is there should be no coal seam gas mining activity at all on the land. The third issue is fugitive emissions. People have been asking me whether fugitive emissions arising from coal seam gas are part of the whole carbon scheme, meaning the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Yes, they are, and the methods for coal seam gas are currently being reviewed by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency as part of the annual review of emissions estimation methods. (Time expired)