1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Coal Seam Gas Mining

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cutter, Aug 17, 2011.

  1. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  2. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  3. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  4. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  5. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055
  6. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  7. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    GREG RAY: Lifting lid on gas prices

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2285930/greg-ray-lifting-lid-on-gas-prices/?cs=308

    "Another thing that doesn’t seem to have been an April Fool’s joke was a Credit Suisse report, circulated this week by anti-gas campaigners Lock the Gate, that quotes another gas driller, Santos, claiming its export facility investment was actually meant, from the start, to raise domestic prices.
    The report analyses the costs and benefits of Santos’s investment in the Gladstone liquefied coal seam gas project and doesn’t appear to come to a thrillingly positive conclusion. Indeed, it seems to suggest that, if it was all about proposed export earnings, then the numbers don’t look especially wonderful in retrospect."
  8. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  9. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055
    I heard an interesting comment the other day regarding Santos record in gas well drilling. They cite there long history of wells in South Australia, and the commenter (ABC radio interview) stated it is a very different thing to drill in the outflow zone of the aquifers to the charge zone which is the NSW North West.

    I must confess that I had not considered this point having only thought of the aquifers on a localised basis. But this extremely valid and true point has massive implications over the whole aquifer system. Contaminate the charge zone of the aquifer and and can ruin the water supplies over a vast area.

    Anybody with a management background will be well aware of the basic risk assessment matrix. Now tell me where Gas drilling through an aquifer, in particular the charge zone of an aquifer, would sit on that matrix. Given the likelihood of the adverse impact is largely unknown we should be putting it in the moderate range if not higher, and if the event occurs the outcome is likely to be catastrophic and unable to be re-mediated surely even a basic risk assessment would mean these developments should not go ahead until such time as the likelihood aspect of the assessment is reduced to the lowest level. Even then serious consideration has to be be given to the worse case outcome.

    diagram_risk_matrix_2.gif
  10. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055
    Again if our Governments actually had the Australian Citizen's interests at the forefront of their thinking they would institute a domestic reserve as the font of all Capitalist thought, the US, has done.

    Such a move would support Australian industry and guarantee supply to Australian consumers. There would be no urgent need to pursue CSG technology then.
    boyo likes this.
  11. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    In todays world with nuclear weapons having really large stockpiles is expensive. The USA does it because of the threat that the Middle east OPEC price rises of the 1970's had. The Pearl Harbour philosophy.
  12. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055

    Runner I never proposed a stockpile. That implies purchase by the Government. My proposal is purely reserving 30% of production for domestic use. IE. it cannot be exported. Call it a social contract if you like. We currently have a situation where many rural communities have a gas line running through their communities but rely on expensive bottled gas to be carted in by road (burning more fuel) because the producers of said gas have earmarked all said production for export.

    On a local basis this makes it much more expensive to produce in the rural areas, doesn't support the local communities where the production takes place and by extension does little for the Australian economy as a whole.

    Before anybody suggests the workers on site, there are very few jobs during the production stage, and not many local jobs (or even purchasing) during construction. The majority of mining companies (85%) in Australia are foreign owned so even the profits are not retained.

    A production reserve is the only way to ensure that mining production in Australia actually benefits our communities.
    boyo likes this.
  13. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    I missenterpreted what you ment.
  14. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Report clears CSG impact on water quality

    02 Jun 2014

    The NSW government has been given the green light to lift a ban on coal seam gas near Sydney after a report found coal seam gas and long-wall coalmining posed no threat to the quality of drinking water.
    In a boost for companies such as AGL and BHP Billiton, the report by the NSW chief scientist and engineer Mary O’Kane said: “Water quality issues can largely be managed through treatment works.”
    But the report said NSW could consider banning fracking in the Sydney water catchment because of concerns about some of the chemicals used.
    In November, NSW banned coal seam gas exploration and extraction in the Sydney water catchment’s most sensitive “special areas” pending Dr O’Kane’s report.
    That was a blow to several gas companies, including AGL, which has wells in the areas.
    AGL took a $343 million write-down last year on its coal seam gas wells at Camden, south of Sydney, after NSW imposed new restrictions on drilling.
    BHPs Dendrobium long-wall coalmine has also faced a campaign from environmentalists partly over the risk to drinking water from the nearby Avon Dam.
    However, the chief scientist’s report released over the weekend said there had been no measurable impact on drinking water quality from past coalmines which already run underneath 8 per cent of the “special areas” of the Sydney catchment and coal seam gas is likely to have “less impact than long wall coal mining”. The report said coalmine collapses sometimes cause subsidence under dams increasing levels of naturally occurring chemicals such as barium and chloride. But the effect is so diluted in the huge volumes of water that “from the perspective of drinking water quality, there is no reason, at this stage, for coal mining to be excluded from the catchment”.
    saline water risk downplayed


