social responsibilities committee anglican diocese of brisbane · methane (cbm). functionally,...

Social Responsibilities Committee

Anglican Diocese of Brisbane

Coal Seam Gas

Discussion paper

Prepared by

Social Justice research unit, Anglicare Southern Queensland

for the Social Responsibilities Committee

December 2012

Contents

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Economic impacts of the CSG industry in Queensland ........................................................ 2

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Current and projected scale ................................................................................................ 2

2.2.2 Market changes ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.3 Queensland state revenue from CSG royalties ................................................................... 3

3.0 The political landscape ...................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Key issues related to CSG activities .................................................................................... 6

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

4.2 Water issues ............................................................................................................................ 6

4.3 Chemicals and other hazardous waste ................................................................................... 8

4.4 Food security ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Land use and tenure ............................................................................................................. 10

4.6 Social and health impacts ..................................................................................................... 11

5.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 11

Selected further reading and resources ...................................................................................... 14

Attachment A: Glossary, acronyms and notes ............................................................................. 16

Attachment B: Overview of CSG leases, wells and agricultural land in Queensland ...................... 17

Attachment C: 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolutions ................................................................ 18

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................... 19

This brief aims to provide a basis for informed discussion on

coal seam gas issues. It does not reflect the views of the

Anglican Church, the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane

or the Diocesan Social Responsibilities Committee.

Coal seam gas Anglican Diocese of Brisbane Social Responsibilities Committee December 2012

Coal seam gas (CSG) is a methane-rich

gas naturally produced during the

formation of coal. It is also known as

coal seam methane (CSM) or coal bed

methane (CBM). Functionally, there is

no difference between CSG and

conventional natural gas — coal seams

are merely a new source for an

established fuel.1 The key distinction

between the two lies in where they are

found and how they are extracted.

Minerals, including gas, are owned by

the State (the people of Queensland)

and are managed under mining and

petroleum legislation. Royalties are

paid by the producers to the State into

consolidated revenue.

1.0 Introduction

Any discussion of CSG contributes to what has become,

particularly over the past five years, a contentious and

highly polarised debate. It is, however, an important

discussion for Australians to have. Mining is integral to any

consideration of the contemporary Australian economic,

political, physical and social environment. This means, as a

Uniting Church Mining Task Group has pointed out, that

“any discussion of the damage done to the environment or

to the population and communities of mining areas cannot

be separated from the ultimate beneficiary of this process

— the very society with an assumption of unlimited growth

of consumption in which we live and move.”2

The crux of the CSG debate is essentially a risk-reward

analysis. Used wisely, the opportunity for Australians to

reap both short and long term advantages in improved

health, education, social and physical infrastructure from

CSG revenue is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that

such benefits are accompanied by costs. Many of these are

common across the resources sector, as well as applicable

to the CSG industry specifically.

This paper provides a brief economic and political context for discussion of CSG issues, as well as an

overview of issues central to the debate. Analysis of these issues — water, chemicals and other hazardous

wastes, food security, land use and tenure, and social and health impacts — is challenging, given the

technical, social and political complexity of many of the issues, and the rapid pace and scale of

development that has created knowledge gaps about long term impacts. This ambiguity is part of the

problem for all stakeholders: in an environment of uncertainty, how do we determine what level of risk

makes the reward worthwhile? If the rewards are worth the risk, how do we manage the costs? And what

power structures influence the distribution of the risks, rewards and costs across the community?

In considering the potential for advocacy in this area, these are important ethical questions. They occur

however in a real-world context of vast investment, jobs created and livelihoods dependent on the

continuation and growth of the industry. There is little doubt that the industry will continue to develop in

Australia and that, indeed, enormous damage would result at global, national and local levels if it were to

be terminated.

On the assumption that the existence and growth of the industry is a ‘given’ in contemporary Queensland

life — are there social justice issues that need to be addressed?

The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane Social Responsibilities Committee (DSRC) has sought to identify an

effective way in which to engage in this discussion with members of the Diocese and the community more

broadly. The Committee recognises that a brief paper such as this is only a first small step in opening the

door to such dialogue, and that the complex ethical and theological issues involved need to be explored in

greater depth and from different perspectives.

2


The DSRC see their role not as government advisors, recommending options for policy: nor are they the

arbiters of a Brisbane Anglican Diocese ‘position’ on coal seam gas. Rather, the role of the Committee is to

assist people to understand key issues, to direct them to reliable resources, and to help them to know the

questions to ask that will guide them to a position of their own that is informed and guided by Anglican

principles and values.

With this in mind, the Committee has plans for a range of activity in this area. The DSRC will commission an

Occasional Paper focusing on ethical and theological aspects of the mining resources boom from a range of

perspectives. One outcome of this work will be a number of small publications/ brochures on specific

ethical/theological questions emerging from the research, which can be used in parishes for focused

discussion groups or for individuals to reflect upon.

The DSRC is also hosting workshops on Open Space technology —a workshop methodology for dealing with

difficult topics and deepening group listening processes. As facilitators across the Diocese are trained in the

techniques of Open Space, parishes (particularly in the rural and regional parts of the Diocese most

affected by the CSG industry) may be able to use this resource as another way of expressing their concerns,

learning from others and opening effective channels of communication.

This brief paper is therefore just a starting point for an ongoing conversation. It does, however, raise two

points in particular that the DSRC see as key social justice concerns:

• Given the status of CSG as a matter of ongoing and serious concern to many parish and community

members, and its direct and indirect impact on their lives, it seems clear that social support and

engagement mechanisms continue in many cases to be insufficient; and that recognition and

promotion of the need for additional resources in this area is required.

• It is a matter of social justice that industry development should not be considered to take precedence

over other highly valued community assets. The preservation of rich agricultural land, and of our

cultural and natural heritage, should be considered of equal value to our society.

It is, therefore, a matter of justice that the CSG industry, particularly given its short-lived status, takes

account of and applies emerging scientific and technical knowledge, and meets rigorous, transparent and

comprehensive standards of action that prevent the degradation of these other assets.

2.0 Economic impacts of the CSG industry in Queensland

2.1 Introduction

This section briefly outlines the financial scale of the CSG industry in Queensland, including projected

royalties, recent market changes, and a range of positive and negative economic impacts.

2.2.1 Current and projected scale

Enormous growth has occurred since the inception of the CSG industry in Australia in 1996, particularly in

Queensland.3 At a national level, over $140 billion in capital expenditure has been committed since 2007 on

major LNG projects to quadruple Australia’s LNG exports and establish us as one of the world’s largest LNG

exporters. Of this sum, $45 billion was committed to coal seam gas-to-LNG projects on the east coast.4

Figures from the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) reveal the

number of CSG wells drilled in Queensland annually increased from 10 in the early 1990s to over 600 in

2009–10, reaching a total of 4,489 as at September 2011.5 It is projected that up to 40,000 wells could be

drilled across Queensland over the next 30 years of CSG production. There are currently eight projects

3


proposed in the Surat and Bowen basins, with a total capital expenditure of over $40 billion,6 and other

basins, such as the Clarence–Moreton, Cooper and Galilee Basins, are also being explored.

2.2.2 Market changes

At the same time, the Commonwealth Government’s recent Energy White Paper 2012 noted important

changes underway in the dynamics of Australia’s gas markets, driven by “increased demand competition,

the development of new but higher-cost gas reserves, and changing patterns in domestic use, including a

growing interaction between gas and electricity markets”. 7 The Energy White Paper comments:

While there is sufficient gas to meet long-term domestic and export needs, there are likely to

be short- to medium-term transitional pressures in the eastern market until project start-up

risks diminish and new trading dynamics are established. These transitional pressures will

manifest in tighter supply and higher prices8 [for both industrial and residential gas

customers over the next decade].

The Energy White Paper outlines a series of government responses to these “transitional market

pressures”, including adjusting production schedules, increasing production from existing fields and

bringing forward incremental capacity from new CSG reserves. It also addresses at some length the

controversial issue of a national gas reservation policy to maintain separation between domestic and

international gas markets or to quarantine gas for domestic supply (see pp. 143–145, and endnotes for

further perspectives).9 At a state level, such policies have been implemented in Western Australia,10 and

recommended by the New South Wales Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5.

Inquiry into coal seam gas (the ‘NSW Standing Committee Report’).11

The Energy White Paper does not support domestic gas reservation policies, and points out in summary that:

While the immediate focus of industry and governments should be on ensuring adequate

supply, it is critical that this is not focused solely on addressing shorter-term transition issues,

but is consistent with the broader future needs and direction of Australia’s gas markets ...

This will help to ensure that gas market policy is effective in the long term, to the benefit of

both industry and consumers.12

2.2.3 Queensland state revenue from CSG royalties

As can be seen from the expected scale of the boom described above, the economic impacts of the CSG–

LNG industry in Queensland are likely to be significant.

As at November 2010, the Queensland Government suggested that on current economic modelling, a

medium-sized LNG industry in Queensland producing around 28.8mtpa (million tonnes per annum) of LNG

could:

• generate over 18,000 jobs, both directly and indirectly

• increase gross state product by over $3 billion (or 1%)

• generate capital expenditure of around $40–45 billion

• provide royalty returns of over $850 million per annum.

These royalties are projected to increase from approximately $120 million in 2014–15 up to a possible $985

million in 2031–32.13

Royalty earnings specifically from CSG appear not to be publicly available at this point. Current and recent

royalties paid to the state for larger categories, including the petroleum royalty category (which includes

CSG) are as follows:

4


Year ended Coal ($M) Base & precious metals ($M) Petroleum ($M) Other minerals ($M) Total ($M)

30 June 2011 2356.9 236.3 52.1 53.0 2698.3

30 June 2010 1786.3 132.3 47.9 48.6 2015.1

30 June 2009 3102.5 122.2 60.9 55.9 3341.5

30 June 2008 1034.8 188.6 72.9 49.2 1345.5

30 June 2007 1019.4 202.5 67.0 40.0 1328.9

Table: Summary of royalty revenue $m14

The significant increase in CSG royalties forecast for the next 3–4 years (from $52.1 to approx $120m)

reflects the beginning of the production phase at a number of major sites within that period.

Some of the evidence on the economic benefits of the coal seam gas industry is contested. Grudnoff, for

example, notes a range of negative economic impacts likely to be associated with the proposed Gladstone

CSG–LNG facility (which may also be relevant more broadly to other CSG and mining industry

development). These include the loss of manufacturing activity and jobs; reduced housing affordability for

those not employed in the industry; intensified skill shortages and further upward pressure on inflation and

exchange rates.15 The increased value of mining exports in general has contributed significantly to the

strengthening of the Australian dollar, which puts pressure on other parts of the economy that are exposed

to international competition, such as manufacturing, some agricultural commodities and tourism-related

sectors.16 The overarching point made by Grudnoff is that too many large mining projects are being

actioned simultaneously, and in this respect the economic import of CSG cannot be viewed in isolation. In

Gladstone, for example, he suggests that pressure on manufacturing activity, the use of fly-in fly-out labour

and competition with local business and industry for constrained labour resources could lead to net local

job losses.17

Despite these reservations, large capital investment and development operations are currently having

positive outcomes for employment in industries directly or indirectly associated with the CSG industry. Data

from the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) indicates that the industry

in Queensland has generated 11,864 jobs as the end of the Q4 2011 period (with 2,409 jobs added in that

half year).18 These were largely contracted employees, as below:

Employment No. added in last half No. at half year end

Direct employees 448 4388

Contractor employees 1961 7476

Total 2409 11864

It might be expected that increases in direct and contracted employment may level out once the current

construction and development phase is largely complete and most sites are in production mode. For example,

construction of the proposed Arrow Energy Gladstone LNG plant (intended to facilitate the export of CSG

from its reserves in the Surat and Bowen Basins) will require several thousand workers, but during the non

construction phase approximately 450 operational workers will be needed.19

A significant proportion of jobs are therefore likely to be generated from second round and other

consumption-induced effects of the industry.20 These may include increased activity in areas such as trade,

public administration, defence, health and education, electricity and water, recreation and other services,

brought about by both increased demand to supply construction programs and their workforces, as well as

higher household incomes and spending.

5


3.0 The political landscape

CSG in Queensland is treated as a mineral and levied under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety)

Act 2004.21 Freehold owners of land have rights only to the land and surface water of the property to which

they hold title.

