The Government is yet to make a decision on whether the project will go ahead.
Santos has been operating a pilot project in the area since 2011 when it took over from Eastern Star.
There has been considerable infrastructure development already in the area - e.g. test wells, flares, a produced water recycling plant and large holding ponds for produced water.
The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition made a submission opposing the proposal. Two of the matters of concern from that submission are in this post. The other matters of concern will be in a later post.
The Impact on the Pilliga Forest
a) The Pilliga Forest,
the largest temperate woodland in NSW, will be severely impacted by Santos’
project. This is a very important natural area – a high conservation value
forest. Santos plans to clear nearly
1000 ha of the Pilliga Forest. It’s not
only the size of the clearing that is an issue but the fact that it will be in
patches that will result in the fragmentation of a much larger area. This, of course, means cuts to the connectivity
between habitat areas so that wildlife no longer has vegetated corridors for
movement around the landscape. This loss
of habitat and corridors will have a serious impact on many native fauna
species in relation to their food sources and protection from predation.
Furthermore, it is more
than likely that the various pipeline and track corridors and well surrounds
(as has been observed in Queensland’s Chinchilla gasfields) will become
weed-infested wastelands, threatening the ecological integrity of uncleared
areas of the forest.
b) What should be borne
in mind is that around the nation extensive natural areas such as the Pilliga
Forest have been greatly reduced by human activity since European
settlement. And this clearing is still
continuing. If we are serious about
preserving our native flora and fauna and stopping the slide of many species
towards extinction, we have to preserve areas like the Pilliga Forest. In the
view of the CVCC the claimed economic benefits of the Santos project do not
justify the degrading of this important forest.
c) The development will
threaten the survival of a number of threatened flora and fauna species. Threatened fauna
species include the Barking Owl, Glossy Black-cockatoo, Regent Honeyeater,
Black-striped Wallaby, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Koala, Pilliga Mouse,
South-eastern Long-eared Bat and Pale-headed Snake.
d) Another issue of
concern to us is that public land – and important public land – will be
alienated if the development proceeds in the Pilliga Forest. The forests of
this state belong to the people of the state – not to any Government (although
these supposedly represent the people but are, after all, of a temporary nature
because of electoral terms) or to any mining company.
e) A further risk is the
increased danger of very hot fires in the Pilliga Forest. There have been some serious bushfires in
this area in the past. The addition of
fugitive methane emissions and gas flaring to the forest has the potential for really
disastrous fires. It should be borne in
mind that we are already facing an increasing risk of fires in areas such as
this because of climate change. Adding
methane to the mix makes for a greater likelihood.
Threat to the Great Artesian Basin
Threat to the Great Artesian Basin
a) The water produced as the
gas is extracted will be considerable over the life of the project (estimated
at 37.5 GL). As the aquifer which will
be affected recharges the Great Artesian Basin, this will have an impact on the
Basin. Since gas-mining in Queensland has already been shown to have affected
the Great Artesian Basin, there is considerable concern about further impacts
on this very important underground water supply.
b) Disposal of the large
volumes of produced water is also another issue. Santos has claimed it will treat the water to
remove the salt but just how effective that treatment will be so that the water
can be released into the environment is another matter. There have been serious breaches by mining
companies in the past in relation to disposal of saline water.[1]
c) Ensuring compliance is
always a major issue. Just how well the treatment is monitored by government will
be crucial if the project goes ahead. Unfortunately governments do not have a
good record in monitoring compliance. They tend not to invest resources in
compliance, either through having a strange notion that companies will always
“do the right thing” or because they simply don’t care whether conditions of
consent are complied with – unless some pesky member of the public forces them
to notice non-compliance!
d) Disposal of the volume of
salt extracted from the produced water is another concern. Peak salt production is stated to be 115
tonnes per day, which means that in a peak year 41,900 tonnes of salt would
need to be disposed of. According to
Santos, it will be disposed of in landfill. Where will this happen and what
effect will it have on surface run-off as well as on local groundwater at the
landfill site?
[1]Santos
has already been responsible for pollution of aquifers in the Pilliga with
toxic wastewater. http://www.lockthegate.org.au/revealed_epa_investigation_report_shows_extent_of_pilliga_contamination
Transpacific, which treated AGL produced water from
Gloucester gas mining, was fined by Hunter Water in 2014 for the illegal
release of produced water into a sewer.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2775107/agls-fracking-wastewater-dumped-in-sewers/
