The state of play in the coal seam and unconventional gas industry, according to the NSW Chief Scientist

Excerpts from the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer Mary O’Kane’s Final Report of the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW (September 2014):

Stakeholders have significant concerns

* Land is a key issue and one that strikes an emotional chord due to the strong affinity

Australians have with their land and its central role in the livelihood of rural communities.

There is a perceived lack of support for rights of landowners in terms of access to their

land. Lack of consultation, inadequate compensation, property value decreases, and

potential legacy issues are also cited as major issues by landowners as are the negative

impacts on amenity and a lack of adequate benefits for their neighbours and their

communities.

* Water is another key issue. Primary producers and others fear that CSG developments

will negatively impact prime agricultural land by depleting aquifers and contaminating

groundwater reserves. They argue that it could result in reduced food production.

* Other major concerns, especially from community groups, are short- and long-term

negative environmental impacts (and who will pay to remediate land); managing

produced water and associated by-products such as salts; possible impacts on human

and animal health; the distributed nature of the industry (giving rise to concerns including

malfunctioning unattended wells and heavy traffic on minor roads); and the cost to the

taxpayer of regulating the industry.

* Certain processes such as fracture stimulation (‘fracking’) and, to a lesser extent,

horizontal drilling, are of particular concern in the context of CSG although the use of

these techniques in other industries (underground water access in the case of fracture

stimulation and infrastructure provision in the case of horizontal drilling) is more

accepted.

* There is concern about lack of adequate and respectful consultation. Stakeholders cited

the failure of industry proponents and government agencies at all levels to engage,

provide information, communicate and address community concerns before proceeding

with development. On the issue of consultation and adequate information provision, the

Review notes that getting the balance right between overall benefit to society and impact

on individuals is a recurrent challenge for governments especially for issues as divisive

as CSG. While the Review found that consultation and information provision could be

significantly improved, it is clear that there are many in the community whose level of

concern is such that they are likely to remain opposed to CSG production in NSW under

any conditions.

* A large number of those who expressed their opposition to CSG to the Review also

made it clear that they were not opposed to CSG per se but were opposed to CSG

production in heavily populated areas and in areas of intensive agricultural production.

* Local councils, especially rural councils, are concerned that they are not receiving

adequate funds to cover rapid infrastructure upgrades (such as upgrades to local roads

and other amenities) necessary to deal with the CSG industry coming to a rural locality.

* The CSG industry is concerned that it is being adversely affected financially by what it

perceives to be an uncertain, often changing, and increasingly tough regulatory regime in

NSW.

* There is a perception in some parts of the community that CSG extraction is potentially

more damaging and dangerous than other extractive industries. This perception was

heightened following the release of the American movie Gasland in 2010. The Review

examined this issue in detail and concluded that while the CSG industry has several

aspects that need careful attention, as do almost all industries, it is not significantly more

likely to be more damaging or dangerous than other extractive industries.

* Many perceive the CSG industry to be a new industry that is being fast-tracked without

adequate attention to significant concerns. CSG production has been happening at

significant levels in North America (where coal seam gas is generally referred to as coal

bed methane) for two decades and in NSW for 13 years (at Camden by Sydney Gas,

later AGL). CSG from NSW sources currently accounts for 5% of the NSW gas supply. In

the 1990s the Government introduced measures such as a five-year royalty holiday

(followed by a five-year incremental sliding scale of royalties from 6% up to 10%) to

encourage the petroleum industry. This benefit was removed at the end of 2012. Some

of the companies that began exploring during this time were responsible for incidents

that led to increased concerns about the industry generally.

* Complex and opaque legislation and complex regulatory processes. This concern was

raised repeatedly by community, the CSG industry and government agencies. It can lead

to considerable administrative burden for those needing to comply, those assessing

compliance and those trying to understand the legislative and regulatory regime from the

community for the purpose of investigating concerns. This complexity can also lead to

gaps, overlaps, contradictions and wasted time in inefficient oversight. The Review

agrees that the legislation and regulatory processes need to be addressed.

* Inconsistent legislation. Many industry and community groups have alerted the Review to varying legislative and regulatory regimes for things similar to those relating to CSG

extraction. Legislation and regulation covering the construction of wells and production of

gas from coal seams as part of coal mining activities is less stringent than that for CSG

production. Similarly a 2km buffer zone approach has been introduced for CSG

extraction, but no such zone is in place for conventional gas or other types of

unconventional gas extraction.

