SUPPORTERS and opponents of coal seam gas extraction in NSW are both claiming vindication after the release of a long awaited review into the practice by the State’s chief scientist overnight (Tuesday).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The risk to human health and the environment posed by coal seam gas can be managed but “unintended consequences” due to accidents, human error and natural disasters were inevitable, Professor Mary O’Kane said.
“It is inevitable that the CSG (coal seam gas) industry will have some unintended consequences, including as the result of accidents, human error and natural disasters,” she wrote.
“Industry, government and the community need to work together to plan adequately to mitigate such risks.”
Protest groups have used the publishing of the review to again call for an immediate halt to AGL’s coal seam gas operations in Gloucester.
“Simple logic suggests that Minister Roberts must suspend AGL’s approval to frack at Waukivory and take the necessary time to identify the gaps between AGL’s plans and the chief scientist’s recommendations,” Groundswell Gloucester chair Julie Lyford said.
“It makes no sense to allow AGL to proceed until all necessary improvements and upgraded regulations are in place.
“Surely issues of accountability will arise if Minister Roberts allows AGL to frack in the extremely risky Gloucester basin with lower standards of regulation and compliance than the chief scientist recommends.”
AGL said it was pleased with Professor O’Kane’s finding that “CSG extraction and related technologies are mature and Australia is well equipped to manage their application”.
“The chief scientist’s report confirms that with appropriate safeguards and controls, natural gas from coal seams can be safely extracted to supply homes and businesses across NSW,” AGL’s head of land and approvals for upstream gas Suzanne Westgate said.
“For the past 13 years our Camden Gas Project has been operating safely alongside communities, agriculture and other land uses and provides five per cent of the State’s gas demand.
“In Gloucester, we are working to further secure the State’s energy future and produce NSW gas for NSW customers.”
The chief scientist has made 16 recommendations in her review, including the need for comprehensive monitoring of CSG operations.
AGL said it supported the recommendations and added that it already had 45 water monitoring bores in the Gloucester basin.
“The report acknowledges that the CSG industry, like many industries, has technical challenges and risks, however those risks can be managed through best practice,” Ms Westgate said.
Groundswell Gloucester said AGL’s fracking plans fell far short of meeting the chief scientist’s requirements.
“The Chief Scientist calls for further research on mental and physical health impacts and for operators to collect effective, local baseline information on existing levels of airborne chemicals local climactic data before any project is considered,” Mrs Lyford said.
“Yet, in their fracking application, instead of collecting a local baseline for damaging CSG emissions such as volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides or carbon monoxide, AGL used desktop data from remote locations such as Muswellbrook and Singleton.
“For climactic data, AGL used figures from Windermere, near Bulga. AGL is also missing a Trigger Action Response Plan and input on health assessment from the Ministry of Health.”
In her report, Professor O’Kane said some geological areas of the State that were heavily faulted and complex were inappropriate for CSG.
Chris Sheed from the Manning Clean Water Action Group said Gloucester was a case in point.
“Top of the list in the report is the need for ‘careful designation of areas appropriate in geological and land-use terms for CSG extraction’,” he said.
“Opponents of CSG, including experts in the field, have consistently maintained that the complex, faulted geology of the Gloucester valley is unsuitable for a gas field.”
Mayor John Rosenbaum has used the review to call for better monitoring of the industry.
“We have to make sure the CSG industry is more accountable. That means appointing independent people to oversee and monitor the areas where this is happening,” he said.
Cr Rosenbaum said he had a fairly good inkling of what would be included in Professor O’Kane’s report after meeting with her several times during the research phase of her work.
The mayor said he believed council was also one of 266 organisations that had made a submission to the review.
“I didn’t expect her to say the industry shouldn’t go ahead and she hasn’t,” Cr Rosenbaum said.
“What I did want to see included was the risks involved, how they should be managed and for the review to point to where they are - especially in terms of the health issues and the areas where coal seam gas extraction can occur.”
Cr Rosenbaum said he was uncertain whether the review’s findings would alter council’s current stance on coal seam gas extraction in the Gloucester Shire.
Council recognises AGL’s consent for stage one of its Gloucester Gas Project issued by both the State and federal governments and wants to be assured there will be no adverse impacts on local waters and effective management of produced water.
“We could request that the project be put on hold until AGL tells us if and how it is going to implement any recommendations proposed by Professor O’Kane,” Cr Rosenbaum said.
Professor O’Kane has recommended the establishment of an oversight body for CSG and a data repository.
She said CSG could be managed through designation of appropriate extraction locations, improved engineering standards, better monitoring of operations, a well-trained workforce and application of new technologies.
“Having considered all the information from these sources and noting the rapid evolution of technological developments applicable to CSG from a wide range of disciplines, the review concluded that the technical challenges and risks posed by the CSG industry can in general be managed,” her report said.
The report found some CSG companies were viewed by some in the community as “untrustworthy” while landowners and community members in favour of CSG often felt that the debate has been “hijacked by environmental activists who are ‘using’ the community for their own ends”.
It also identified lack of consultation, inadequate compensation, property value decreases, and potential legacy issues as major issues for landowners.
"It is inevitable that the CSG industry will have some unintended consequences, including as the result of accidents, human error and natural disasters," she wrote.
"Industry, government and the community need to work together to plan adequately to mitigate such risks."
The review found that consultation and the provision of information to the community could be "significantly improved" but many people would remain opposed to the industry "under any conditions".
It recommended that the government "establish a world-class regime" for coal seam gas extraction and ensure good communication about the industry's activities.