Coal and gas projects can't be rushed: here's why

by Matthew Currell

New environment minister Greg Hunt recently announced 50 large coal and coal seam gas developments to be pushed through Australia’s environmental approval process, including assessment under the new federal “water trigger” introduced in early 2013.

The proposed mines are predominantly in NSW and Queensland, already sites of conflict over coal exports and CSG. A draft report from the Productivity Commission highlights the central issue: proponents of coal and CSG projects want rapid and simple assessments, while communities and environmental groups want baseline studies, more information and cumulative assessment. All of which cost time and money.
Minister Hunt’s announcement follows strong indications that the federal government wishes to speed up environmental approvals.

The decision to start assessing these 47 projects en masse and so quickly after the election seems to match the pre-election rhetoric. Greg Hunt has also suggested support for adopting an upper time limit, such as nine months for the assessment process.
However, we need to treat these assessments with caution. For many communities that will be affected by the projects the biggest concern is groundwater.

Groundwater: a sensitive resource

Most of the proposed mines will affect groundwater; in many cases from aquifers already used by people and important ecosystems. It’s not realistic to expect proper groundwater assessments be conducted in a nine-month period, or under any other form of “fast-tracking”. Let’s have a look why.
Currently, groundwater supplies about 30% of Australia’s total water use. It is an important resource in a country where most easily accessible surface water is already allocated or used. It is expected to meet a significant proportion of future water demand and help to buffer against a changing climate.
Its worth to the economy is in billions of dollars every year. Many ecosystems also depend on groundwater; recent mapping shows that groundwater is vital for ecosystems right across Australia.
Groundwater can be a highly sensitive resource for a number of reasons. In particular, the time between an impact on groundwater pressure in one area, and a corresponding change in flux of groundwater somewhere else can be lengthy. Aquifers, particularly deep aquifers, can take many thousands of years to recharge and they can be quickly to contaminated or depressurised, but more difficult to fix.

Uncertainty demands caution

Our power as a scientific community to model impacts of major projects on groundwater is still limited, despite today’s sophisticated data collection and computer modelling techniques.
All models used by hydrogeologists are characterised by uncertainty. For example, we generally can’t determine exactly by how much or how quickly one aquifer may register changes in water pressures in response to de-watering somewhere else.

Rather, a range of possible outcomes, with a certain level of confidence could realistically be provided.
Similarly, it is not easy to predict exactly how quickly pollution will move through an aquifer, and whether or when it might ultimately reach a wetland or stream. To make these predictions, extensive field studies and baseline monitoring data need to be put into our models.
In the words of one of our most eminent hydrogeology professors, Dr Craig Simmons, it is time for hydrogeologists to “level” with decision-makers and communities. Groundwater models do not give us a crystal ball to predict future impacts, and they will produce highly uncertain results if time, budget or field data are too limited.
While proponents and governments may not like to hear it, a long period of data collection and hydrogeological investigation is needed to make confident predictions with groundwater models. Proper assessment of the impacts of large coal mining and coal seam gas developments on groundwater are going to need time and resources.
The new government, proponents of major projects and communities need to bear these issues in mind. Approvals may take a long time but to protect such a precious resource as groundwater, it is worth taking it.

Author

Matthew Currell  Lecturer in Hydrogeology, School of Environmental Engineering at RMIT University

Article first published at The Conversation and republished under creative commons

CSG: Open mineral exploration holes

By Ian Hansen

If the water is removed from the coal seams as planned over such a vast area of Queensland we are going to see uncontrollable volumes of gas leak from open mineral exploration test holes and we will also witness the depletion of many of our aquifers via these holes. This will be without a doubt the greatest environmental disaster ever on inland Queensland.

There are countless thousands of these holes left open and not sealed across the state.  There is no requirement for the mineral industry to record the location or any other information about these test holes to any authority so their whereabouts, depth and formations drilled through is mostly unknown making it impossible to predict the interconnection between the aquifers by any hydrologist.

Yet the government and the department still refuse to regulate or place controls on the mineral exploration industry.  They show no respect or care for our ground water systems whatsoever.