    The report downplayed the risk from saline water from coal seam gas that is usually stored at on-site containment ponds and treated.
    A study for the inquiry found that even if all the saline water from AGL’s project at Camden was dumped into the main treatment plant at Prospect Reservoir, the dilution rate would be one part to 10 to the power of five million by the time it came out of a tap.
    It said dumping of CSG saline water could cause ecological effects on flora and fauna, but “dilution and the absence of high levels of toxic substances would mean that it was safe from a health viewpoint if it were occasionally to occur during an unusually heavy rain event”.
    The report did qualify its opinion by saying that chemicals used in fracking, a technique used to encourage gas flow, should be carefully monitored.
    “If the risks to human health cannot be known with a very high degree of certainty, it may be advisable that, if CSG extraction activity is allowed, a ban on fracking within the catchment is instituted.”
    It said the known toxic agent, BTEX, was already banned for fracking in NSW and other chemicals used to maintain the flow of coal seam wells needed study.
    The report said more work was needed on whether the extraction of water for coal seam gas and mining could affect the total volume of water available in Sydney, but it would not affect the quality.
    In a separate report issued over the weekend Dr O’Kane said that state-wide coal seam gas companies should be forced to take out more insurance against environmental risks.

    The Australian Financial Review

    Sorry fo whole article but the paywall exists.
    Gnostic likes this.
  15. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055
    The use of Propaganda on both sides is disturbing. The Headline makes a proclamation that could only lead one to think that the risk of contamination of the aquifer/water sources has been ruled out or is of limited risk.

    However a reading of the article gives a different view in two key areas, including the one highlighted by @Runner.

    The statement " NSW chief scientist and engineer Mary O’Kane said: “Water quality issues can largely be managed through treatment works.”"

    So essentially the risks are as stated but will not be managed by controlling the activity which will most likely lead to contamination, but by treating the water supplies post contamination. Who is going to pay for that I wonder?

    Considering the relative scarcity and essential nature of water we undervalue it by a very large margin in this country (and world wide I'd say).
    Pfitzy and boyo like this.
  16. Pfitzy John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    7,140

    Fuck yes - the amount of water used in manufacturing is downright scary when its this limited. Once the hydro cycle starts to break down, everything is going to shit.

    I always found it ironic that the USA fought an oil resource war with tanks that use gallons per mile, but to fight a war over water - which will be the last of the resource wars, given its importance - is going to carry rabid nationalism to new and ridiculous heights.

    In about a hundred years we'll be subsistence farmers at best (hunter-gatherers maybe), unless something radical occurs in the global political arena.
    boyo likes this.
  17. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  18. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  19. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,055
    Interesting that the ABC radio yesterday was discussing the looming gas price increases on the east coast. Depending on the analyst we could be looking at price rises between 12% and 30% AND shortages. Simply because the multi- national (read foreign owned) will export nearly everything they produce because they can get big prices for it in SE Asia.

    Mentioned briefly in the interview one analyst stated that he is surprised that Australia will soon be the only major energy producing country anywhere in the world to NOT have a domestic reserve. What does our Federal resources minister say.... No of course. Our politicians can only be described in the most contemptuous of terms.

    FFS this is a resource OWNED by Australia's citizens, and mined and sold under licence by these companies. The activities of these companies is of minimal benefit to Australia and now we can't even make use of our own resources.
    boyo likes this.
  20. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Instead of building the NT gas pipeline, seeing as a lot of the Sydney Basin (and therefore its coal measures) lies offshore, I wonder how feasible it would be to drill for CSG there, thus avoiding potential damage to farmland and to aquifers?
    No doubt it is easier to drill for CSG onshore than offshore.

    Plan to pipe Territory gas to Sydney has political backing, but will the billion-dollar pipeline eventuate?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/northern-territory-gas-pipeline-lng-sydney-shortage/5703406

Share This Page