Submission to the NSW Chief Scientist following the meeting with Manning Clean Water Action Group on 16th of December 2013.
Date: 2nd January 2014 – retrieved from Government website
Submission Authors ‐ Bruce Robertson and Mark Anning
The Chief Scientist’s Report is here.
Introduction
This submission is being written in response to a number of issues arising out of the meeting with the Manning Clean Water Action Group and the NSW Chief Scientist held at Taree on 16th December 2013.
The Authors would like to thank the Chief Scientist for appearing in Taree to hear our concerns regarding AGL’s Gloucester Gas Project.
This submission encompasses the following issues:
1. The lack of a sustainable method of disposal of waste products from Coal Seam Gas operations in Australia.
2. The lack of compliance with existing regulations and the laws as they stand in NSW at AGL’s Gloucester Gas project.
3. The lack of baseline data at AGL’s Gloucester Gas project
4. A risk assessment of AGL’s proposed project at Gloucester.
1. The lack of a sustainable method of disposal of waste products from Coal SeamGas operations in Australia.
One aspect of the meeting in Taree that we found particularly concerning were the statements made by the Office of the NSW Chief Scientist regarding the disposal of salt and brine produced by Coal Seam Gas mining in Australia.
In that meeting the Chief Scientist stated that “I think that there are solutions” in response to the statement that was posed by Bruce Robertson “doesn’t that go to the nub of the whole issue, this industry has been operating now here for how many years and no one has a solution, no one has come up with a solution for what to do with the salt”
Indeed CS First Boston in a report dated April 10 2013 stated:
Brine disposal – the unsolved environmental issue: We are still uncomfortable that none of the coal seam gas projects in Queensland have a great solution to the disposal of brine (salt) solution. We believe burial of any residual salt is a last option, with a preference for improved recovery of water and beneficial use of any residual salt. Projects such as APLNG have various studies underway, which we will be following with interest. However, as yet ORG has not ruled out on‐site burial and subsequent remediation as part of its brine disposal strategy. We are concerned that costs may increase once a solution is found.
More recently Dr Khan, a man who you stated was chosen to write reports for the Chief Scientist due to his impeccable credentials and impartiality stated:
Dr Khan said. “It is very surprising the complete lack of solutions at the moment for dealing with large quantities of salt,” said Dr Khan, an associate professor in the school of civil and environmental engineering. “You’ve got huge amounts of water and salt looking for a home.”
Source of Dr Khan’s comments:
I have been unable to find any evidence that this position has changed. On site burial is not an acceptable solution. The volumes of salt are massive. As Dr Khan states in his report to your office on page 9 (Coal Seam Gas: Produced Water and Solids, 22 November 2013) the volume of salt produced in the Surat Basin alone will be 1.8 million tonnes over the 30 year life of the project. The sheer volume of 1.8 million tonnes is staggering. The long term pollution effects of burial would be catastrophic for the environment and inland freshwater systems.
Science is an evidence based discipline. While the Coal Seam Gas (CSG) industry has repeatedly and often stated that there are going to be beneficial uses for its highly contaminated salt as yet not one of these large, well resourced companies has come up with a beneficial use for the salt or brine produced as a consequence of their water treatment programs.
APPEA “the voice of Australia’s oil and gas industry” has often repeated that the industry is going to find a beneficial use for the salt and many of the major companies involved have echoed these statements. The fact that a statement is consistently repeated does not make that statement valid. Currently there is no evidence that a beneficial use for the toxic salts that are produced by the CSG industry will be found or that the quantities of pure salt, if it can technically be produced, will have a market.
What hard evidence can the Chief Scientist produce that a solution will be found?
To us the statement that “I think that there are solutions” is not scientific as it is not based on the available evidence. There is no evidence that a solution will be found.
As yet there is not one plant in the world that is treating the toxic contaminated salt produced from the Coal Seam Gas water purification process. Not one of the major multinationals and large domestic companies operating in Australia has come up with a solution despite the passage of many years and the considerable resources spent.
2. The lack of compliance with existing regulations and the laws as they stand in NSW.
We have noted a number of instances of lack of compliance with the existing laws and regulations such as they are in NSW. As background the regulation of this industry is well behind the development of the industry. Indeed it has often been stated that the industry has developed in a regulatory vacuum and the various authorities are well behind the industry. The cart is before the horse.
The few regulations and laws such as they stand are not, in many instances being followed.
The instances of lack of compliance listed below are in no means a comprehensive expose of AGL’s lack of compliance. They are merely examples of a lack of regard for the law as it stands in NSW.a) Pollution Events.
At present, produced water storage dams are required to be double lined with water monitors placed at the base of the dams to monitor leakage. Clearly it has been determined that this water is not of a quality that can leach into the environment.
In the EPA letter on page 6 it states:
“The level of 8300 and 8700 micro siemens /cm which are shown here are extremely high and indicate that the dams have been leaking.
There does not appear to have been any prosecution following this pollution event.
What remedial action has been taken to remedy this situation?
b) Lack of compliance with environmental impact laws.
Please see the attached report by Teresa James. It is a comprehensive review of the ecological assessment report prepared by Alison Hunt and associates to support AGL’s proposed irrigation trial.
In it it is alleged that AGL has failed to comply with the law as it stands in NSW.
Specifically she has outlined the following issues :
Issue 1 – Inadequate level of survey and compliance with government (OEH) guidelines
No targeted or general flora and fauna survey was undertaken for the report and no species list provided.
Issue 2 – Failure to consider the potential presence of an endangered ecological community (EEC) Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (SCFF) of the NSW north coast bioregion
The riparian woodland/forest present along the Avon River and Dingo Trap Creek is likely to support this EEC. Although the vegetated zone is generally narrow it is up to 90‐100m wide in some places and is likely to contain a range of species representative of this community.