Photo: Ian Hansen & his water drilling rig

I am a water driller and my career of 35 years has taken me across a large percentage of Queensland and I come across these holes nearly everywhere I go. I wish to raise some concerns I have with the integrity and the accuracy of the Queensland Water Commission Surat Underground Water Impact Report.

The Queensland Water Commission has made bold predictions on the impact the dewatering of the Walloons will have on other aquifers without taking into consideration these open test holes.  It is humanly impossible to calculate the effect they will have as there are no records available of these holes that may date back 50 to 60 years when portable rotary drilling rigs first became readily available. Also there is still no legislation today that requires the sealing of these holes drilled by mineral exploration drillers. Everyday another hole is drilled through these aquatards and left open their permeability is increased by an unpredictable degree.

In 1994 I was at a drilling seminar in Dalby where a senior hydrologist with the department of natural resources and mines presented a paper on the Abandonment of Test Holes and Bores.  Some of the points he made to why this is a very important practice to properly seal these holes are.

·         The elimination of physical hazards.

·         Prevent contamination of ground water.

·         Conserve yield and hydrostatic head of aquifers.

·         Prevent poor quality water beds mixing with good quality water beds.

 He also stated “All the care in the world with the construction of a production bore can be negated if test holes drilled in the vicinity are left open and not securely sealed”.

This was presented in 1994 long before the advent of coal seam gas which requires the dewatering of the Walloons to release the gas and in turn creates a huge pressure differential between the aquifers.

At every drillers meeting or seminar I have attended over the last 35 years this practice of the mineral exploration industry leaving holes open and not sealed has been mentioned and complained about, but the department and the government continue to refuse to act on this situation. 

If I as a licensed water driller were to leave a hole open and in this condition I would be prosecuted and be fined a possible $50,000 by the department because of the risks I would create to our ground water supplies. Yet the same department says it is OK for mineral exploration drillers to leave test holes in this condition.  They apparently don’t create the same risks.

The department of natural resources and mines along with the state government have over the years placed many restrictions on ground water use and also the drilling of new water bores in an effort to save our so precious ground water reserves. The most recent being a moratorium on the drilling of new water bores in towns within the Murray Darling catchment because the water system has been over allocated.

This is a very hypocritical view of the department and the government because with the dewatering of the coal seams it is only going to take one of these exploration holes that are left open through a multiple aquifer system to deplete very large volumes of water from any one system.

I have had reports from employees on exploration rigs where they have been core sampling at 800 meters and when they were finished they just pack up and drive away and leave the holes open.

It will only take one hole left open through the Condamine Alluvium to the Walloon coal seams to delete more water from the Alluvium aquifers than all the stock and domestic bores within this system put together.

One hole through the Bungle and Mooga formations, the Gubberamunda or the Springbok formations would be capable of leaking enough water to have a serious impact on any one of these aquifers with the dewatering of the coal seams.

Any holes drilled into the Huttons will also cause serious losses from this formation as the Huttons are under a great deal of pressure. At 600 meters the vertical upward pressure of the Huttons would be in excess of 800p.s.i.





























Image sourced from Surat underground water impact report

I know first-hand how tight and dense these shale layers or aquatards are as I have drilled through them many times constructing water bores. But they are of no value as a confining layer when drilled full of holes and left open.

In the Surat Underground Water Impact Report it states
"The degree of interaction between the coal units which form part of the Walloon Coal Measures and the overlying and underlying aquifers is directly influenced by the vertical permeability and the thickness of the aquatard layers."

 So as the water table is lowered within the Wallooons to release the gas there will be an uncontrollable movement of water through these aquatards via the countless thousands of holes that have been drilled and left open by the exploration drillers.

Also as the gas pressure increases due to the lowering of the water table there will be uncontrollable volumes of gas able to escape to the atmosphere via these same holes.

Therefore this Surat Underground Water Impact report has little credibility. Not until every hole is located and sealed to a satisfactory standard could any hydrology report carry any credit at all.

UPDATE #1
Follow up article - Arrow through cockatoo’s tin hut
.

