The New South Wales State and Federal governments are widely seen as promoting the company Santos’ coal seam gas project in the Narrabri area.
The project, to some extent, has become caught up in the Federal Government’s attempt to have a gas led economic recovery from the current pandemic; although at the start of the year, before Covid-19 was a threat, the Federal and State Government’s signed an agreement in which NSW agreed to promote gas flow in return for other money. The NSW Premier:
told reporters the Narrabri gas project – to drill 900 coal seam gas wells, including within the Pilliga state forest – “may very well be” the source of extra gas and “will meet” the requirement, although she noted the project is still subject to final approval.
She said NSW had three options, including Narrabri, and import terminals at Newcastle and Port Kembla to import more gas.
“Scott Morrison strikes $2bn deal with NSW to boost gas supply.” The Guardian, 31 Jan 2020
Gas promotion is obviously a big thing, despite the methane emissions from leaks in pipes and from the ground around the drill sites. It may also not be sensible in terms of providing an economic boost. The Australia institute is reported as saying:
despite Australia being the world’s largest LNG exporter, less than 0.2 per cent of the workforce was employed in the gas industry, and the companies pay little if any tax.
The main purpose of recovery funding is to create jobs to tackle expected double digit unemployment in the wake of the Covid 19 crisis… Spending recovery funds on an capital intensive, jobs poor industry completely defeats the purpose.
“Coronavirus: Australia’s post-COVID economic recovery plan ‘doesn’t make sense’” Herald Sun 23 May 2020
We can see this particular gas promotion in a more general world context, of saving fossil fuel companies:
The vast majority of the stimulus money so far announced by governments around the world is set to prop up the fossil fuel economy, according to analyst company Bloomberg New Energy Finance. More than half a trillion dollars worldwide – $509bn (£395bn) – is to be poured into high-carbon industries, with no conditions to ensure they reduce their carbon output.
“Covid-19 relief for fossil fuel industries risks green recovery plans.” The Guardian 6 June 2020
So, to some extent, this support is about killing you and your families; your children and grandchildren to prevent the hyper wealthy from losing a small amount of their fortunes – or from learning to adapt.
Anyway, to return to Narrabri. The project is now likely to be approved, whatever the consequences for the locals and for the globe.
Professor Bryce Kelley from the University of New South Wales, stated.
If you approve the Narrabri Gas Project, you will be approving one of the top 100 [direct] emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia for the next 25 years, with a global impact that will actually extend to 35 years [because of the time methane remains in the Atmosphere],”
“Narrabri gas project to be one of Australia’s top greenhouse emitters”. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 July 2020
The NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment has recommended that the Narrabri gas project go ahead on three grounds
1. It will contribute to gas security in NSW
2. It is unlikely to affect water supplies, and
3. It will not affect people or the environment.
The Sydney Environment Institute says on point 1:
“The conditions of approval make no mention whatsoever of Santos’ commitment to the domestic gas market or recommend a condition to legally compel Santos to reserve gas domestically”
“What’s at Stake in Approving the Narrabri Gas Project?“
Point 2
“the assessment does not provide critical evidence that the NGP will not result in significant risk to high-quality groundwater resources in a region and ecosystem highly dependent on them… new research demonstrates how methane contamination of groundwater occurs due to changes in pressures during water and gas extraction.”
“What’s at Stake in Approving the Narrabri Gas Project?“
Point 3
“DPIE’s assessment report relies almost exclusively on a review by Professor Deanna Kemp of Santos’ own Social Impact Assessment and takes the view that Professor Kemp’s review constitutes support of the project…. [However] Professor Kemp has stated that her advice in no way constitutes recommending an approval of the project. “
“What’s at Stake in Approving the Narrabri Gas Project?“
Does not sound good to me….
Others are concerned about local effects
“In a joint statement, farmers and the anti-coal-seam gas group Lock the Gate described the development as “destructive and polluting” and called on the independent commission to reject it. It said the government had backed it despite revelations that landholders affected by the gas industry may not be able to get public liability insurance.”
It said the department’s report suggested the project may involve the destruction of about 1,000 hectares of koala habitat, that the expected contaminated salt waste that would be produced had nearly doubled and that questions about the impact on underground water remained unanswered.”
Narrabri farmer Stuart Murray said the government had not implemented 14 of 16 recommendations to limit the risk of coal seam gas made nearly six years ago by the then NSW chief scientist, now Independent Planning Commission chair, Mary O’Kane. “Our government has betrayed us,” Murray said.”
“Santos $3.6bn Narrabri gas project formally backed by NSW government”, The Guardian 12 June 2020
Stuart Murray is here referring to the Legislative Council report The implementation of the recommendations contained in the NSW Chief Scientist’s Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in New South Wales of 27 February 2020, which states:
The evidence before this inquiry now establishes clearly that of the 16 recommendations only recommendations 14 and 15 have been (arguably) fully implemented by the NSW Government. Recommendations 1-3, 7, 10 and 13 have, also arguably, been partially implemented – although this assessment takes the evidence for the NSW Government at its highest and does not necessarily reflect the assessment of the committee. When examining those recommendations which have been part implemented, it is clear that – at best – only a minority of what was recommended by the Chief Scientist has been carried out….
Recommendations 4-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 16 have not been implemented at all and, on the evidence before the committee – including the evidence from the NSW Government and its witnesses – there is no indication that the NSW Government has any intention of implementing them.
Report, The implementation of the recommendations p.49-50
Georgina Woods, of Lock the Gate, said consideration of the project had been highly politicised. “Political slogans about gas prices are contradicted by the department’s own assessment report, which admits that if gas prices fall by 30% the project’s economic profile would be a net negative,”
“Santos $3.6bn Narrabri gas project formally backed by NSW government”, The Guardian 12 June 2020
In summary
The arguments are:
- Fossil Fuel companies are good.
- Gas is good.
- Taxpayers should support gas.
- Gas supply is essential, but the proposed conditions of approval do not guarantee that supply.
- Gas creates very little employment, and little income for the country.
- Gas may be better than coal in greenhouse gas emissions when it is burning, but it still creates a problem.
- Recommendations to reduce the risk of gas fields, have not been implemented.
- Gas, particularly coal seam gas can pollute underground water, in an area which has no rivers and low rainfall.
- The process produces contaminated salt waste.
- The project threatens endangered ‘iconic’ animals.
- It is financially risky and may require taxpayer support.
Conclusion
My prime objection to the project is simple.
Santos asserts that it can stop the water from the coal seams below mixing with the water from the Artesian Basin above, and that it can stop water from the Artesian Basin sinking into the coal seams and becoming less available.
If Santos is correct, then I still think it is unlikely that anyone can guarantee that these barriers will survive for hundreds of years, or that the company will still be around and able to take responsibility for policing and repairing these barriers. Concrete decays, metals corrode.
Costs of repair will be left to taxpayers. Indeed the company has no real incentive to insure that they solve this problem forever, because they know they will not face a burden if the waters mix in a hundred years.
However, agriculture, food production and local towns have to think in terms of hundreds, maybe even thousands of years. If the Artesian waters are polluted or lost, then there is no other reliable water supply for Narrabri and its regions…. Farming will end. The town will end.
Furthermore the loss, or pollution, of the waters will likely be gradual, and only noticed when it is too late to do anything.
If we thought in ecological terms, and of the future of Australia, we would not engage in this kind of mining.
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment