coal seam gas
2 Aug 2011
Sydney Drillers Won't Rule Out Fracking
The coal seam gas industry tried to reassure local residents at a public forum in Leichhardt last night coal seam gas in Sydney is safe - but many left unconvinced, reports Kate Ausburn
Dart Energy have refused to rule out drilling for coal seam gas (CSG) in Sydney’s inner-west despite mounting community opposition and pressure from local councils.
Last night the company told hundreds of Sydney residents at a public forum held at Leichhardt Town Hall that it sees a "strong opportunity to provide gas to the domestic market," in NSW and that gas should form part of the State’s low carbon future.
Dart Energy currently holds seven CSG exploration licences in NSW including one that covers most of Sydney with a prospective drill site near Sydney Park in St Peters. Robbert de Weijer, CEO of Dart Energy, told the forum that while the St Peters site was no longer an immediate priority, exploratory drilling at the site could commence from mid-2012.
"The St Peters site is something we inherited," said de Weijer referring to Dart’s acquisition late last year of Apollo Gas, the company which had previously held the licence for exploratory CSG drilling in Sydney, "We are certainly looking at alternative sites," he said, noting "large industrial areas" were where the company would focus its interest.
The licence Dart holds to drill in St Peters is set to expire in October this year, however in a meeting with Leichhardt Mayor Rochelle Porteous, de Weijer confirmed that the company would seek to renew the licence.
"Dart Energy holds petroleum exploration licence 463 over the whole of Leichhardt council area, in fact, it’s the same licence that covers St Peters and most of the Sydney Basin," Porteous told the forum last night. She also noted that Leichhardt Council had recently voted unanimously for a moratorium on CSG in the area, "You’d think it’s a no-brainer: you don’t mine methane gas in densely populated urban areas nearby schools, parks, local streets, and people’s homes."
Dart says that gas should be seen as a "cleaner, transitional fuel" that can contribute to supplying the state’s increasing demand for energy.
"The total amount of gas potentially in our licence area in NSW is 19 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of prospective resource," said de Weijer. "Just to give you a little bit of feeling as to how much that is, 1Tcf is enough energy for a city of 1 million people for 20 years.
"That’s a huge amount of gas to provide to the people of NSW and QLD," he said.
The crowd heckled de Weijer with cries for investment in renewables when he posed the question: "Do we want to use coal, import gas, or make use of our resources available?"
The coal seam gas industry is currently supported by both major parties in NSW. The Department of Primary Industries website declares that, "NSW remains highly under-explored for petroleum compared to neighbouring States," and sets out "a five-year royalty holiday on production from petroleum discoveries" as one way of encouraging interest for exploration in the State.
National’s MLC Duncan Gay told NSW Parliament on Thursday 26 May: "The Government provides a number of attractive incentives to encourage exploration, development and utilisation of the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales to encourage the utilisation of gas drained from operating coalmines, et cetera."
However some efforts are being made to address community concerns. The NSW Energy and Resource Minister Chris Hartcher recently announced a moratorium on fracking until the end of the year, and new requirements for the industry to fulfil.
While de Weijer said that "there is a lot of legislation already in place" to regulate the CSG industry, Drew Hutton, President of Lock the Gate Alliance which represents over 100 local community, industry and environmental groups concerned about the CSG industry, told the forum that NSW could learn a lesson by looking to how the industry has been able to operate in Queensland.
He said that the area of Tara and nearby Chinchilla now looked like "a great spider’s web … intermingled with holding ponds for waste water, compressor stations, major pipelines, and access roads."
Hutton said that people need to "lock the gate" to coal seam gas companies: "In the last years of the fossil fuel industry we won’t let them lash out and take whole regions with them."
For his part, de Weijer was keen to point out differences that he said existed between the CSG industry in Queensland and Dart’s plans for NSW. BTEX chemicals would not be used, and the density of gas well heads would be less than in QLD with wells every "one, two or three kilometres", he said. De Weijer also said that the company would not use flares to burn off excess gas, nor would they use evaporation ponds for waste water, preferring instead to capture water in a tank and truck it off-site for process and potential reuse.
A key concern for many Sydney residents is the potential impact on underground water, and de Weijer said that wells would be "double cased" to prevent fugitive emissions and provide a "high level of assurance" against aquifer interference.
However Ross Dunn, CSG Communications Director for the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) said that aquifers would be impacted. CSG activity "will to varying degrees impact on adjoining aquifers. The extent of impact and whether the impact can be managed is the question," he said.
Dart was unable to rule out the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in their operations; de Weijer explained that there is no current need or intention to frack, but that the method could be used if "deemed acceptable by authorities and after seeking community consultation."
Dunn said that there was no need to "be carried away about chemicals
because a name sounds bad," and that many of the chemicals used in the
CSG process "regularly appeared in food, cosmetics, and swimming pools,"
noting that "dose makes toxicity, not the presence of a chemical."
Dr Helen Redmond from Doctors for the Environment wasn’t keen. She said, "there are health impacts associated with CSG that are both direct and indirect and they are multiple. Direct impacts stem from process and chemicals from fracking."
And fracking is not the only health concern linked to the CSG industry, according to Redmond, who observed furthermore that there is no formal requirement for the treatment of CSG waste water. "The water is not just salty, it has a lot of chemicals including Volatile Organic Compounds, BTEX, which is naturally occurring, heavy metals, and radioactive compounds."
Redmond also raised concerns about potential for air pollution: "Methane gas leakage is common, symptoms can include tiredness, headaches, dizziness, and in enclosed environments can cause asphyxiation."
"A full life cycle analysis has not been undertaken. We need more data to make an informed choice about our energy sources," said Redmond. "CSG will delay the vital transition to renewables."
NSW Greens MLC and mining spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham shared this concern saying that a transition to gas would come at the expense of renewables: "Just as the CSG deals are worth millions, so is the infrastructure, so that capital won’t go into investment in baseload solar thermal, or wind, or innovation."
Buckingham, who has just returned from a tour of mining affected communities in NSW, told the crowd that the CSG industry faced strong opposition both in the metropolitan and regional areas of NSW.
"There is a very broad constituency saying no to CSG," he said.
Buckingham will introduce a bill into NSW parliament calling for a 12 month moratorium on the CSG industry in NSW, a ban on mining in the Sydney metropolitan area, and an independent inquiry into the economic, social and environmental impacts.
Like this article? Register as a New Matilda user here. It’s free! We’ll send you a bi-weekly email keeping you up to date with new stories on the site. And you can like New Matilda on Facebook here.
Want more independent media? New Matilda stays online thanks to reader donations. To become a financial supporter, click here.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Posted Tuesday, 02 August 11 at 12:29PM
This proposal is no fracking good! Even Blind Freddie could see that.
What are they going to do: build drilling rigs in every street, demolish whole suburbs, force people to wear gas masks?
Ah, the wonders of capitalism and the worship of greed! Will they never cease?
www.dangerouscreation.com
Posted Tuesday, 02 August 11 at 3:56PM
In addition to pollution of aquifers with toxic chemicals there are some fundamental reasons why fracking for gas in Sydney should not be permitted.
According to the Climate Commission’s report “The Critical Decade”, launched by PM Julia Gillard a month or so ago, for a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree C temperature rise (EU and Australian policy) the World must emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 (1,000 Gt CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in about 2050. One can readily calculate that Australia’s “fair share” of this terminal carbon pollution budget is 2,750 Mt CO2.
In 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG in Mt CO2-e totaled 600 (Domestic) + 31 (LNG) + 784 (coal) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year. Accordingly , at thjs rate of GHG pollution Australia will have 2,750 t CO2 / 1,425 t CO2-e per year = 1.9 years i.e. Australia must get to zero GHG pollution by mid-2012 or roughly when pro-coal, pro-gas Labor introduces its fraudulent dishonest and ineffective Carbon Tax-ETS scheme (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction “, Bellaciao: http://social.bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20957 ).
However in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share”“, Bellaciao: http://social.bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20974 ).
Australia has already exceeded its “fair share” of atmospheric GHG pollution (this estimate ignoring its huge historical pollution over 2 centuries) and accordingly is now greedily and criminally stealing the atmospheric pollution allocation of other countries.
In addition it must be noted that the coal to gas transition advocated by the pro-fossil fuel Labor Government will mean a DOUBLING of power sector-derived GHG pollution because methane (CH4, 85% of natural gas) leaks at about 3.3% (about 7.9% if from fracking) and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe and with atmospheric aerosol impacts included (see “Lobbyocracy Australia Opts For Disastrous Coal To Gas Transition”, Countercurrents: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160411.htm ).
The science says quite clearly and bluntly that there should be no more coal and gas extraction but pro-coal , pro-gas, anti-science Gillard Labor says otherwise - ergo, vote 1 Green and put Labor last.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Posted Tuesday, 02 August 11 at 10:38PM
So much ignorance and hypocrisy.
“…a no-brainer: you don’t mine methane gas in densely populated urban areas…”
Sorry, I must have no brain. I wouldn’t mind a bit more explanation there, since methane is non-toxic in any active sense.
“…heckled de Weijer with cries for investment in renewables…”
I wonder how many of the hecklers drove home on a cold still night, turned on their lights and heaters, and got into their online share trading software to check the state of their own hard-earned they’ve furnished for said investment.
“a great spider’s web … intermingled with holding ponds for waste water, compressor stations, major pipelines, and access roads.”
And the quantitative impact of this has been…what?
“Dr Helen Redmond from Doctors for the Environment…said…”CSG will delay the vital transition to renewables””
Gee, that really strengthens the credibility of her statements on fracking toxicity. Not.
All in all, classic FUD production in overdrive.
Posted Wednesday, 03 August 11 at 1:49AM
Dr Polya - thanks -
Just a smaller economic note for the mainstream - we are seeing a lot of investment in fossil fuels with an assumed forty year lifespan and this cuts across the reality of climate science - risk, externality, future technology etc. these factors private companies think that they can avoid or willing to risk but why is the govt continuing to give generous rebates and other breaks for such projects. The Australian public is currently underwriting this poor strategic decision, if you want to argue for jobs etc fine but do we really need public subsidy for this when the (ill informed)demand for gas will drive it anyway.
As for the carbon tax the Greens should have been more focused on a moratorium of new fossil fuel industries and extraction even at the very least the removal of public subsidy. It would have been an easier sell, made more of a difference and any complaints by industry would shed light on how much they get. Better to swap that for a lower price then to allow the vast expansion of coal exports and gas that will eventuate in the next few years not to mention 50% of the ETS carbon scheme will be worked out by buying PNG forests for a coupla dollars a ton. The Greens photocopy EU policy and get lost in the Canberran haze. I hope they get a mandate to go further and grow some brains about detail because we need them to do more than put up proxy regulation, we need them to dig into the bureaucracy and start removing the public subsidy.
The mining tax illustrates how the govt wants investment to remain high while at the same time scrap off another layer of revenue at the end of the process. There are high taxes and royalties but these are offset by asset depreciation and other subsidy. As reported in the Murdoch press for some miners we have tax and royalties of about 58% after all the rebates (not to mention project specific handouts and infrastructure spend) this ends up at 17% if you are putting all your profits into reinvestment in Australia. So when Marius Kloppers tells you with a straight face that every dollar made in Australia is being reinvested in Australia he is not lying. A comparable country Canada has a rate somewhere in the mid twenties - Govt policy is driving a heavily expansionist resource sector strategy - even to the point where it is leading to the negative effects of inflationary pressure and high dollar effecting the rest of the economy. For the Greens to miss the opportunity to actively engage with these issues in a minority govt context that involve detail that would be hard for Abbott to turn into a soundbyte, I think they are stuffing up and when small and medium size businesses get there power bills and don’t make that switch in efficiency (Greens and Labor should get onto this immediately) a certain amount of them are going to give Abbott govt even though the guy is seriously under resourced in the intellect department.
We are seeing the largest expansion of fossil fuel extraction that Australia has ever seen and it is all going to be helped along with your money right at a time when it doesn’t make any sense - in another decade it will look like insanity.
Posted Wednesday, 03 August 11 at 2:45PM
This is a disturbing new trend. Now that coal becomes unattractive (after all it is dirty) and oil is running out, we must have a go at another finite resource. And there is shale gas everywhere, in Australia, and globally.
Fracking is fraught with all sorts of problems - both in the ground and on the ground - and high costs.
Dart talks of a ‘transitional’ fuel. How long is transitional?
What they probably mean by that is as long as there is shale gas in the ground and the returns fill the pockets.
Much much more time, money and effort needs to be invested in renewable and truly clean energy development to wean us off any of the finite inground resources.