Lack of trust

* CSG companies are viewed as untrustworthy by some members of the community in

both urban and rural areas. This lack of trust seems to stem particularly from some CSG

exploration companies: being perceived to be in violation of land access regulations;

being perceived by some to bully vulnerable landholders; not managing sub-contractors

appropriately; engaging in questionable environmental practices; and not reporting

accidents to the regulator quickly enough.

* Despite the limited extent of CSG development across NSW, Government is perceived

by some as favouring the CSG industry for allowing it to proceed in areas where there

has been considerable community opposition. Government is also perceived by some as

not managing regulatory compliance effectively and not supporting compliance activities

with sufficient penalties where CSG companies have infringed regulations.

* Government and industry information about CSG is perceived by some as lacking

independence and, accordingly, is not trusted.

* Among groups trying to understand CSG impacts there is concern about lack of access

to raw data, and especially baseline data associated with a locality, before CSG

exploration and production commences. While the Government open data access

provisions of recent years go some way to addressing this concern, the fact that most

companies are not releasing this data in raw form (and are not required by Government

to release it) leads to increased suspicion.

* There is considerable social tension and animosity between some neighbours in some

local communities where CSG operations are proceeding or proposed. On the one hand

there are those who are concerned about potential negative impacts of CSG extraction

and see those who want its introduction as ‘selling out’ to CSG companies. On the other

hand, landowners and community members who are in favour of CSG often feel that the

debate has been ‘hijacked’ by environmental activists who are ‘using’ the community for

their own ends……….

There are things we need to know more about

* While Australia has a long history of working in the subsurface, there is still considerable

uncertainty associated with the development of any new resource province. Currently

CSG activities tend to be considered mainly at a site-specific level. A better

understanding of the industry impacts at scale and over time is needed. To enable better

planning decisions and better management of cumulative impacts, it will be necessary

that industry collects and provides to Government significantly more data than at present

including data from a wider range of sources. With a diverse range of resources,

including coal, CSG and underground water, hosted in our sedimentary basins, there is a

need to understand better how the different resources and their development regimes

interact. More detailed knowledge of the structure and composition (especially regarding

hydrogeology) of the sedimentary basins is needed to enhance productivity for the CSG

industry through more precise resource characterisation and better subsurface and

surface environmental management.

* There is a need to understand better the nature of risk of pollution or other potential

short- or long-term environmental damage from CSG and related operations, and the

capacity and cost of mitigation and/or remediation and whether there are adequate

financial mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. This requires an investigation of

insurance and environmental risk coverage, security deposits, and the possibility of

establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund. Doing this is essential to ensure that

the costs and impacts from this industry are not a burden for the community.

* Legacy issues, including better understanding of inappropriately abandoned wells, need

attention.

Summer Daylight Savings: Good morning to five different Australian time zones in pictures

Australia  has a landmass of approximately 7.692 million square kilometres making it the world's sixth largest country by physical size.

Therefore it always has three different time zones, Western Standard Time (AWST), Central Standard Time (ACST) and Eastern Standard Time (AEST):

For visitors to this country this translates as Greenwich Mean Time plus 8, 9.5 and 10 hours respectively:

At 2am on Sunday 5 October 2014 annual summer daylight savings time comes into force and five different time zones exist until Sunday 5 April:

This means that this morning when it is 9am in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory:

it will be 6am in West Australia;

7.30am in the Northern Territory; 

8am in Queensland; and

8.30am in South Australia.

Desmond John Thomas Euen wants a sea port - Part Two

In the words of Darryl Kerrigan (in The Castle), 'tell 'em they're dreaming' - it's not going to happen

[Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson, 5 March 2012]

plans are a pie-in-the-sky idea

[NSW Nationals MP Clarence Chris Gulaptis, 27 May 2014]

Sixty-four year-old Queenslander Des Euen’s current goal in life is to turn the small working port at Yamba, on which local fishing and tourism industries also heavily rely, into a generic freight hub at the end of a phantom west-east rail line and, in the process destroy a significant Yaegl cultural and spiritual site, Dirrangun reef.

He has created a website Y.P.R. Australia and registered a second company in March this year Y.P.R. (AUST) PTY LTD.

Like his first company, this second incorporated entity has Mr. Euan as sole director and secretary. All its shares are owned by him through his first $1-1 share company AUSTRALIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD.

When talking up his plans Mr. Euen apparently alternates between generic freight hub and port to ship bulk petrochemicals/mineral ores, depending on his audience.

He appears to be more phantasist than self-educated businessman and, like all good teasers he always promises to reveal more later.

However, the holes in his grand plan have now drawn the mainstream media’s attention.

This was The Armidale Express on 1 October 2014:

The company YPR, owned by managing director Des Euen, wants council endorsements of the project from Armidale, Glen Innes, Inverell, Uralla and Guyra. 

But after an investigation The Armidale Express has revealed several organisations YPR has listed on its website as endorsing the project have not given approval. 

One such organisation is engineering consultants Aurecon. YPR’s website names managing director Andrew Keith as giving his support. 

But when The Express contacted Mr Keith, who is actually leader of mine services, he said while he spoke with Mr Euen neither he nor Aurecon had given anything resembling an endorsement. 

Another apparent endorser is David Liddiard, a prominent indigenous businessman who is a well-known advocate for indigenous issues. But again Mr Liddiard said he had talked with Mr Euen but hadn’t endorsed the project.

Mr Liddiard was very concerned when he discovered there were fears the project could damage a culturally significant reef at the mouth of the Clarence River. 

“If it’s going to interfere with indigenous sacred sites then I’m pretty against that,” he said. 

Clarence Valley Council, which includes Yamba, told The Express YPR’s website used to feature a logo which implied it supported the project. 

A spokesman from that Council said Mr Euen had not provided them with enough information to make an endorsement. 

That logo has since been taken down. Another apparent endorsment is from Moree Plains Shire Council. 

But while that council supported the project through committee resolution, but its executive projects officer John Carleton said this was different from an endorsement.

Rather surprisingly Mr. Euen appears somewhat camera shy, so this is the only image of him I have been able to find to date:

http://au.linkedin.com/pub/des-euen/7b/305/272

Perhaps Des Euen would like to explain how he expects a flood-prone Clarence River estuary port limited by a channel depth of 4.0m to the Goodwood Island common user berth, with a typical high tide maximum draft of only 5.0m (and a river mouth bar on which commercial shipping in the past was sometimes stuck until the next high tide) - will be able to accommodate his aspirations.

The NSW Baird Government's limited response to widespread community concerns regarding coal seam gas exploration and mining

With regard to coal seam/unconventional gas industry exploration licence issues, the NSW Baird Coalition Government has:

* put a hold on CSG exploration and extraction in the Sydney Water Catchment

Special Areas

* put a 6 month freeze on new petroleum exploration licence applications, which was extended by a further 12 months to September 2015

* undertaken to audit existing petroleum exploration licences

* designated the Santos Narrabri Gas Project and AGL’s Gloucester Gas Project as

Strategic Energy Projects

* signed an MOU with Santos to streamline the assessment process for the Narrabri

Gas Project

* renewed AGL’s Gloucester petroleum exploration licence and granted an activity

approval to fracture stimulate four wells. [NSW Chief Scientist, September 2014]

In addition it has suspended approval to drill on one exploration license PEL 13 on the NSW North Coast.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's truly bizarre advisers - Example One

Maurice is one of a range of voices that the Government takes very seriously

The Sydney Morning Herald 1 October 2014:

Tony Abbott's top business adviser says the Bureau of Meteorology is caught up in global warming politics and nothing short of an independent review will dispel suspicions of bias.

Maurice Newman, who chairs the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, is highly critical of the BoM's process of homogenising climate records.

Mr Newman questioned the way the bureau adjusts historical data, which he equates to manipulation of Australia's temperature records…..

Employing more than 1700 people and costing taxpayers $300 million a year to run, the bureau must "dispel suspicions of a warming bias", Mr Newman says.

"Trust in our national climate records is critical.

"Nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do."

So who is the Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council?

Three days late, but finally the media reports Clarence Valley's disillusionment with NSW Labor

On 30 September 2014 NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson announced state Labor’s ‘CSG Free’ Northern Rivers policy which would impose a permanent total ban on coal seam gas exploration and mining within the Northern Rivers – while at the same time he carefully excised the southern-most parts of the Northern Rivers from that ban.

It took another two days before the media deigned to notice that the Clarence Valley was not amused by Robertson’s bypassing of the July 2014 NSW Labor State Conference resolution which sought to also protect the Clarence Valley.

However, on 2 October 2014 journalist Kate Matthews finally gave this valley a voice in response in The Daily Examiner article Clarence left out in the coal:

A PLEDGE to ban coal seam gas mining in key seats across the North Coast has been criticised by an anti-CSG group concerned that the Clarence Valley remains at risk.

