Hidden costs of the CSG rush
Coal seam gas mining (CSG) is developing rapidly in New South Wales and Queensland and is commencing in other states. The legal and administrative protections are inadequate to ensure that public health is not harmed and that environmental damage does not leave a legacy for generations.
The public health responsibilities of state and federal governments are to prevent harm by careful scientific assessment of possible hazards, their risks and methods of prevention. Therefore they deal particularly with clean air, clean water and uncontaminated food.
Industry and state governments have frequently reassured the public that there are no dangers from CSG to water supplies and to their health. But what is their evidence?
Overseas health concerns are emerging. A ban on shale gas mining in France and moratoriums in parts of the USA and South Africa are recent developments. The United States Environmental Protection Authority has begun a comprehensive study to investigate the potential adverse impacts that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health.
There are differences between shale gas mining – the predominant process overseas, particularly in the US – and coal seam gas mining in Australia, in the depth of drilling and the volume of water brought to the surface, but there are health impacts common to both: the potential for contamination of water for drinking and agricultural use and for air pollution around wells.
Hydraulic fracturing (fracking), often used in the mining process, involves the pressurised injection of a large volume of water, as well as chemical additives, into rock. The large volume of saline water returning to the surface contains injected contaminants and those leached from rocks and sediments. Nearby aquifers, ground water, soil and air may be contaminated.
Some chemicals used in mining or leached from underground into water have the potential to harm human health given sufficient dose and duration of exposure, and this potential harm includes increased risks of cancer and other serious long-term outcomes.
In a recent submission to the Senate Inquiry into Management of the Murray Darling Basin and the impact of CSG mining operations, Doctors for the Environment Australia has highlighted these concerns, recommending application of the precautionary principle, putting in place protections until sufficient research can be undertaken to adequately document health risks.
Food quality and security is essential for good health. Agriculture, already under threat from more severe and prolonged drought conditions associated with climate change, will be further compromised by the CSG industry. As the industry expands, the vast quantities of water diverted from agricultural use to CSG operations and the loss of productive cropland may well diminish Australia's ability to feed itself and the world.
Water and air pollution, water shortages, permanent degradation of productive agricultural land and loss of livelihood and landscape, all have mental health consequences for communities living in a gas field. The CSG process can divide previously close-knit rural communities, increasing tension and disharmony, impact on local economies, and threaten other industries such as tourism.
But climate change is also an important health issue, and the carbon footprint of CSG over coal is said to be lower. Does this override other considerations? Not at all. Proper monitoring of fugitive emissions is needed to enable accurate comparisons with coal. The International Energy Agency has warned that there is a danger that over reliance on CSG will delay the vital transition to renewable energy.
What needs to be done to protect human health?
In any new development, health should be an integral part of the assessment process.
State Departments of Health should have had a major role on the safety of a CSG development via a health risk assessment process. This is not currently happening in each state, and logically there should be one best practice national process.
Adequate information is needed to support risk assessment and health protection and this is largely lacking. Greater transparency of industry practices and improved monitoring would start to fill this gap.
There is a strong case for an independent, national Health Impact Assessment process, providing a uniform regulatory framework for the industry in all states and territories.
While these protections are being developed, the precautionary principle should be exercised to recognise potential harms and err on the side of caution with any new CSG development.
Human health relies on the maintenance of a healthy environment, clean drinking water, secure food production, the cohesion of community and family life. The new gold rush represented by coal seam mining should not be allowed to endanger these basic health needs of Australians.
Dr Marion Carey is a Senior Research Fellow at Monash University. Dr David Shearman is a medical doctor, E/Professor of Medicine and honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia – www.dea.org.au.
Comments on this article
structures plus water holding
structures plus water holding capacity, roads etc,,it leaves very little land for stock use and farming besides any question of land degredation. What is difference between carbon tax and land degredation? Thai Little Home
associated water
At the CSG forum at the Brisbane Marriott hotel , the industry presented that it was probable that they would produce ca 250,000 MGL per year from the walloon coal measures , when i asked if they had considered building a pipeline to Wivenhoe dam to supply Brisbane , they replied , ' yes we looked at that , but we are in the business of making money and its now full anyway ' . This was after Stirling Hinchliffe announced the Bligh policy of re injection , which the industry is determined not to do.
It will be fascinating to see what the 'CANDO ' party will do about Bill Heffernan and Barnaby Joyce's open opposition against CSG , a federal legislative power under the EPBC 1999 is all it will take to knobble the the GAS out of the industry , but is there likely to be a combined effort by Campbell Newman and MrAbbot ?
What choice do the LNP farmers of regional QLD have , pro labor CSG or pro LNP CSG ? They know they cant trust Bligh , but can they trust the LNP ? I live in Warren Truss's electorate , which is being targetted for CSG by Blue Energy , his silence on the CSG issue is deafening .
John Bennet..facts
John, gas is upto 60% better than coal. A modern baseload gas turbine will produce less than 350 kg CO2/MWh, not the 870kg CO2/ MWh which is the average for the whole network of the 1400 kg CO2/MWh for hazelwood.
It would help discussion if these numbers were borne in mind. Further more NO-ONE is proposing to use gas in a coal plant, not only because it is technically very difficult but the cost would be exhorbitant to do so. It is technically difficult because the fireball locates at a different place within the boiler and the radiant energy and conductive energy to the steam tubes is very different
So the benfit of gas absolutely clear no fantasmagorical assumptions needed.
John Bennet..facts
.
