The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework: Coal Seam Gas

The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework: Coal Seam Gas

Submitter: / Michael Howley
Address: / 5 Asti Court, Avondale Heights 3034
Email: /
Confidentiality: / Happy to have submission published

Executive Summary

Any perceived benefits CSG exploration and mining are far outweighed by the risks to the environment, ongoing viability of farms, health and integrity of water supplies, and the health and wellbeing of local community members.

2. Continued development and use of fossil fuel reserves is:

a) unnecessary in the light of studies which show that our future energy needs can be met using renewable sources (www.beyondzeroemissions.org)

b) irresponsible and negligent given the dire prognosis for the environment if climate change is exacerbated by from increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Chapter 1. Towards Sustainability and Co-existence

The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework: Coal Seam Gas (the Draft Framework) includes the principle of: “Shared Commitments to multiple and sequential land use” (The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Coal Seam Gas 2012, p8

However:

“(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

(Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml),

This has been interpreted to mean:

•that a person’s right to private property not unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party and their right of quiet enjoyment and privacy, and

• that the use of private property not unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses required for public health, safety, peace or convenience.”

www.libertyvictoria.org [online] accessed 28 January 2013

“However there is currently no legal protection for such rights.” (www.libertyvictoria.org [online] accessed 28 January 2013)

Therefore the property rights of landowners are extinguishable under the current mining laws. In Australia, the right to the quiet enjoyment of one’s land can also be destroyed or damaged by mining infrastructure and works on neighbouring properties. The landowner has no right to prevent or even influence drilling and infrastructure works not only on his/her land but also on neighbouring property where such works may cause Nuisance to the landowner (Mineral rights ownership – what is it and why is it so unique in the USA? [online] www.ieneurope.com/pdf/Mineral.pdf Accessed 21 February 2013)

Chapter 3. Well Integrity and Compliance

The Draft Framework states:

“Leading practice in well integrity is a key strategy for managing impacts associated with CSG activities as it ensures strong governance and rigorous practices and standards in well development to prevent the uncontrolled release of fluids, solids and gases into the environment over the full life cycle of the well.” (The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Coal Seam Gas 2012, p5)

Unfortunately, the existence of “well documented industry standards, codes of practice, procedures, technical reports and industry experience that should be considered in the design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of CSG wells and associated facilities” (The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Coal Seam Gas 2012, p5) are not mandatory. Practice shows that conditional requirements are easy to circumvent and difficult to enforce.

There is evidence of astronomical failure rates of 60 percent failure of casings over a 30-year span is documented by a 2003 joint industry publication from Schlumberger, the world’s No. 1 fracking company: http://sustainabilitypr.net.au/2012/08/safe-coal-seam-gas-and-the-sky-is-pink/

The blowout and oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by a flawed well plan that did not include enough cement between the 7-inch production casing and the 9 7/8-inch protection casing. Although this is an instance of human error, such mistakes clearly cannot be ruled out:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6493

Chapter 4. Water management and monitoring

CSG mining presents several significant risks to availability and quality of both surface and underground water.

The National Water Commission has “….. previously reported that massive water use and the ‘dramatic de-pressurisation of coal seams’ could affect water availability, that waste water could pollute streams, and that fracking had the ‘potential to induce connection and cross-contamination between aquifers, with impacts on groundwater quality.’

A senior figure representing the industry confirmed to a public meeting that drilling could impact on aquifers to varying degrees".

http://www.echo.net.au/newsitem/csg-companies-under-growing-pressure

Ross Dunn, a spokesperson for the petroleum industry group APPEA, has said: “drilling will, to varying degrees, impact on adjoining aquifers- the extent of impact and whether the impact can be managed is the question”.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/e10c0cfa1c673157ca25790d0026514c/$FILE/Submission%200348.pdf page 9

Instances of reported water contamination include:

The Pilliga forest leak appears to have occurred both above and below ground.

This report says: ''There have been three subsequent, smaller leaks of water from coal seams within Eastern Star's Pilliga operations". There was also contamination from "Bohena Creek, near a coal seam gas well discharge pipe".

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/arsenic-and-lead-found-in-contaminated-water-leak-at-coal-seam-gas-drill-site-20120209-1rx7s.html

And http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/tests-reveal-contaminated-water-near-gas-site-20111208-1oldj.html#ixzz22pPX9BNy

Chapter 5. Hydraulic Fracturing

The scientific evidence is that hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is not safe. Aside from chemical toxicity there is also the impacts on seismic activity, even, as the Draft Framework notes, the “[p]otential for seismic events of sufficient magnitude to cause damage at the surface” (The Draft National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Coal Seam Gas 2012, p72). Many areas of Australia are subject to seismic activity and it would be stupid and unreasonable to add to the earthquake risk by allowing fracking in these areas.

Chapter 6. Chemical Use

Risks from chemicals are exacerbated when the consequences of using a cocktail of chemicals is unquantifiable and, in many cases, unknown because chemicals used are often “commercial in confidence”.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Hazard assessment protocols are largely aspirational because rigorous scientific analysis has not been done with, reportedly:

“Only two of the twenty-three most commonly used fracking chemicals [having] been assessed by the national regulator (NICNAS), and neither of these has been specifically assessed for use in fracking.”