.

PRA: Water management for the CSG industry

The coal seam gas industry does use a lot of water, not only in the construction of gas fields and supporting infrastructure but most of all in the dewatering process where huge quantities water is pumped out of the aquifer where the coal seams are located so as to be able to extract the gas.   Even the conservative if not sanitised report from the Queensland Water Commission says that “Petroleum tenure holders are predicted to extract approximately 95,000 megalitres of water per year over the life of the industry and this extraction will impact on water levels.”  This impact will largely fall upon landowners depending on bores and springs to water livestock and under licence restrictions irrigate crops.

The image is one developed by QWC with lines drawn on the map where they forecast the long term cumulative impacts of the coal seam gas industry will be on underground water. But already in these early stages of CSG production there are reports of bores outside of the 'affected area' predicted by the QWC showing dropped water levels, diminishing recharge rates and capacity.

The Petroleum Act and until very recently Qld government policy describe this water extracted in CSG production as a waste product. The Qld government invited submissions to a draft Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy 2012. That submission process is over and the final policy has been released. 

Below are selected extracts from Property Rights Australia submission to the draft policy on CSG water management  

The draft policy correctly states that CSG water should not be treated as a waste product. Underground water is a very important resource and should be treated as such.

Landowners are limited by license in their water use but CSG companies are unfettered. The drawdown of aquifers in CSG areas is a primary concern of Property Rights Australia. Any substitute for clean, reliable underground water is a second grade option and should be recognised as such. Depletion of aquifers which service premium agricultural land sterilises that land and makes it unavailable as a reliable resource for an indispensable commodity, namely food, to future generations. 

“Make good” provisions are littered with uncertainty and unfairness.  The store set in the “make good” provisions by government and public officials is alarming. Government and public officials seem unconcerned at water drawdown and depressurisation as a result of this confidence when these provisions are untested.  Too much weight is being given to the inferior action of “make good” provisions when the EPA will only stop local extraction for catastrophic effects if companies are unable to “make good” or provide substitution. This is not good enough!  “Make good” is a poor substitute for a reliable clean underground water source. 

Well drafted, detailed, step by step “make good” agreements seem to be essential in contracts between landowners and CSG companies operating on landowner’s lands. It remains to be tested how difficult it will be to have the implications implemented and what steps are necessary should a dispute arise.

It is a concern that landowner’s bores experiencing impacts of who do not have a company operating on their property may have to jump through extra hoops to access “make good”. 

It is of concern that Government and public officials have not recognised that water quality is just as important as quantity of water available for landowners. Both crops and livestock can experience reduced performance from lower quality water and if this has been caused by CSG activity it must be recognised as an equally severe impact. 

A major failing of the draft policy is that it does not recognise any other contaminant present in CSG water other than salt. The policy does recognise that the quality of CSG water varies greatly. The amount and composition of remaining chemical elements and compounds needs to be known on a consignment by consignment basis.  Once treated the CSG water should be put to a suitable beneficial use. However it needs to be recognised that brine is not the only contaminant present in CSG water. Farmlands, farm aquifers and stock watering facilities should not be put at risk of contamination by any chemical elements and compounds that can cause impairment including substances such as heavy metals.

There are emerging new technologies of water treatment that when used as a replacement of or in tandem to the existing reverse osmosis water treatment plants will provide a far superior result in quality of water available to beneficial water uses and for the less volume of waste produced. 

The draft policy in Section 1.1, Priority 1 states that, “Appropriate plans are in place for mitigating short and long term impacts” It would be a far more satisfactory approach if proactive research is carried out to learn of possible impacts before they occur rather than continuing with the flawed “adaptive management” approach inherited from the previous Government. 

Baseline data needs to be ascertained; priority given to a comprehensive network of monitoring bores including bores to different aquifers at the same geographic location; the level of connectivity between aquifers needs careful research and the work of the Queensland Water Commission soon to be carried out by the new statutory body. Office of Underground Water Assessment should be independent & transparent.

There is no substitute for a clean, reliable underground water supply. All other options are vastly inferior.