Issue 3 – Impact assessment fails to adequately consider threatened flora and fauna, and the extent of impact
Issue 4 – Report fails to consider regional guidelines and local provisions for protecting watercourses and aquatic/riparian habitat
The report does not refer to or consider compliance with section 6.1 of the Gloucester Shire Local Environment Plan (2010) in respect of flood behaviour and the environment including protection of riparian vegetation and aquatic ecosystems.
Similarly, there is no consideration of objectives and guidelines identified in the Hunter Central Rivers CMA Catchment Action Plan. The recognition and inclusion of riparian protection zones is fundamental to local environmental and catchment management but is not considered in the report.
Issue 5 – Mitigation measures fail to provide reasonable certaintyTeresa sums up her findings as follows:
The report does not provide reasonable scientific certainty that biodiversity will be protected as required under Special Condition 4. Survey and reporting as documented in the report lacks compliance with current OEH standards and guidelines. There is no evidence of targeted survey for threatened communities or species despite the requirement to assess the potential for their occurrence. In the absence of reliable data the precautionary principle should be applied and all threatened entities identified within the locality with potential habitat present be assessed accordingly.
A summary of the report objectives and compliance is provided below:
Report objectives Review
Identification of flora and fauna and their habitat, including frog populations Inadequate reported survey & poor documentation of flora & fauna (including frogs) providing an inadequate basis for assessment of impacts.
The potential for endangered ecological communities, threatened species and/or their habitat listed under TSC Act or EPBC Act to occur within the study area
Inadequate survey, documentation or critical assessment of threatened flora & fauna providing no certainty they will not be impacted. One EEC not identified in the report is likely to be present and if confirmed will be impacted. At least one threatened fauna is known to be present and is likely to be impacted.
Management of any impacts on flora and fauna, and their habitat Management plans provide no detail or certainty that impacts will be adequately managed. Full range of known or potential impacts & affected threatened entities is not considered in assessments.
It is likely that native vegetation in lower parts of the site and along Dog Trap Creek and the Avon River includes Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (SCFF) of the NSW North coast bioregion, an endangered ecological community listed under the TSC Act (state only).
No documentation of this vegetation is provided in the report. One threatened fauna species, the Grey‐crowned Babbler, is known to occur at the site but impact assessment for this species is incomplete and adequacy of proposed management uncertain.
Impact assessment of salinity on soils, the river systems and biodiversity is similarly incomplete (but maybe covered in other reports?) and the report fails to consider important regional and local provisions and guidelines for river & riparian health.
The irrigation area extends close to the creek & river with no proposed buffer or riparian protection zones identified or recommended. The long term viability of proposed revegetation and enhancement of connectivity values along the northern boundary to compensate for loss of Grey‐crowned Babbler habitat is uncertain due to encroachment by the proposed irrigation area as shown in figure 3‐3 of the report.
Uncertainty relating to the presence of and impacts on an endangered ecological community, potential significant impacts on at least one threatened species and biodiversity generally, and on riparian/aquatic habitat is sufficient to trigger the requirement for preparation of a Species Impact Statement (SIS) under the TSC Act.Conclusion
It would appear that, according to Teresa James, the law has not been applied when it comes to the approval of AGL’s irrigation trial in respect of the above issues.
3. The lack of base line data and commencement of operations prior to studies being completed.
If you fail to plan you plan to fail.
AGL’s Gloucester Gas project is planned to fail in a number of key aspects.
a) Lack of baseline ecological and water data
AGL has not studied the ecology of the local river systems or given base line water quality data for the rivers that it may affect with its project. It has failed to provide base line studies for the lower Avon, the Gloucester river downstream of the Avon intersection or the Manning river downstream from the Gloucester river. This is a deliberate omission. Without base line data no assessment of the effects of the project can be made. Put simply it is NOT scientific and as such should be roundly condemned by your office.
b) Failure to complete a flood study.
AGL has constructed much infrastructure prior to completing a flood study.
In its project approval it only used rainfall data going back to 1970 when good rainfall data exists going back to 1880. This means that its key rainfall statistics may be incorrect with regard to averages and variance. Indeed prior to 1950 the rainfall exhibited greater variance in other words the floods and droughts were bigger. This means that they have probably constructed their produced water dams with walls that are too low and have located the dams too low on the floodplain. This lack of appropriate planning could lead to a catastrophic failure to contain produced water leading to an OK Tedi situation where the river is destroyed.
c) Lack of Whole of Basin Hydro – Geological Study
Commencement of a hydraulic fracturing program at Waukivory scheduled to start in January 2014 prior to the completion of a whole of basin hydro‐ geological study.d) Lack of Water Study
Commencement of a hydraulic fracturing program scheduled for January 2014 and irrigation of produced water project prior to a whole of basin water study being completed.
In all of these key aspects AGL is operating prior to base line data being collected and prior to completion of the relevant studies. The risks involved in doing this are obviously high, the consequences catastrophic and the likelihood of the worse case scenario highly probable.
4. A risk assessment of AGL’s proposed project at Gloucester.
a) Fracking
Fracking is occurring at Gloucester prior to the geological modeling being completed, prior to a flood study and prior to whole of basin water study being completed. With a water supply for 75,000 people and one of the few great east coast river systems at risk surely the science should be done first?
The Chief Scientist has herself written that the geology of Gloucester is complex and poorly understood.
AGL has repeatedly stated that they do not understand the nature and extent of connectivity at Gloucester:“The fracture stimulation and pilot testing program is also important to assess water production volumes and whether there is any connectivity between shallow aquifers and deep_coal seam_water bearing zones.”(REF ES.1)
AGL’s own expert has stated that:
In the peer review by Dr Evans, he makes the following comments about one of the monitoring bores established for the Stratford flow testing:
“This suggests there is hydraulic continuity laterally (and also possibly vertically)…and this hydraulic connectivity is not negligible.” (Evans, p.19).
And with respect to another:
“The results do not support a conceptual model of hydraulic isolation of interburden layers.” (Evans, p. 20).
In fact, Evans’ assessment of AGL’s monitoring bore data states:
“These observations suggest that deeper confining units are responding to recharge relatively quickly, and are not hydraulically isolated units” (Evans, 2012, pp19‐24)
In our meeting with you in Taree, you stated that you are well acquainted with Professor Pells’ views on the hydro geology of the Gloucester Basin. He has repeatedly stated that fracking in the Gloucester Basin represents an unacceptable risk.
Given that if the beneficial aquifers are indeed as you, Dr Evans, Professor Pells and AGL suspect connected to the coal seams and if this is so it may lead to poisoning of our water supply.
Risk Assessment summary
Given
1. the lack of knowledge,
2. the views expressed by eminent scientists both employed by AGL and independent of AGL,
3. the commencement of fracking prior to relevant studies being completed
Any risk assessment can only conclude that the hydraulic fracking that is proposed at Waukivory is a high risk activity.
Compliance Summary
The AGL REF has concluded otherwise. Again a failure of risk assessment is evident in this process.
Likelihood of Catastrophic Event Summary
The worse case scenario is not that unlikely given that AGL’s own independent hydro‐geologist is stating that there is connectivity and its consequences for all mid north coast residents is catastrophic. Again AGL’s Gloucester gas project is High Risk.
Consequences of a Catastrophic event
We risk losing our water supply, the irrigation water for a number of farms, the oyster industry, local fisheries and of course industry such as local abattoirs and other water users. We would be remiss not to mention the tourism industry that relies on the waterways, a clean environment and provision of fresh water to survive.
To our knowledge there is no remediation that can repair a fracked aquifer.
The consequences are therefore extreme.
b) Well Casing Failure
Risk Assessment Summary
The earth’s geological strata are not laid out in the nice deep rows that we’ve seen in the pictures in every gas company PR brochure. The strata are complex, folding and moving ‐ and until the gas company starts drilling though them, unknowable.
We put it to the Chief Scientist that the strata will be even more unknowable after the gas company drills through them and the well casings fail.
AGL have repeatedly stated that they want to start fracking simulation to know what they are dealing with. They don’t know.
AGL’s May 2013 project update: ” to develop an initial understanding of the hydrogeological characteristics of the area.”
Same report on AGL’s external website
Schlumberger, the global gas & oil industry drilling giant, confirms that the industry average failure is “60% of gas well casings will fail within 30 years”.
[1] TimesUnion – Fracking is hardly leakproof
[2] Schlumberger or external website
Compliance Summary
The NSW Department of Trade and Investment, in consultation with the gas industry, has come up with their “Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas ‐ Well Integrity” and on their website here
The NSW Department of Trade and Investment compliance document develops APPEA’s theory that nothing will go wrong up to the stage “Mandatory requirements and recommendations … Well abandonment”
The NSW Department of Trade and Investment code of practice demonstrates concern “throughout the entire well life cycle” ‐ but not beyond that.
Once the gas company has signed off on “well abandonment” apparently any problems occurring after that become the taxpayer and community’s problem.Likelihood of a Catastrophic Event Summary
100% of gas well casings will eventually fail. Cement crumbles, steel rusts, earthquakes occur, geological strata continually shifts and folds, and continental shift is real. Any or all of these facts will cause all gas well casings to fail over time.
Likelihood = 60% of gas well casings will fail within 30 years, 100% will eventually fail.
Leaking methane wells will continue to contribute to global warming, air pollution, bushfire risk and groundwater contamination long after the gas company has undergone corporate restructure or gone bankrupt and absolved itself or anyone of any responsibility. An example of a corporate entity restructuring and leaving the clean up and health problems to the community is the $100 million bill to taxpayers to clean up the AGL Gasworks at Millers Point.
[1] http://www.coal‐seam‐gas.com/australia/gloucester05.htm
[2] http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/clm/docs/html/n21122.htm
Consequences of a Catastrophic Event
If thousands of gas wells with casings guaranteed to fail are allowed to be drilled through groundwater aquifers, we put it to the Chief Scientist that this generation is planting a time bomb under the feet of future generations.
Aquifer contamination is extraordinarily difficult to detect and impossible to repair.
C) Produced Water Quality
AGL constantly state that their toxic contaminated mine tailings or as they refer it their “produced” water is, to quote John Ross AGL chief hydrologist:
“This is simply old salty groundwater removed during the CSG extraction process.”
and
“The salts we’re getting are sodium chloride, which is basic table salt, and bicarbonate.”
(Source: http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/1516691/irrigation‐trial‐asalty‐issue/?cs=433)
Nothing could be further from the truth.
AGL’s toxic contaminated mine tailings is not just high in sodium choride and bicarbonates. They also are high in Aluminium, Nickel, Copper, Manganese and Zinc.
The field Ph is also high.
(Source phase 2 Groundwater report as quoted by Professor Pells and on his website here
Taking just Alumium as it is the first on the list:
the levels recorded are some 20 times the ANZECC guidelines
no known form of life uses aluminium salts metabolically.
Aluminium restricts the growth of plant roots
Aluminium is primary among factors that reduce plant growth on acid soils.
(most soils in our region are acidic.)
Risk Assessment Summary
As this is a water supply for 75,000 people we expect that in any assessment of AGL’s project the chief scientist will take into account possible effects on:
Human health
Health of watercourses
Cumulative effects over time of such toxic mine tailings
The effects on agriculture of the salt load alone on the river systems will in time be devastating
There are notable omissions in the water quality data.
AGL has failed to provide the levels of for example:
‐ BTEX chemicals
‐ Levels of Strontium
‐ Levels of Volatile Organic compounds
‐ Levels of dissolved hydrocarbons
Without this data, that I am sure your office will obtain, a full risk assessment summary is not possible.
Compliance Summary
The toxic mine tailings water is outside guidelines for irrigation (refer to the irrigation project section below) and is outside ANZECC guidelines for direct river discharge.
Likelihood of a Catastrophic Event Summary
As no flood study has been completed and inadequate rainfall records have been used in the approval process of this project the chances of a tailings dam overflow would have to be quite high.
No cumulative impact study of the components of this toxic mine tailing water has been completed further increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic event.
Consequences of a Catastrophic Event
The consequences of a catastrophic event such as an overflow of the toxic mine tailings water are:
1. Death of rivers – This is a freshwater river system and the toxic mine tailings water falls well outside of ANZECC guidelines.
2. Possible cumulative poisoning effects of the people of the Manning Valley. The effects of many of the contaminants are slow and insidious and hard to trace.
3. Contamination of farmland from the mine tailings. Flood events will ensure that the mine tailings water will in time destroy much of the prime river flat land in the valley.
d) The Irrigation Project
Background
We cannot honestly believe in the year 2014 that we are writing to the Chief Scientist to explain that salt kills land and kills rivers.
This self evident fact has recorded in history since well before Christ was born.
However at the risk of explaining the obvious we will endeavour to keep the argument strictly scientific.
The Facts
Dr Khan’s report commissioned by the Office of the Chief Scientist states on page 19:
“Summary guidelines for interpreting SARW values are provided as follows (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2004):
<3: no problems as the water is non sodic;
3 to 6: minor effect on clayey soils may occur (depending on overall salinity);
>6: has increasing effect on all soils at low to moderate salinity and starts to reduce growth of most crop and pasture plants;
>9: severe risk of increasing soil sodicity on most soils.”
The EPA letter on page 5 states quite clearly that the water to be irrigated, according to AGL’s Review of Environmental Factors (REF), has an SAR of 30 to 78.
Source of the EPA letter
Even diluting this water 3:1 gives an SAR value of 7.5 to 19.5 well above the severe risk of increasing soil sodicity.
(Source of the 3:1 ratio http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/1516691/irrigation‐trial‐a‐saltyissue/?cs=433)
AGL have stated that they are using deficit irrigation to avoid run off into local water courses. In other words they are irrigating less water than the plants need.
However according to Professor Willgoose:
But Professor Garry Willgoose from the University of Newcastle agrees the “produced water” can be used, but believes the practice needs to be closely monitored.
He says irrigators need to make sure more water than the plant technically requires is used.
“So the saline water is flushed through the root zone,” said Professor Willgoose.
“And the more saline the water, the more water you have to put on, in excess of the technical demand of the plant.
“If you don’t put enough water on the salt will built up in the soil creating a major problem in years to come.”
(Source of Professor Willgooses comments : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013‐11‐28/csg‐water‐professor/5122696)
The science is unequivocal. The land will over time be destroyed and set up a toxic plume that will leach into the rivers for decades to come.
The irrigation project over time will lead to increased soil sodicity. The volume of salt to be irrigated is 2500 tonnes per annum or 37,500 tonnes over the 15 year life of the project. However this vastly understates the true amount of salt that will be irrigated by AGL. Already AGL is planning a stage 2 to the project of 220 wells, twice the size of stage 1.
Stage 2 will result in approximately 7500 tonnes per annum of salt being irrigated onto the river flats of the Avon River. Over the combined stage one and two of the project this represents 112,500 tonnes of salt over the life of the projects.
However this vastly understates the true long term position that we find ourselves in. In Queensland the CSG industry has grown exponentially over its very short history. There is no reason to believe that the same will not occur in NSW. At Gloucester the stage 2 of the project is already twice the size of stage 1. AGL is a well resourced company and can comfortably finance rapid expansion. Stage 3 of the project, which is as yet unplanned will in all likelihood be twice the size of stage 2. This is not speculation this is what in all likelihood will occur given the available evidence and it will occur in the short term. One only has to look at how quickly the Coal Seam Gas industry has grown in Queensland to see that this is what will occur.
Mr Mike Moraza from AGL has stated that:
“Long term we believe 10 similar‐sized irrigation projects would be sufficient to deal with all the produced water from our operations in the valley.” http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/1935415/water‐trial‐reapsharvest/?cs=435
So we have 10 similar sized irrigation projects that will cover approximately 120ha of the valley.
This amount of land will obviously increase exponentially as the project inevitably grows setting up a series of toxic plumes that will leach contaminated salt into the river system for centuries to come.
The bicarbonate alkalinity levels presented in the REF for this proposal are >395 mg / litre ( please note the greater than sign, it is material in any assessment of this project ) in AGL’s Tiedman south dam and 872mg/litre in the Tiedman North dam.
Again the report commissioned by you and written by Dr Khan states on page 46 that:
“The Queensland Government have provided a detailed assessment and guidance for salinity impacts of coal seam gas produced water on soils and surface streams when used for irrigation (Biggs et al. ,2013). Subsequently, the following criteria have been developed to apply to the general approval for beneficial use of produced water for irrigation purposes (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013):
The maximum sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) shall not exceed 8;
The maximum bicarbonate ion concentration shall not exceed 100 mg/L;”
Even diluting 1:3 the bicarbonate levels from the two dams are at Tiedman South dam are >99 in all likelihood exceeding the Queensland government guidelines and the water in the Tiedman North dam are 218mg/l far in excess of the 100mg/l limit.
AGL has often stated that the irrigation method is their preferred method of mine tailings water disposal. Indeed they have as yet provided no other alternatives.
Their irrigation license has just been increased from 30ML to 60ML per annum.
This will allow them to irrigate 20ML of mine tailings per annum at the stated dilution ratio of 3:1.
In stage one of their project alone they produce have a license to produce 730ML of mine tailings.
Evaporation ponds are banned in NSW and AGL will have to dispose of their mine tailings in a timely fashion.
In stage one alone they will need to increase their irrigation license to 2190ML.
There simply is not that much water in the Avon River.
Obviously, this understates the water needs of AGL’s project.
The planned stage 2 of the project will require 6570 ML of water.
The obvious question that has to be asked is where on earth will they get this much water from?
Impact on water supply
This is a massive impost on the drinking water supply a supply I would note has struggled from time to time in recent years to cope with an increasing population.
Mid coast water currently supplies 37,000 households with water.
This will increase to 50,000 households by 2050 according to mid coast water.
(Source: http://www.midcoastwater.com.au/site/water‐supplies)
There have been many occasions in recent years when mid coast water has been unable to pump from the Manning River, due to low flows or turbidity, and has had to rely on its small dam at Bootawa (a dam without a catchment) to supply its customers.
The Manning River supplies 90% of mid coast waters customers. Mid Coast Water supplies 11 billion litres of water per annum. Therefore it draws around 9900ml per annum out of the Manning River System.
AGL will need 2190ml of irrigation water to dispose of its mine tailings from just stage one of its project. This is equivalent to 22% of mid coast waters draw on the water supply.
Stage 2 of AGL’s project will need an irrigation license of 6570ML of water.
This is equivalent to 66% of mid coast waters draw on the water supply.
Naturally, these figures understate the true medium term position that we find ourselves in as the as yet unplanned Stage 3 of the project will in all likelihood be twice the size of stage 2.
Clearly this amount of irrigation water if indeed it exists at all in the Avon River Catchment is not a sustainable draw if mid coast water will be able to supply its customers.
Impact on Water Quality for Mid Coast Water
The mid north coast is a high rainfall area with annual averages across the catchment of around 1m. Taree’s annual average is 1178mm .
(Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_060030.shtml)
There is tremendous variability to the rainfall and the area is subject to large floods.
(Refer to the link above for variance data)
There will be significant periods of time when AGL will not be able to irrigate due to low river flows or excess rainfall.
Millions of Litres (ML)Water drawn from the Manning River System
Total Water Drawn Water Removed from coal seams
Irrigation Requirement
The production of the toxic contaminated mine tailings water does not stop due to the weather. The Dams that AGL have will only hold a small amount of mine tailings water. What is the company proposing to do in extended periods of either no rain or extended wet periods?
One can only assume that some water will have to be irrigated regardless of the weather. This will lead to contamination of the water supply.
Risk Assessment summary
Even diluting the AGL’s toxic mine tailings with fresh water from the Avon River at the stated 1:3 ratio the water exceeds Queensland Government guidelines bicarbonates. The water to be irrigated is too saline even with dilution. The Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) ratio according to the NSW Department of Primary industries is in the High Risk category.
Risks are not isolated. The combination of two high risk qualities puts the irrigation project in the extreme risk category.
Compliance Summary
We do not consider that the irrigation project complies with the NSW Department of Primary Industry guidelines for SARW.
AGL do not have the requisite irrigation licences to dispose of the amount of produced water they are proposing to irrigate.
We fail to understand where AGL will source the massive quantities of water required to irrigate its produced water in just stage one of their project. The Avon River is simply not big enough.
Likelihood of Catastrophic Event Summary
We will use the definition of a catastrophic event as the permanent impairment of the Manning River system as a water supply.
Given the absence of any semblance of science in this irrigation project the only conclusion that can be reached is that the likelihood of a catastrophic event is high if the project is allowed to proceed.
Consequences of a Catastrophic event
Loss of amenity of a beautiful freshwater river system.
Loss of employment in the tourism, primary production, processing industries, fisheries, oyster industries etc In short devastation of the regional economy.
Permanent cost running into the billions of dollars on a net present value basis to supply a growing population of 75,000 people with water. The Manning River is our only water supply.
Conclusion
We note that the office of the chief scientist web site states that:
“The role of the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer
As NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Professor O’Kane consults widely with academia, industry and government to ensure scientific knowledge and research can be adapted and used to benefit NSW.
She is responsible for:
• providing the NSW Government with the best quality advice on policy decisions requiring science and engineering input
• seeing that the State’s research system operates to maximise its productivity, economic value and social responsibilities”
(Source: http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/about)
Due to:
the absence of any scientific basis for AGL’s irrigation trial,
the lack of compliance with catchment management plans of the project,
the lack of compliance with the various environmental assessment acts
the lack of assessment of impacts on threatened species
the effects on the water supply of the project
The economic effects on the local economy
The lack of social and environmental responsibility displayed by AGL
We call on the Chief Scientist to advise the Minister for Resources to immediately cease the trial of irrigating AGL’s untreated mine tailings at Gloucester.
e) The Food Experiment
Risk Assessment Summary
In adopting ‘world’s best practice’ consideration must be given to what is best practice from around the globe as regulatory authorities rush to come to terms with the recent boom in fracking.
The New Zealand dairy supplier Fonterra forbids accepting milk from cows coming into contact with fracking waste water, quoting their concerns to protect the ‘branding’ of their clean industry, which has taken decades and millions of dollars and man‐hours (both government and private enterprise) to establish.
In Pennsylvania, USA, cattle that came in contact with ‘natural gas’ (a gas industry marketing term used instead of ‘methane’) drilling wastewater were quarantined.
The US Department of Agriculture said “drilling wastewater has high salinity levels, but it also contains dangerous chemicals and metals.”
“Cattle are drawn to the taste of salty water,” said Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding. http://www.coal‐seam‐gas.com/usa/pennsylvania31.htm
The Department of Agriculture secretary noted the recommended guidelines from the Food Animal Residue Avoidance and Depletion Program:
• Adult animals: hold from food chain for 6 months.
• Calves exposed in utero: hold from food chain for 8 months.
• Growing calves: hold from food chain for 2 years.