State Opposition leader John Robertson earlier this week announced CSG exploration and extraction would be banned permanently across the Northern Rivers if the ALP won the state election in March.

The policy does not extend to the Clarence Valley and Gasfield Free Northern Rivers (GFNR) spokeswoman Lynette Eggins said she couldn't understand why.

"Obviously we're all upset and disillusioned. To be left out is insidious," she said.

"Everyone knows the Clarence is part of the Northern Rivers.

"We should be looking at banning CSG across the whole of NSW, not just the Northern Rivers."

Ms Eggins said Clarence Valley residents were among the first to condemn the CSG mining process.

The 2012 Glenugie blockade, south of Grafton, was the first in a series of protests targeting the process.

"GFNR spokesman Dean Draper said the Northern Rivers community overwhelmingly opposed CSG mining and politicians needed to heed the message.

Greens mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham said the Opposition should include the rest of the state in its ban.

"While the Greens welcome the Labor announcement banning unconventional gas in specific North Coast council areas, it is disappointing that Labor are making their coal seam gas policy based on cynical electoral politics rather than basic principles of protecting land, water and communities everywhere in NSW," Mr Buckingham said. "Labor were the party that unleashed coal seam gas across a third of NSW by issuing 39 exploration licences when they were last in office." Earlier this week the NSW Coalition Government extended its ban on new CSG exploration licence applications for another year.

The Daily Examiner contacted the office of Mr Robertson for comment but did not receive a response.

A protest march is planned for November 1 in Lismore, calling on the government to cancel all gas licences covering the Northern Rivers.

The battle for citizens to retain the right to 'protest in order to protect' continues in Abbott's Australia

Industries and individual businesses with a history of severe environment degradation or pollution have never liked this the fact that COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 45DD exists:

Situations in which boycotts permitted……..

Dominant purpose of conduct relates to environmental protection or consumer protection

             (3)  A person does not contravene, and is not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in conduct if:

                     (a)  the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to environmental protection or consumer protection; and

                     (b)  engaging in the conduct is not industrial action.

Note 1:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is a body corporate:

(a)    it is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption; and

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Note 2:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is not a body corporate:

(a)    it is not a "person" and is therefore not subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) (consequently, this exemption does not cover the organisation as such); but

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Apparently enough submissions were received on the subject of secondary boycotts that the Harper Competition Policy Review September 2014 Draft Report included this recommendation and comment:

 

Draft Recommendation 32 — Secondary boycotts proceedings

Jurisdiction in respect of the prohibitions in sections 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45E and 45EA should be extended to the state and territory Supreme Courts.

A number of submissions raised the issue of the environmental and consumer exception to the secondary boycott prohibition. Consumer and environmental organisations argued for retention (or expansion) of the exception, while industry groups and others argued for its removal.

During consultations undertaken by the Panel, it appeared that the primary concern expressed by industry representatives is that environmental groups may damage a supplier in a market through a public campaign targeting the supplier that may be based on false or misleading information.

A question might arise whether a public campaign undertaken by an environmental or consumer  organisation against a trading business, advocating that customers ought not purchase products from the business, should be subject to the laws prohibiting false, misleading and deceptive conduct.

Presently, those laws only apply insofar as a person is engaged in trade or commerce.

However, expanding the laws concerning false, misleading or deceptive conduct to organisations  involved in public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses raises complex issues.

Many public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses concern health issues (e.g. tobacco, alcohol  and fast food) or social issues (e.g. gambling).

Consideration of the expansion of those laws in that context is beyond the Terms of Reference of the Review.

On the other hand, where an environmental or consumer group takes action that directly impedes the lawful commercial activity of others (as distinct from merely exercising free speech), a question arises whether that activity should be encompassed by the secondary boycott prohibition.

The Panel invites further comment on this issue.

However, the draft report recommendation possibly opens the door for extending consumer and environmental protection permitted boycott provisions to all states and territories if a matter concerning this issue reaches their Supreme Courts, because two (45D & 45DA) of the five prohibition sections mentioned are in effect subject to the aforementioned 45DD consumer protection and environmental protection exemptions.

The Harper Review’s final report is due before the end of March 2015.

Concerned citizens need to watch the Abbott Government response to that final report because many of its ideology warriors are not above muttering underneath their breath about ‘green terrorists’.