The shrine of vested interests
Oh and John - while on the topic of mis dos cojones - I should also disclose that our clients include renewable energy companies. It's a bit hard to get them on the phone after the sun goes down though ;-)
CSG - it's a gas gas gas (2 of 2)
I'm certain - in time - technological breakthroughs will occur and renewables will decouple our societies' dependence on fossil fuels. This will not happen until renewable energy proponents can solve the technical and political interference problems that currently constrain them. I am supremely confident this will happen but we're not there yet in my opinion.
In the meantime, people who want pragmatic solutions - and particularly those who take big risks to fund those solutions - will concentrate on things that have the most chance of being viable.
I don't consider this debate as one of "good guys" versus "bad guys". We all want cleaner energy - but we can only work with the tools we have at our disposal at any point in time.
CSG - it's a gas gas gas (1 of 2)
Thanks for the comments John.
Actually, I wasn't suggesting using coal seam gas in a 40% thermally efficient coal fired power station. That wouldn't fit my definition of "minimal modifications." I was actually envisaging CSG being using in existing gas fired power stations.
When the gas fired power stations need to be expanded to make up the generation shortfall when coal fired power stations (the bad guys) are forced out of business by government regulations, then I'm sure these expansions (where practical) will be more cost effective than constructing new power stations and distribution systems - irrespective of the technology. Such expansions would be logical as they would take advantage of the significant "sunk costs" that serve as a barrier to entry for any "green field" facility.
I agree that "two thirds as bad as black coal" or "half as bad as brown coal" is a valid description of burning CSG - although it carries as much negative connotation as perhaps my "clean burning" description carries a positive one. Perhaps I should have used the term "relatively clean burning", or "less emissions intensive".
Notwithstanding this - as a guy with an engineering background - I reckon any modification that achieves a 33% or 50% improvement in performance is a step in the right direction!
Hundreds of years' worth of clean baseload power?
Michael Brand at least has the cojones to indicate that his clients include fraccing corporations.
Unfortunately, his assertion that "hundreds of years worth of clean burning fuel" is what fraccing is about falls wide of the mark.
Rather than "clean burning", how about using the phrase "only two thirds as bad as black coal or half as bad as brown coal" or something similar? Clean it ain't. It has a relative advantage over coal, but an absolute disadvantage when considered for use for base load power, especially when "used in existing power stations with minimal modifications." This is a recommendation to use it in conventional coal fired boilers as a substitute fuel. The thermal efficiency of this is about 40% at best, Vs 60%+ for combined cycle gas turbines.
Tell us, Mr Band, how much CO2 is emitted when used this way. Clean it certainly is not.
So Peter Winch demands facts?
By stating that the comments are "lightweight", Peter Winch means that they are unsupported by facts and analysis. That's what the word means, in this context.
Why, then would this same person state without offering any factual basis whatever, "The lightweight comments about the chemicals in fraccing are the lingering and old ones about US events, such experiential lessons have been well absorbed by local companies."
Yes, Peter, the problems with fraccing are lingering and old and have been experienced overseas and locally. Yes, there is US experience to indicate that extremely unpleasant consequences are both real and are not all that rare. There is locakl and overseas evidence demonstarating that money is more important than principles when it comes to fraccing. What evidence do you have that any local company involved in hydraulic fracture of coal seams gives a hoot about learning from the US experience or avoiding repetition in Australia?
Hint: The NSW government has placed a moratorium on these practices solely because the Australian experiance has been unacceptable and well documented evidence of this has compelled them to act. If this was not so, the government would simply take the money and run, as the previous administration did. Let's hope that future decisions made regarding fraccing in NSW/Australia are based on evidence, not on optimistic and unsupported assertions such as Mr Winch has contributed here.
Some people didn't see CSG coming
An interesting spin - "The International Energy Agency has warned that there is a danger that over reliance on CSG will delay the vital transition to renewable energy."
Now that "fracking" has opened the tap on hundreds of years worth of clean burning fuel that is suitable for base load power and can be used in existing power stations with miniminal modifications I guess the transition to unreliable taxpayer supported renewable energy may no longer be so "vital". CSG power even stacks up favourably in the face of Ms Gillard's Carbon Dioxide Derived Money Transfer Scheme.
Oh - and as Kai mentioned - CSG extraction is typically a net water producer. One of our clients will shortly make 70 million litres per day of drinking quality water available for agriculture or other higher value purposes. They might even have to pay Mr Sun to evaporate it if nobody wants it.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for renewable energy - and I research it extensively for commercial purposes - but if you compare CSG against the CURRENT commercially available renewable technologies it's a no-brainer.
More Research needed or think before speaking
Many of the points raised in this article are shallowly based. The lightweight comments about the chemicals in fraccing are the lingering and old ones about US events, such experiential lessons have been well absorbed by local companies who no doubt will be seeking to avoid the pain of using anything remotely conceived as toxic in their work. Thank you USA.
This article is really about the head of the camel in the tent, using fraccing concerns as an entre to their real agenda - even more regulation, and behind that implicitly some new "national Health Commison of Review" type body. To hurry their process along they want the precautionary principle applied (lets be honest and just say what you mean 100% total banning of CSG), so that the CSG companies are frightened into supporting this new regulation to get the monkey (precautionary principle) off their back.
I think it would be fair to say that all health departments are concerned about public health and adding "for the Evironment (in caps of course for dramtic effect) doesn't make the claims raised valid.
water - CSG operations
there are no vast quantities of water diverted from agricultural use to CSG operations, if anything it is the other way around
Hidden Costs of CSG
Ability of gas producers to dictate terms of gas exploration and compensation to land owners needs amended legislation.With possible wells every eighty acres and associated structures plus water holding capacity, roads etc,,it leaves very little land for stock use and farming besides any question of land degredation. What is difference between carbon tax and land degredation? , Surely the principal is the same.