The rapid growth of the CSG industry has not brought about any change to this legislative environment. Nor

are many of the environmental, social and economic issues raised by the CSG industry new. The support of

the community — the social licence to operate — has been of concern to the mining industry for some

decades.22

The current level of controversy generated by the CSG industry, and its perception by many commentators

as a ‘wicked problem’ — one that is “hard to define, ha[s] competing values and cannot be definitively

solved”23 — has at its core issues of scale, speed of development and uncertainty. In an environment where

knowledge gaps are significant, and both industry and affected communities are seeking to protect

themselves, there is no clear and comprehensive picture of what potential change (beneficial and

detrimental) might look like.24

Public discussion has thus been as much influenced by perception as reality. Jones (2012) writes of the

moment in which public opinion is swayed by an image or an idea as the ‘pink surfboard moment’,

referencing Hollywood actor Daryl Hannah’s appearance with that item as she opposed oil drilling at a

Californian forum. In the CSG debate, it is the ‘Akubra in the dust’ moment that recurs in the media, as the

company trucks roll over a well-worn farmer’s hat. Jones notes that advocates on both sides of the CSG

debate are trying to capture public opinion and create their own pink surfboard/Akubra in the dust moment,

while preventing their opposition from getting the upper hand.25

Thus, depending on the source, CSG activism is both “just another fad cause for career campaigners and

professional activists”,26 and “an alliance between progressives and conservatives, left and right, city and

country, farmers and environmentalists ... who agree that irresponsible resource extraction represents a

very serious threat to our land, our water and our communities”. 27

It is clear from this last statement that the CSG issue is also creating new alliances. What is described in

numerous public forums as “an unlikely coalition of urban Greens and the rural farming lobby” underpins

the anti-CSG movement, referencing a range of environmental, food security and social concerns.

Politically, this diverse and broad-based opposition increases the difficulty for governments in fulfilling their

role in obtaining a social licence to operate. As Jones (2012) explains:

The coal seam gas industry is seeking a social licence to operate. Part of that social licence is

tacit, where the community recognises the benefits of an industry and accepts it is acting in a

socially and environmentally responsible manner. Another part of that licence is exercised by

government in permitting the activity and ensuring that a range of conditions are met on

behalf of the community.28

In an environment of scientific uncertainty, and faced with strongly divergent stakeholder views,

governments have exercised their part of the social licence with various degrees of caution. A number of

recent inquiries have been held with a view to developing a better understanding of the industry, its issues,

and the extent and nature of community support/opposition, in order to inform future action.

6


In the last twelve months, for example, the CSG debate has prompted a Senate Rural Affairs and Transport

References Committee inquiry into the management of the Murray Darling Basin, with the release of an

Interim Report on the impact of CSG (November 2011) (the ‘Senate Committee Report’); the NSW Standing

Committee Report which explored the environmental, health, economic and social impacts of coal seam gas

activities; and national legislation to establish an independent expert scientific committee to provide advice

on impacts of CSG and large coal mining proposals on water resources has recently passed the House of

Representatives.29

Some of the key issues raised in such inquiries are summarised in the following pages.

4.0 Key issues related to CSG activities

4.1 Introduction

It is important to note that some of the issues raised in association with CSG, while requiring consideration,

are arguably more relevant to other areas of the mining sector.

Much of the international controversy over hydraulic fracturing (‘fraccing’)(for example, the American

documentary, Gaslands) has focused on shale gas — that is, methane held within shale layers, rather than

coal seam. Shale is much harder and more impermeable than coal, and thus always requires fracturing

(‘fraccing’) in order to allow the gas to flow.30 Fraccing is expected to be used for between 10-40% of coal

seam gas wells in Queensland.

Land use impacts of the CSG industry, including access to and use of farming land, differ from those

associated with facilities such as open cut mines. The extraction process for CSG has a small environmental

footprint in terms of the size of well-heads, with related reductions in dust and other impacts, although

some stakeholders have highlighted the significant impact of required infrastructure such as easements and

pipelines.

Because of the nature of the extraction process, the most significant of the environmental issues associated

particularly with CSG are those related to water and the disposal of potentially hazardous waste.

4.2 Water issues

The most significant CSG resources in Australia are found in Queensland and New South Wales,31 overlaying

parts of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). The GAB underlies approximately 22% of Australia’s landmass, and

has long been a critical source of water to groundwater dependant ecosystems, town residents, pastoralists

and other users.32

It is important, in the context of the CSG debate, to have a basic understanding of the structure of the Basin.

The Senate Committee Report described it as follows:

[The GAB] is not a vast underground 'sea' in which levels and pressures quickly and uniformly

adjust to the extraction of water from one part. Rather it is a highly complex system of

geological formations at a range of depths, of variable permeability holding water of

different quality, at different pressures and through which water flows at very different

rates, if it flows at all.33

This interaction and the complex movement of surface and underground water gives rise to uncertainty

about what impact industry processes may have on aquifers. It is this lack of knowledge that lies at the

heart of many of the water concerns raised in relation to CSG, including the potential for:

7


• reduced water supply to landowners and townships

• reduced water quality from water table cross contamination

• water contamination from drilling chemicals

• gas migration (including from gas wells) to water bores

• treatment, storage and disposal of saline water, brine and salt

• cumulative water impacts from multiple CSG developments.34

Specific discussion of each of these concerns is beyond the scope of this brief. Considered collectively, the

NSW Standing Committee Report noted that a key question faced during their inquiry that was “whether

coal seam gas activities could contaminate or deplete water resources”, and that “[t]he scientific evidence

on this question is contested”. The Committee considered that:

... the uncertainty about the likelihood of these impacts occurring underscores the need for

more data to be gathered and analysed in regions where exploration is taking place.35

It was also noted in the Senate Committee Report that the “uncertainty surrounding the potential cumulative

regional scale impacts of multiple developments”36 is a matter of overriding concern — a view shared by the

CSIRO, the National Water Commission (NWC) and Geoscience Australia. The NWC also addresses a timing

issue, noting the risk to sustainable water management “arising from the long time period over which

[impacts] may emerge and continue to have effect”.37

Significant research has been instigated at both state and national levels to address these concerns, including

a “basin-scale investigation of water resources to fill knowledge gaps about the status of water resources in

the basin and the potential impacts of climate change and resource development”.38 At regional level, the

declaration of the Surat Cumulative Management Area (CMA) by the Queensland Government gives the

Queensland Water Commission (QWC) the responsibility of preparing an independent Underground Water

Impact Report (UWIR) for this area,39 as well as advising the Department of Environment and Resource

Management on the adequacy of UWIRs prepared by individual petroleum tenure holders in other regions of

Queensland.40

"High inherent uncertainties” are predicted to remain however until sufficient data is collected from the

actual operations of CSG projects to calibrate working models.41 The UWIR for the Surat Cumulative

Management Area notes that:

Uncertainties in the predictions associated with assumptions about the future groundwater

development is not a modelling issue. Any prediction of the impact of CSG development will

always be dependent upon the assumptions about how, when and where the development

will progress in the future ... Groundwater systems such as the GAB are complex and our

understanding about these systems improves over time, as more information become

available. Often a first-generation model helps in identifying key gaps in existing knowledge

about the groundwater system and lays the foundation for future monitoring and studies

that are required to improve understanding. This process progressively leads to development

of later generation models.42

The National Water Commission has aimed to mitigate these uncertainties by articulating principles for good

management of CSG and water, providing the basis of “a robust framework” for the implementation of

regulatory arrangements for managing the water impacts of CSG development.43

8


4.3 Chemicals and other hazardous waste

Chemical additives make up about 1–3% of the total fraccing fluids used in CSG extraction, with the rest

composed largely of slurry of water and sand. Typically 60–80% of these fraccing fluids will be recovered

from the coal seam.44 The exact mix of chemicals used will vary from well to well.

The CSG industry states that provided good practice is followed, the risk of any contamination is low or

negligible; and that many of the chemicals appear naturally or as additives in everyday life, having common

uses in “swimming pools, toothpaste, baked goods, ice cream, food additives, detergents and soap”.45

The long term direct and indirect impact of chemical additives in CSG extraction, however, is unknown. While

such chemicals may appear in common household goods in controlled amounts and for targeted purposes, the

potential for “multiple unpredictable chemical combinations”,46 as well as unanticipated seepage into

groundwater and the food chain,47 has been highlighted.

The NSW Standing Committee Report cites “evidence from the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and

Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) that supported the view that very few chemicals used in fraccing have been

tested”,48 and notes the recommendation in the Senate Committee Report that NICNAS should be funded to

conduct:

... a comprehensive review of the chemicals used in fraccing, having particular regard to the

quantities, combinations of chemicals and the way in which these chemicals are used to

confirm safe levels for their use.49

Concerns have also been raised in relation to the substantial volumes of produced water brought to the

surface during the CSG extraction process. Produced water contains high levels of salts50 and naturally

occurring heavy metals, minerals and other compounds, which can have deleterious effects on surrounding

land and ecosystems. Conservative estimates of waste salt produced by the CSG industry are in the vicinity

of 750,000 tonnes of salt per annum.51

The Queensland Government has developed a Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy (June 2010) that

describes a hierarchy of preferred options from recycling into useable or saleable products, followed by

reinjection into geologically isolated structures, and then disposal through a variety of means, including

purpose-built waste disposal facilities on freehold land owned by the CSG company.52 At the time of inquiry

in 2011, the Senate Committee Report noted that the first two of these options were “unproven as ...

practical option[s]”,53 although it acknowledged that the Queensland policy required storage ponds to be

“constructed to very high standards and have safety monitoring systems built in”.54 (A Code of Practice for

Constructing and Abandoning Coal Seam Gas Wells in Queensland was introduced by the Queensland

Government in November 2011; 55 and the CSG/LNG Compliance Plan 2012–13 was released in December

2012, focusing on activities such as management of groundwater extraction, production and management

of CSG water, fraccing activities and pipeline construction.56)

The Senate Committee found that the industry in general did not have fully developed plans for the

management of produced water and salt wastes, and that long term storage and removal to landfill was the

only proven means being envisaged.57

9


4.4 Food security

A key question in relation to food security is whether coal seam gas and agriculture can coexist. Taking into

account a range of constraints, it appears that the two activities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Participants in major government inquiries have identified successful examples of co-existence, such as the

following:

A farmer from Narrabri who hosts coal seam gas development on his land acknowledged the

public fear about the impact of coal seam gas activities but maintained that, in his

experience, the impact on the land is minimal: “... at the end of the day, once it turns back

into a production well and the pipelines are in, it is a little square not much bigger than this

room. That is all it is; just a gas well in the middle with a little cage fence around it.”58

Farming industry stakeholders have acknowledged that the potential for coexistence with grazing is better

than that of cropping because graziers are better able to utilise ‘pockets’ of land.59 The situation for

cropping is more challenging: the presence of obstacles such as wells can require changes to efficient

farming practices, particularly where large machinery is in use on long runs; and considerations such as

topography, drainage patterns, risk of erosion and the need for safety zones may expand the impact of

wells many times over the actual land required for a well-head.60 APPEA notes that industry now works

more closely with landholders to optimise the layout of infrastructure to minimise the impact on farm

productivity.61

Little public information has been identified, however, that articulates the actual extent of overlap between

proposed or current CSG development and cropping land. (Attachment B provides a media representation

of this overlap. The diagram is, however, based on information which is not easily accessible to the public

and thus its rigour is unknown.) Nor have dependable figures been identified that indicate the impact of

CSG on cropping for Australian consumption.

Numerous stakeholders have pointed out in various forums that “while some locations may be appropriate

for coal seam gas development, others are clearly not”.62 The value of protecting ‘strategic cropping land’

has been recognised at both community and government level. The Senate Committee Report noted that:

Much of the land affected by this industry is productive agricultural land and, properly

managed, will remain a valuable resource for Australia and the world for many generations.

Given the growing world population, and the consequent pressures on water and agricultural

land, it is vital that the interests of a valuable, but relatively short lived industry are not

allowed to put at risk vital food producing industries and the land, water and communities on

which they depend.63

The Queensland Government has recognised such concerns through its Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011

and related regulations and policies. The legislation restricts high-impact CSG infrastructure which may

permanently affect designated strategic cropping land (SCL), but notes that “well-designed CSG operations

may be able to be accommodated” after assessment to ensure that developers “make all reasonable efforts

to avoid and minimise any impacts on SCL”.64

While some commentators have expressed doubt as to the extent to which SCL legislation provides

protection against CSG development in these areas,65 the legislation recognises and goes at least some way

toward safeguarding an alternative and highly valued community asset.

10


4.5 Land use and tenure

The process of exploration for mine sites has historically not always been as contentious. For example, the

benefits of various mining booms in the 19th and 20th centuries were well recognised across different

sectors of society.

Much of the current conflict arising in CSG areas arguably stems from the fact that the industry has

developed so quickly and has potentially significant impacts on land use, among other issues. As discussed

previously, in Australia landowners own only the surface of the property to which they hold the title —

ownership of all mineral and petroleum resources under the ground is retained by the state.

Negotiation between landholders and the industry on this issue is being addressed by legislative and

regulatory activity. In 2008 a Land Access Working Group (LAWG) was formed to improve the relationship

between the mining and agricultural sectors and to work through land access issues. The Land Access Code

came into effect in 2010, with the aim of improving landholder rights and the enforcement framework. 66

The Code sets out guidelines related to communications between landholders and resource companies,

and outlines mandatory conditions that must be complied with by resource companies undertaking

activities on private land.67

Landholders are also entitled to reasonable compensation for the impacts caused by CSG activities on their

land. The legislation requires that a Conduct and Compensation Agreement be negotiated between the

parties before a CSG operator may enter the land to undertake activities likely to have a significant impact

on the landholders’ land use.68 Little public data is available on the numbers or nature of compensation

agreements, with one of the few indications on the Australia Pacific LNG website, which states that the

company has to date, entered into over 600 compensation agreements.69

While previously compensation under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) did not include the

landholder’s valuation and legal costs, landholders are now able to claim the “accounting, legal or valuation

costs the claimant necessarily and reasonably incurs to negotiate or prepare the agreement”; and in

Queensland legal aid is made available to all landholders without means testing.70

However, there are several difficulties associated with the negotiation of compensation agreements by

landholders. While the above process aims to establish “transparency, equity and cooperation across the

sectors involved and create a more level playing field for all”,71 a Uniting Church Mining Task Group has

noted that, should a landholder not cooperate and negotiations fail, mining companies still have the option

of seeking a legal ruling for access.72 The Basin Sustainability Alliance has also outlined in detail a range of

concerns with the land access laws that include short time frames and restrictions around the legal

representation available to landholders during negotiations.73 In addition, Swayne notes that the rights of

access and use agreed in the standard compensation agreement bind not only the landholder, but also

future owners and occupiers of the land. Such agreements are not identified on the land title and there is

currently no public register able to be searched by potential purchasers of the land as part of their due

diligence processes.74

While the rights of and compensation processes for landholders have improved in recent years, there

continue to be inconsistencies, some lack of transparency, and challenges related to the imbalance of

power between stakeholders.

11


4.6 Social and health impacts

A range of social and health concerns has been raised in relation to the CSG industry. Given the relative

newness of the CSG industry and the pace at which it has developed over the past five years, there is

relatively little empirical evidence of social and health impacts specific to the industry. To a large extent

concerns raised are consistent with issues identified as a result of the burgeoning Queensland resource sector

generally.

Many such challenges have been openly acknowledged by the Queensland Government, prompting a

number of policy responses in recent years, including A Sustainable Futures Framework for Queensland

Mining Towns (2007)75 and the Sustainable Resource Communities Policy (2008).76 Some of the social and

health impacts, both direct and indirect, include:

• potential impacts on physical health from drilling chemicals and/or fraccing and associated activity and

outputs. Rutovitz et al (2011) note that the ‘BTEX’ chemicals have been banned from use in fraccing fluids

in both Queensland and NSW, but could potentially be present in the coal seam gas in very low

concentrations, and become mobilised by the gas extraction77

• mental health impacts due to factors such as a loss of a sense of privacy, security and community;

disruption to family and community life; ability to plan effectively for the future; loss of aesthetic values

of the community, and land use conflicts over property. (Many of these impacts also occur with other

major land developments, urban and rural.)

• effects of surface infrastructure, including additional traffic such as heavy vehicles on local roads; noise

and dust

• potential for greater incidence of local crime.78

The Queensland Government, in the Sustainable Resource Communities Policy,79

notes the potential for

cumulative impacts as the above factors interact within a geographic region:

Multiple concurrent and overlapping proposals for new and expanded mining development

may also result in significant cumulative and regional impacts presenting in resource

communities.

While many of the above issues are consistent with those related to the resource industry more generally,

they are exacerbated by the pace and scale of development in the CSG industry. There is little doubt that

individuals and communities have genuine concerns about the impact of CSG on their wellbeing, and that

such concerns require pastoral responses as well as practical strategies to address local issues.

5.0 Conclusions

The introduction to this brief noted that mining, including the CSG industry, is integral to any consideration

of the contemporary Australian economic, political, physical and social environment. There is no doubt that

Australia will continue to depend on and benefit economically from the resources boom in coming decades.

What is also irrefutable, as mentioned previously, is that such benefits are accompanied by costs. The CSG

industry in Australia is too new, and has progressed too rapidly, for us to have a clear understanding of the

extent of those costs. Making a truly informed assessment of the risks and rewards associated with coal

seam gas extraction requires significantly more scientific knowledge than the community currently has

access to (either because the data does not yet exist, or because it is held as commercial-in-confidence by

CSG companies); and a level of technical understanding that is largely limited to specialists in the field. This

is a challenge faced by government, the churches and the community more broadly.

12


The speed of development in the industry is driving an urgent need for responses at all of these levels.

Based on the level of uncertainty about the extent of both risks and projected benefits, there seems to be a

theme of caution emerging. As the NSW Standing Committee Report states:

We believe that the industry cannot proceed to production in the absence of robust scientific

evidence that it poses an acceptable level of risk, and that if undesirable impacts do emerge,

that we have measures to mitigate these impacts.80

Prevention and mitigation are therefore increasingly important elements in discussion about CSG. A report

just released from the International Energy Agency, for example, proposes a set of ‘Golden Rules’:

We have called them Golden Rules because their application can bring a level of

environmental performance and public acceptance that can maintain or earn the industry a

‘social licence to operate’ within a given jurisdiction, paving the way for the widespread

development of unconventional gas resources on a large scale, boosting overall gas supply

and making the golden age of gas a reality ... The Golden Rules underline that full

transparency, measuring and monitoring of environmental impacts and engagement with

local communities are critical to addressing public concerns.81

Such principles, if rigorously applied and based on sound scientific and technical knowledge, support a just

way forward. This does not imply that there will not be individuals and communities affected by CSG

development, who may require pastoral and/or practical responses that address displacement at that level.

It does mean that other highly valued community assets, such as rich agricultural land and our cultural and

natural heritage, are also valued and preserved for the future, and not dismissed in favour of the economic

benefits of a relatively short-lived industry.

Given the above, the Social Responsibilities Committee supports:

1. acknowledging the projected benefits of the CSG industry, while supporting the application of a

rigorous regulatory framework, the development of an improved evidence base, and the need for a

pastoral response for those parish/community members most immediately affected

2. an open process of parish and community dialogue on coal seam gas issues, recognising the importance

of providing safe spaces for difficult conversations.

It is not expected that the way forward will be easy. Many of the issues have no straightforward answer,

and are captured in much broader discourses within and external to the Church community. At a recent

public environmental forum attended by Anglican bishops from around the world, the Chair and then

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was quoted as saying that environmental issues were bound

with issues of moral courage such as land ownership, empowerment of women and global industry. The

article, from the Anglican Communion website, continues:

[Dr Williams] said that, considering the damage being done to our environment, “running out

of a world to live in is a mark of our unfaithfulness,” adding that Christians should not

consider environmental issues “a secular fuss imported into the church”. Followers of Christ

should not “shrug our shoulders when we are asked why there is not sufficient food or safe,

clean water...That is not what Christians should be. That is why this is a matter of faithfulness

to our creator and redeemer.”82

13


The fifth Anglican Mark of Mission, “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew

the earth”, provides direct impetus for Anglicans to continue to respond to the 1998 Lambeth Conference

Resolutions on ecology (see attachment C) and ask the difficult questions: What is a “sustainable future”? Is

growth always good? How can we best act in our role as “stewards of creation” for others, now and in the

future?

It is hoped that forthcoming work from the Diocesan Social Responsibilities Committee will help Anglicans

in the Diocese of Brisbane as they grapple with these increasingly important issues. As the Earth Charter,

endorsed by the Australian Senate in 2005, notes:

Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices.

However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with

the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals.83

14


Selected further reading and resources

Akers, Harry F. (2010). ‘A complex mosaic: Groundwater, ‘the big spill’, and the wool industry in pre-1960

Queensland’, Queensland History Journal (Royal Historical Society of Queensland). Vol. 21, no. 3, Nov.,

pp. 196–212.

A large body of evidence supports the widely held belief that the pastoral industry has contributed

significantly to social and economic developments in Queensland. Implicit in these interpretations is

the role of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). With distance and decentralisation, groundwater

(subterranean water) shaped two aspects of Queensland identity: agrarianism and regionalism.

Historians have largely ignored the wastage and depletion of this resource, colloquially termed ‘the big

spill’, and the links between groundwater and land policies and pastoral development. This paper

addresses and analyses these issues.

Brennan, Andrew and Lo, Yeuk-Sze, ‘Environmental Ethics’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall

2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) At: plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental/

An overview of environmental ethics — the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship

of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its nonhuman

contents. This article covers: (1) the challenge of environmental ethics to the human-centeredness

embedded in traditional western ethical thinking; (2) the early development of the discipline in the

1960s and 1970s; (3) the connection of deep ecology, feminist environmental ethics, and social

ecology to politics; (4) the attempt to apply traditional ethical theories to support contemporary

environmental concerns; and (5) the focus of environmental literature on wilderness, and possible

future developments of the discipline.

Geological Survey of Queensland (GSQ). At: mines.industry.qld.gov.au/geoscience/about-gsq.htm

The Geological Survey of Queensland (GSQ), as part of the Department of Natural Resources and

Mines, provides a range of geoscience and resource information, including maps, publications, and

digital data, data sets and compilations.

Geoscience Australia and Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (2010). Australian

Energy Resource Assessment. At: adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_aera_d9aae_002/aera.pdf

A national assessment of Australia’s energy resources, examining Australia’s identified and potential

energy resources ranging from fossil fuels and uranium to renewables. The report reviews and

assesses the factors likely to influence the use of Australia’s energy resources to 2030, including the

technologies being developed to extract energy more efficiently and cleanly from existing and new

energy sources.

International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook Special Report on

Unconventional Gas. Released 29 May 2012. At: www.worldenergyoutlook.org

This report depicts two scenarios: a Golden Rules Case, in which the highest practicable standards are

adopted, gaining industry a "social licence to operate"; and its counterpart, in which “the tide turns

against unconventional gas as constraints prove too difficult to overcome”.

Rutovitz, J., Harris, S., Kuruppu, N. and Dunstan, C. (2011). Drilling Down. Coal Seam Gas: A Background Paper.

Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, for the City of Sydney Council. At:

www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/environment/EnergyAndEmissions/documents/ CoSCSMReportfinalv4pdf

A clearly written overview of CSG technology, issues and drivers in eastern Australia.

15


Stephens, C., Bullock, S., and Scott, A. (2001). Environmental justice: Rights and Means to a Healthy Environment

for All. Joint publication of Friends of the Earth, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Economic and

Social Research Council (ESRC). Special Briefing No 7, November. At:

www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/environmental_justice.pdf

This clear and readable document brings together the evidence on environmental justice in the UK and

attempts to provide a synthesis of the various factors involved. While over a decade old and focused

on the UK, it offers much of value in reframing environmental issues as a critical and core element of

achieving social justice goals, rather than as a set of priorities which conflict with social goals. It

suggests that by seeing social justice issues through an environmental lens and vice versa by analysing

environmental issues more clearly in terms of social justice, new and more effective ways for dealing

with each can be developed than if each is dealt with separately.

16


Attachment A: Glossary, acronyms and notes

APPEA Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association

Aquifer An underground bed or layer of permeable rock that can contain or transmit

groundwater.

BTEX The term used for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene — compounds

typically found in petroleum products

CBM Coal Bed Methane (also known as CSG)

CMA Cumulative Management Area

Conventional Historically petroleum has been extracted through oil and gas wells drilling

into large reserves or fields deep underground — ‘conventional’ sources of oil

and gas. The bulk of conventional gas extracted has traditionally been what is

known as ‘natural gas’.

CSG Coal seam gas (also known as CBM, CSM or CBNG)

CSM Coal Seam Methane (also known as CSG)

DEEDI Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation

DERM Department of Environment and Resource Management

Fraccing Hydraulic fracturing: the process of creating cracks in underground coal seams

to increase the flow and recovery of gas out of a well

GAB Great Artesian Basin

IEA International Energy Agency

LAWG Land Access Working Group

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

mtpa million tonnes per annum

NICNAS National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme

NWC National Water Commission

Petroleum Petroleum is often understood as meaning crude oil. However, in its broader

understanding, petroleum can include all liquid, gas and solid hydrocarbons

which naturally occur underground.

QWC Queensland Water Commission

SCL Strategic Cropping Land

Unconventional ‘Unconventional’ is a general descriptor for gas that is highly dispersed in rock,

rather than in a concentrated bubble over oil or water. The word is often used

loosely to describe petroleum products that are more difficult or less

economical to extract because the technology to reach it has not been

developed fully, or is expensive.

UWIR Underground Water Impact Report

17


Attachment B:

Overview of CSG leases, wells and agricultural land in Queensland

Source:

“Coal Seam gas by the numbers”

ABC website:

www.abc.net.au/news/specials/

coal-seam-gas-by-the-

numbers/promise/

18


Attachment C: 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolutions

Resolution I.9

Ecology

This Conference:

a. calls upon all ecumenical partners and other faith communities, governments and transnational

companies:

i. to work for sustainable society in a sustainable world;

ii. to recognise the dignity and rights of all people and the sanctity of all life, especially the

rights of future generations;

iii. to ensure the responsible use and re-cycling of natural resources;

iv. to bring about economic reforms which will establish a just and fair trading system both for

people and for the environment.

b. calls upon the United Nations to incorporate the right of future generations to a sustainable future

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

c. asks the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates to consider the appointment of a

co-ordinator of an inter-national ecological network within the Anglican Communion, who would:

i. work in co-operation with other ecumenical and interfaith agencies;

ii. be funded through and responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council;

iii. support those engaged in grass-roots environmental initiatives;

iv. gather and disseminate data and information on environmental issues so that the Church

can play an informed role in lobbying for ecological justice in both the public and private

sectors; and

v. contribute to the development of environmental educational programmes for use in the

training of Christian leaders.

19


Endnotes

1 Roarty, M. (2011). “The development of Australia’s coal seam gas resources”, Background Note, Parliament of Australia,

Parliamentary Library, 28 July, p. 1. At:

www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-

2012/CoalSeamGas 2

Uniting Church in Australia Queensland Synod, Central Queensland Presbytery (2011). “Mining Taskgroup Environmental

Impact Summary”. At: www.greenchurch.ucaqld.com.au/files/file/Mining_Taskgroup_Summary.pdf 3 Rutovitz, J., Harris, S., Kuruppu, N. and Dunstan, C. (2011). Drilling down. Coal Seam Gas: A background paper. Institute for

Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, for the City of Sydney Council, September, p. 35. At:

www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/environment/EnergyAndEmissions/documents/CoSCSMReportfinalv4pdf. 4 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2011). Draft Energy White Paper: Strengthening the Foundations for

Australia’s Energy Future. Dec., p. xxv. At: www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/ewp/draft-ewp-2011/Draft-EWP.pdf 5 Rutovitz et al. (2011). Drilling down. Coal Seam Gas: A background paper. p. 35.

6 WorleyParsons (2010). Spatial Analysis of Coal Seam Water Chemistry Task 1: Literature Review. Report prepared for the

Commonwealth Department of Department of Environment and Resource Management, December, p. 5. At:

www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coal-seam-gas/water-feasibility-study/pdf/water-chem-spatial-

analysis_lit-review.pdf 7 Commonwealth Department of Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism (DRET) (2012). Energy White Paper 2012,

Australia's Energy Transformation, pp. 139-141. At:

www.ret.gov.au/energy/facts/white_paper/Pages/energy_white_paper.aspx#contents 8 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2012). Energy White Paper 2012. p.134.

9 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2012). Energy White Paper 2012. p.139–141. Fuller discussion of this issue is

beyond the scope of this brief. Additional resources and alternate points of view can also be found at:

DomGas Alliance (2012). “The domestic gas challenge”. At:

www.domgas.com.au/pdf/Subs_pres/General%20presentation%20-%20June%202012.pdf

DomGas Alliance (2012). Australia’s Domestic Gas Security Report 2012. At:

www.domgas.com.au/pdf/Alliance_reports/DomGas%20Report%202012.pdf

Manning, P. (2012). “Santos warns against gas reservation”. Sydney Morning Herald, November 19. At:

www.smh.com.au/business/santos-warns-against-gas-reservation-20121118-29kl6.html

O’Sullivan, K. and Jasper, T. (2011). “The future of domestic gas reservation in WA”, Clayton Utz Energy and Resources

Insights, 22 August. At:

www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/energy_and_resources_insights/20110822/the_future_of_domestic_gas_re

servation_in_wa.page 10

Government of Western Australia (2012). “Government to retain 15 per cent domestic gas reservation”. Ministerial Media

Statement, 9 August. At:

www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Lists/Statements/DispForm.aspx?ID=142977&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emediast

atements%2Ewa%2Egov%2Eau%2FPages%2Fdefault%2Easpx%3FPaged%3DTRUE%26p%5FDate%3D20111010%252016%25

3a00%253a00%26p%5FID%3D145004%26View%3D%257b78E45DE7%252d715D%252d455C%252dB30A%252dA597953FA

0C7%257d%26PageFirstRow%3D2001 11

New South Wales Legislative Council, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. (2012). Inquiry into coal seam gas.

Report No. 35, May. At:

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/29AE48525CFAEA7CCA2578E3001ABD1C 12

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2012). Energy White Paper 2012. p. 144. 13

Queensland Government (2010). Queensland’s LNG Industry Snapshot. November, p. 1. At:

www.industry.qld.gov.au/lng/projects-queensland.html 14

Office of State Revenue, Queensland Government. “Revenue statistics”. Website last updated 9 Nov 2011. At:

www.osr.qld.gov.au/royalties/statistics.shtml 15

Grudnoff, M. (2012). Job Creator or Job Destroyer: An Analysis of the Mining Boom in Queensland. The Australia Institute,

March 20. At: www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=982&act=display 16

Arrow Energy (2012). Arrow LNG Plant Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix 21: Economic Impact Assessment, p. 55. 17

Grudnoff, M. (2012). An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Arrow Energy’s Gladstone LNG Plant. The Australia Institute

submission. May 29. At: www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=1002&act=display 18

Australian Petroleum and Production Exploration Agency (2012). “Total CSG industry data”, fact sheet. At:

www.appea.com.au/images/stories/Statistics/12-02%20csg%20data%20summary%2022%20feb%20_4_.pdf 19

Grudnoff, M. (2012). An Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Arrow Energy’s Gladstone LNG Plant, p. 1. 20

First round or direct effects are those from the expenditure in purchasing goods and services from other industries; second

round effects are those from the supplying industries increasing their purchases to meet the additional demand.

20


Consumption-induced effects identify the increase in economic activity generated to service the additional employment

(and population) created through the direct and indirect effects. 21

Royalties are payable at 10% of the wellhead value, which is the amount that the product could reasonably be expected to

realise if sold on a commercial basis, less deductable costs (s 148). Source: Montoya, D. (2012). “Coal seam gas royalties in

Australian States & Territories”. NSW Parliamentary e-brief, January, No. 3/2012. At:

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/CoalseamgasroyaltiesinAustralianStatesTerritories/$File/

Coal+seam+gas+royalties+in+Australian+States+&+Territories.pdf 22

For example, Jones (2012) cites the website of the Australian Coal Association: ‘The Australian coal industry respects that its

long-term future relies on its ‘social licence’ to operate. This means that the majority of the community remains supportive of

Australia’s coal mining industry once aware of the economic and employment the industry provides; the essential products

that it produces for domestic and overseas markets for energy, steelmaking and other industrial processes; and the impacts it

can have on the environment and some local communities.’ At: www.australiancoal.com.au/social-licence-to-operate.html 23

Jones, R. (2012). “Pink surfboard conundrum: calculating risk v social licence to operate”. Crikey, 20 Feb. At:

www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/20/the-pink-surfboard-conundrum-calculating-risk-v-a-social-licence-to-operate/ 24

An issue raised, for example by the General Purpose Standing Committee (2012). Coal Seam Gas. p. xiv. 25