As we can see from the Pennsylvania example, live animal testing is not possible because tissue sampling is required. Any risk aversion must therefore be done prior to potential contaminants being fed to cattle, or spread on crops.
In Gloucester, the property on which AGL is conducting their cattle fodder experiment is being leased to “Gloucester grazier Norm Bignell” (The Land, 26 December 2013). http://www.coal‐seam‐gas.com/australia/gloucester40.htmCompliance Summary
The irrigation experiment was approved by the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment (Division of Resources and Energy), the New South Wales Office of Water, and the Environment Protection Authority.
We note that Trade and Investment are the lead agency. As we’ve seen on the ABC 4Corners program Gas Leak, public servants and environmental scientists tasked with assessing Coal Seam Gas projects have been bullied, harassed and directed to provide a ‘bankable outcome’ for the projects to proceed, despite important sections of the submissions either not provided or edited by government staff.
http://www.coal‐seam‐gas.com/australia/gasleak.htm
The National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC 2000) were written for irrigation water, prior to the addition of slickwater* into Australian coal seam gas fracking. An environmental scientist familiar with the approval process of coal seam gas projects has highly recommended that these guidelines be updated and enhanced to include provisions for fracking contaminants, so that the applications can be properly assessed.
* Slickwater combined with horizontal drilling made “The Father of Fracking” George Mitchell a millionaire in 1998 when he made fracking economically viable, thus fuelling the current gas boom. The modern fracking process has not been ‘safely done for decades’ as the gas industry claims and certainly not on the scale that the industry proposes.
http://www.waytogoto.com/wiki/index.php/Slickwater
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582482‐few‐businesspeople‐havedone‐much‐change‐world‐george‐mitchell‐father
Section 4.2.6 of the National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC 2000) contains long term and short‐term trigger value concentrations for heavy metals and metalloids in irrigation water and Section 4.2.9 contains trigger values for the radioactive quality of irrigation water, but many of these dangerous substances are not tested for, or test results are not released publicly.
An AGL report, for example, on an irrigation trial at Gloucester using CSG water fails to report concentrations and volumes of radioactive, heavy metal and other contaminants including: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobolt, lead, lithium, mercury, nickel, selenium, radium 226, radium 228, uranium 238, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and other volatile organic compounds.
Prepared by Fodder King for AGL Upstream Investments Pty Ltd, August 2013. Soil quality monitoring and management ‐ Report 2 ‐ Irrigation (Activities from 1 April to 30 June 2013) Tiedman Irriation Trial.
In Pennsylvania, US Department of Agriculture said “the main element of concern is the heavy metal strontium, which can be toxic to humans, especially in growing children. The metal takes a long time to pass through an animal’s system because it is preferentially deposited in bone and released in the body at varying rates, dependent on age, growth status and other factors.”
The NSW Government has banned coal seam gas evaporation ponds. However, in AGL’s ‘irrigation trial’ exactly the same method is in use ‐ the produced water sits in ponds until it is sprayed over the crops. The AGL produced water sat evaporating in a pond for a year before the seven month experiment started.
Likelihood of a Catastrophic Event Summary
Environmental groups typically invoke the pre ‐ cautionary principle. That is, if an action is suspected of causing harm to the environment, then in the absence of a scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on the individual or organization taking the action. The oil and gas industry has typically rejected this analysis and has approached the issue in a manner similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer. That is, if one cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that an environmental impact is due to drilling, then a link is rejected. This approach by the tobacco companies had a devastating and long lasting effect on public health from which we have still not recovered, and we believe that a similar approach to the impacts of gas drilling may have equally negative consequences.
IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING ON HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH
MICHELLE BAMBERGER ROBERT E. OSWALD
http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/data/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press.pdf
Consequences of a Catastrophic Event
The ‘mad cow’ scare decimated the UK beef industry in the 1990s. Not that we’re suggesting mad cow is caused by fracking, merely pointing out the economic consequences of inappropriate and ill‐advised experimentation with the food chain.
This author can never donate blood again as a consequence of being in the UK at the time.
The potential consequence of inadequate and/or rushed approval for future CSG irrigation involving crops entering the food chain for humans & cattle alike is death or injury (permanent).
The potential consequences for the dairy, beef and agricultural industries are loss of international reputation and branding, and loss of both short and long‐term income.
Irrigation recommendations
The Chief Scientist, Mary O’Kane told the authors of this submission that she has no jurisdiction to comment on the AGL project or any project that has prior approval by the NSW Government. Perhaps in future, with regard to coal seam gas projects that directly impact on the food chain, consideration might be given to:
1. The assessment and monitoring of the fodder grown with frack waste water be conducted by a truly independent authority and not by a gas company subcontractor.
2. That the reporting be done on a very regular basis, and not in ‘six monthly reports’ as is currently the case with AGL’s Gloucester experiment.
3. After a series of breaches of license, such as the EPA infringements issued to AGL in 2013 for failing in their reporting requirements, that their license be revoked.
4. That the silage bales be numbered and identified as being sourced from a gas company experiment enabling appropriate and timely tracking in the advent of contamination.
5. That the dairy and beef cattle farm, and any other farm growing foodstuffs with mining waste, also be monitored with publicly available reporting on a timely basis in the advent of system failure.
6. Food labelling or other public declaration of the source of the experimental farms to give the public a choice whether to participate in a gas company experiment.
7. Considering the risks to the food chain and human health, we highly recommend that adequate insurance be a requirement on any gas company’s licensing. AGL informed a recent Gloucester town hall meeting that they have $1 million insurance to cover all environmental clean ups, and health claims, which seems inadequate.
8. The extra compliance and insurance costs borne by the farmers should be covered by the gas company.
TERESA JAMES FLORA CONSULTANT – Specialising in flora surveys, plant identification,
conservation assessment and botanical training. Mailing address: 835 Caparra Road, Caparra NSW, 2429
Gloucester Coal Seam Gas Project – Irrigation Proposal
Brief review of ecological assessment report
Teresa James December 2013
1. Introduction
A brief review was undertaken of the ecological assessment report prepared by Alison Hunt and Associates dated August 2012. The purpose of the report was to support a proposal by AGL to expand water storage and irrigation across the Tiedman property located c. 3 km NE of Stratford and 10 km S. of Gloucester. Approval has subsequently been granted subject to a number of conditions including Special Condition 4 relating to biodiversity protection. Specific ecological issues to be addressed under this condition include:
Identification of flora and fauna species and their habitat present at and in the vicinity of the project site, including frog populations;
The potential for endangered ecological communities, threatened species and/or their habitat listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) to occur within the study area;
The potential for presence of any matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to occur within the study area;
Management of any impacts on flora and fauna, and their habitat.
2. Review
The following key issues were identified and are briefly discussed.
Issue 1 – Inadequate level of survey and compliance with government (OEH) guidelines
No targeted or general flora and fauna survey was undertaken for the report and no species list provided. The report assumes that additional survey was not required due to previous studies and the highly cleared/modified condition of the site. Although several reports are quoted there are no details or data from previous studies provided or integrated into the report and accordingly the location, extent, intensity and relevance of surveys is unknown. The assumption that there is no significant native vegetation present is inconsistent with evidence from aerial photography and the limited description provided. Native vegetation at the property is represented by extensive woodland areas in the east, scattered remnant paddock trees and riparian vegetation including woodland/forest along Dingo Trap Creek and a short section of the Avon River.
Reliable identification of threatened flora and fauna, effective mitigation of impacts and protection of biodiversity requires strategic and targeted survey as specified in the Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Guidelines (2004) prepared by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) . The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a consistent, systematic and comprehensive approach to survey and assessment. The minimum level required to address ecological issues under special condition 4 include:
Identification of a study area i.e. the affected land and any adjoining lands that may be impacted e.g. vegetation along the Avon River downstream of the site.
Identification and mapping of vegetation zones within the study area e.g. woodland
(moderate to good condition), riparian forest (low and/or moderate to good condition) and scattered remnant paddock trees (low condition).
Survey using plots and/or transects within vegetation zones to assist in identification of native vegetation communities.
Comprehensive listing of flora and fauna species present within the study area.
Targeted survey for threatened flora and fauna recorded previously for the site or known from the locality if suitable habitat is present.
The subject study fails to comply with these minimum requirements or indicate that they are satisfied by previous investigations.
Issue 2 – Failure to consider the potential presence of an endangered ecological community (EEC)Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (SCFF) of the NSW north coast bioregion
The riparian woodland/forest present along the Avon River and Dingo Trap Creek is likely to support this EEC. Although the vegetated zone is generally narrow it is up to 90‐100m wide in some places and is likely to contain a range of species representative of this community. The report fails to describe vegetation along the watercourses, identify vegetation types or critically compare with known EEC’s within the locality. All vegetation within the study area should be identified and assessed for direct & indirect impacts.
Although constrained by the lack of information it is likely that the Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest EEC is present based on key criteria as described in the Final Determination for this community under the TSC Act including:
location within the North Coast bioregion;
watercourses are within the Manning River catchment and occur on a coastal floodplain;
Scattered paddock trees and the few understorey species identified in the report are consistent with the EEC e.g. Cabbage Gum (Eucalyptus amplifolia), Paperbark (Melaleuca decora) Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana), Willow Bottlebrush (Callistemon salignus) and Silkpod (Parsonsia straminea).
The condition of vegetation within the study area is largely irrelevant to identification of the EEC e.g. even paddock trees can be regarded as a low condition state of the community. A full description of the EEC can be found in the Final Determination and associated threatened species profile available at www.bionet.nsw.gov.au.
Issue 3 – Impact assessment fails to adequately consider threatened flora and fauna, and the extent of impact
The proposal includes construction of an additional dam to store water from wells and expansion of existing irrigation activities including installation of a pump and pipelines to convey water from the Avon River to the water storage dams.
Table 1: Identification and discussion of known or potential adverse impacts of irrigation proposal
Activity Type of impact (direct & indirect)Report assessment Review comments
Construction of new dam
Loss of agricultural pasture
Soil erosion & sedimentation of watercourses
Disturbance of fauna
Some loss of fauna habitat but negligible
Potential indirect impacts on flora & fauna including downstream
Impacts ameliorated by Sediment & Erosion Control Plan (SECP)
Agree that impacts possible on aquatic & riparian habitats – details of SECP required to assess
Independent monitoring required of vegetation & water quality on and off‐site
Potential disturbance impact on Grey‐crowned Babbler Installation of pump & pipes from Avon River to dam
As above No direct reference or specific assessment included.
As above
Pumping of water from Avon River to dilute saline water
Reduced water levels in aquatic & riparian habitats
Water dependant flora & fauna likely to be impacted
No recognition of impacts or assessment.
Documentation of aquatic & riparian communities is required including collection of base‐line data.
Impacts of water extraction including in droughts to be assessed as well as impacts of not pumping for extended periods (if not possible).
Identification of critical thresholds required.
Specific assessment for sensitive species e.g. frogs & ecosystem processes
Independent monitoring & adaptive management to be included in management plans
Irrigation of land (to 40‐50 ha) on low‐lying land adjacent to creek & river.
Loss of paddock trees in stage 1A
Loss of pasture & soil health affecting fauna
Higher soil salinity impacting on soil biology, vegetation & aquatic habitat
Changes to hydrological regime
Paddock trees belong to drier woodland community, not of conservation significance.
Other areas of native vegetation & threatened species not adequately assessed.
Impacts mitigated through implementation of management plans and revegetation offset along northern boundary.
Number of paddock trees to be removed underestimated
Paddock trees & remnant vegetation likely EEC not adequately offset by revegetation proposal
Remnant vegetation likely to be affected by salinity, waterlogging etc.
Loss of fauna habitat & connectivity across site not adequately assessed
The area under irrigation will significantly increase from 8.6 ha to 40‐50 ha in two stages. Most of the lower floodplain parts of the site will be affected by the proposal through direct and indirect impacts. The primary adverse impacts are identified and summarised in table 1.
There is a range of adverse impacts that have not be adequately considered or assessed in relation to biodiversity including threatened entities as follows:
Potential Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest EEC along watercourses & in low‐lying areas, including paddock trees. Irrigation areas extend to within 10‐20 m of the creek in some places and encroach on the patch of Paperbarks between stages 1A and 1B on both sides.
Aquatic & riparian ecosystems both on and off‐site.
Roadside and other habitat of the Grey‐crowned Babbler, a vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act and known to occur in the northern part of the property at least.
Threatened species with potential habitat on creek banks: Asperula asthenes & Pomaderris queenslandica (flora) and fauna particularly water dependant & sensitive species such as frogs (Giant Barred Frog & Green and Golden Bell Frog).
Other biodiversity including the iconic Platypus, many records of which occur along the Avon River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the site.
There is a serious lack of information in the report to reliably determine impacts on biodiversity and where affected species are identified, the assessment fails to consider all impacts. The seven‐part test (appendix C) for the Grey‐crowned Babbler, for example, only considers the threat of road traffic and does not consider loss of habitat/food resources as a result of tree or pasture removal and higher soil salinity despite being identified as impacts (see table 1 above) and the stage 1A irrigation area extending into known habitat along the northern boundary of the site. Proposed revegetation along this boundary may be compromised by high salt levels, changes in soil structure and increased waterlogging.
Issue 4 – Report fails to consider regional guidelines and local provisions for protecting watercourses and aquatic/riparian habitat
The report does not refer to or consider compliance with section 6.1 of the Gloucester Shire Local Environment Plan (2010) in respect of flood behaviour and the environment including protection of riparian vegetation and aquatic ecosystems. Similarly, there is no consideration of objectives and guidelines identified in the Hunter Central Rivers CMA Catchment Action Plan. The recognition and inclusion of riparian protection zones is fundamental to local environmental and catchment management but is not considered in the report.
Issue 5 – Mitigation measures fail to provide reasonable certainty
Mitigation of impacts relies on implementation of three management plans, the Project Environmental Plan, Sediment and Soil Erosion Plan and Contingency Plan. There is significant uncertainty, however, as to the effectiveness of these plans. Matters of concern include:
Detailed plans are not provided for review.
Due to inadequate survey and reporting actual biodiversity present within the study area is poorly known and many impacts may go undetected both on and off‐site e.g. loss of species, changes in species composition of vegetation communities & habitat degradation.
Contingency plan relies heavily on increasing dilution of saline water with fresh water from the Avon River but this will also have impacts and it may not be possible or desirable at low water levels during drought periods.
Current knowledge of the impacts of high salinity on specific communities and species is poorly known.
Likely impact of increased salinity on proposed revegetation along the northern boundary has not been assessed. Known habitat of the vulnerable Grey‐crowned Warbler is consequently at risk.
Total reliance on best practice management, reliable monitoring and ongoing enforcement.
High costs and feasibility associated with above.
Cumulative impacts of stages 1 & 2 have not been considered and as part of the larger gas project.
3. Summary
The report does not provide reasonable scientific certainty that biodiversity will be protected as required under Special Condition 4. Survey and reporting as documented in the report lacks compliance with current OEH standards and guidelines. There is no evidence of targeted survey for threatened communities or species despite the requirement to assess the potential for their occurrence. In the absence of reliable data the precautionary principle should be applied and all threatened entities identified within the locality with potential habitat present be assessed accordingly. A summary of the report objectives and compliance is provided below:
Report objectives Review
Identification of flora and fauna and their habitat, including frog populations Inadequate reported survey & poor documentation of flora & fauna (including frogs) providing an inadequate basis for assessment of impacts.
The potential for endangered ecological communities, threatened species and/or their habitat listed under TSC Act or EPBC Act to occur within the study area
Inadequate survey, documentation or critical assessment of threatened flora & fauna providing no certainty they will not be impacted. One EEC not identified in the report is likely to be present and if confirmed will be impacted. At least one threatened fauna is known to be present and is likely to be impacted.
Management of any impacts on flora and fauna, and their habitat
Management plans provide no detail or certainty that impacts will be adequately managed. Full range of known or potential impacts & affected threatened entities is not considered in assessments.
It is likely that native vegetation in lower parts of the site and along Dog Trap Creek and the Avon River includes Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (SCFF) of the NSW North coast bioregion, an endangered ecological community listed under the TSC Act (state only). No documentation of this vegetation is provided in the report. One threatened fauna species, the Grey‐crowned Babbler, is known to occur at the site but impact assessment for this species is incomplete and adequacy of proposed management uncertain. Impact assessment of salinity on soils, the river systems and biodiversity is similarly incomplete (but maybe covered in other reports?) and the report fails to consider important regional and local provisions and guidelines for river & riparian health. The irrigation area extends close to the creek & river with no proposed buffer or riparian protection zones identified or recommended. The long‐term viability of proposed revegetation and enhancement of connectivity values along the northern boundary to compensate for loss of Greycrowned Babbler habitat is uncertain due to encroachment by the proposed irrigation area as shown in figure 3‐3 of the report.
Uncertainty relating to the presence of and impacts on an endangered ecological community, potential significant impacts on at least one threatened species and biodiversity generally, and on riparian/aquatic habitat is sufficient to trigger the requirement for preparation of a Species Impact Statement (SIS) under the TSC Act.