Jones, R. (2012). “Pink surfboard conundrum”. 26

Dobney, C. (2012). “Gas group attacks SCU lecturer”. Echonetdaily, 16 April, citing Australian Petroleum Production and

Exploration Association Ltd Chief Operating Officer — Eastern Australia, Rick Wilkinson. At: echonetdaily.echo.net.au/gas-

group-attacks-scu-lecturer/ 27

Hutton, D. (2012). “Behind the seams: Lock the Gate unites cockies, blockies, croppers and greenies”. Crikey, 20 March. At:

www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/20/behind-the-seams-lock-the-gate-unites-cockies-blockies-croppers-and-greenies/ 28

Jones, R. (2012). “Pink surfboard conundrum”. 29

Burke, T. (2012). “Expert committee on CSG and coal mining passes house”. The Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, media release. 30 May. At:

www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2012/mr20120530.html 30

There is currently no shale gas production in Australia, although there are large shale gas reserves in South Australia, the

Northern Territory and Western Australia; and areas in Queensland that have been identified as “warrant[ing] evaluation at

a future time” (Advanced Resources International Inc. (2011). World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14

Regions outside the United States. Report prepared for US Department of Energy, Washington DC, February, p. 3. At:

www.drillsearch.com.au/sites/default/files/2011%2002%2001-EIA%20World%20Shale%20Gas%20Resources-

Australia%2BCooper%20Basin%20Extract.pdf 31

Rutovitz et al. (2011). Drilling down. Coal Seam Gas: A background paper, p. 14. 32

Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, “Great Artesian Basin”.

Website last updated 24 May 2011. At: www.environment.gov.au/water/locations/gab/index.html 33

Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee (2011). Management of the Murray Darling Basin Interim Report:

the Impact of Mining Coal Seam Gas on the Management of the Murray Darling Basin. 30 November, p. 19. At:

www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/mdb/interim_report/index.htm 34

Sherriff, G., Wilson, B. and Steed, J. (2010). CSG and the Energy Sector: Water Concerns: Qld Coal Seam Gas Developments.

30 November. At: lockthegate.org.au/documents/doc-268-jpm-csg1.pdf 35

General Purpose Standing Committee (2012). Coal Seam Gas. p. xiv. 36

Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee (2011). Interim Report. p. 18. 37

National Water Commission (2010). “Position Statement: Coal seam gas and water”. December. Updated comments

provided and principles endorsed April 2012. At: www.nwc.gov.au/nwi/position-statements/coal-seam-gas 38

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). “Great Artesian Basin”. Website last updated

14 October 2011. At: www.csiro.au/science/Great-Artesian-Basin-Assessment 39

Queensland Water Commission (2012). Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area,

18 July. At: www.qwc.qld.gov.au/csg/water-impact-report.html

APPEA sources (personal communication, 5 Sept 2012) note that the QWC modelling “forecasts that 97.5% of the 21,000

bores in the Surat Basin will not see any impact arising from coal seam gas activity that could pose a risk to groundwater

supply from a bore”; and point out that the Namoi Catchment Water Study in NSW came to a similar conclusion — showing

that “the collective impacts of coal mining and coal seam gas extraction can be effectively managed without negatively

impacting agricultural water use across the region”. Media release at:

www.trade.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/440030/Minister-Hartcher-med-rel-Namoi-Catchment-Water-

Study.pdf 40

Queensland Water Commission. “Queensland Water Commission – coal seam gas groundwater management”. Fact sheet.

At: www.qwc.qld.gov.au/csg/pdf/csg-qwc-role.pdf 41

Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee (2011). Interim Report. p. 19 at 2.10. 42

Queensland Water Commission (2012). Underground Water Impact Report. p. 46. 43

National Water Commission (2010). “Position Statement”.

21


44 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (2012). “What is hydraulic fracturing?”. Factsheet,

April. 45

General Purpose Standing Committee (2012). Coal Seam Gas. p. 70. 46

General Purpose Standing Committee (2012). Coal Seam Gas. p. 71, quoting Doctors for the Environment Australia Inc

submission. 47

General Purpose Standing Committee (2012). Coal Seam Gas. p. 69, quoting NSW Farmers’ Dairy Committee submission. 48



Total dissolved solids values may vary from 200 to more than 10,000 milligrams per litre. Good quality drinking water has

total dissolved solids values of up to 500 milligrams per litre. The total dissolved solids value of sea water is between 36,000

and 38,000 milligrams per litre. See: Department of Environment and Resource Management (2010). Coal Seam Gas Water

Management Policy. June, p. 1. At: www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coal-seam-gas/pdf/water-

management-policy.pdf 51


Department of Environment and Resource Management (2012). “Salt and brine management in coal seam gas production”.

Factsheet. Last updated 17 Feb. At: www.derm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/environment/en9.pdf 53



Queensland Government Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)(2011). Code of

Practice for Constructing and Abandoning Coal Seam Gas Wells in Queensland. Version 1.0, November. At:

mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/petroleum-pdf/csg_code_of_practice.pdf 56

Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2012). CSG/LNG Compliance Plan 2012–13.

November. At: www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/coal-seam-gas/enforcement-compliance.html 57





Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (2012).“Natural gas from coal”. Queensland Government

briefing, May. Slide: “Land access: CSG and the land”. 62



Department of Environment and Resource Management (2012). “Frequently asked questions”. Web page last updated

27 February. At: www.derm.qld.gov.au/land/planning/strategic-cropping/faqs.html#how_will_the_scl_legislation 65

For example, Swayne, N. (2012). “Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland : lessons in an adaptive environmental

management approach?”. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 29, pp. 163–185: “It is very clear that this scheme will

not act as an outright prohibition on these projects. Instead, this scheme is designed to simply add an additional layer of

impact assessment onto existing approval requirements and to enable additional conditions of approval to be imposed ...

While these may go some way to minimise the likely impacts from some resources projects, they will not protect the

productivity of Queensland’s ‘finite’ and ‘irreplaceable’ soil resources as asserted by the Government and they will certainly

not protect the land from CSG projects in Queensland”. 66

Squire, Warwick (2010). “Land access and compensation”. Department of Employment, Economic Development and

Innovation presentation. At: www.jeffseeney.com.au/getdata.do?source=3&id=246 67

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2012). “Land access”. Web page last updated 22 March. At:

www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au/mining/land-access.htm

The current Land Access Code sets out obligations including in giving notice orally and in person (s.10a), induction training

(s12), dealing with access points, roads and tracks (s13), livestock and property (s14), and taking all reasonable steps to prevent

spread of pests and weeds (s15), camps (s16), items brought onto lands (s17) and dealing with gates, grids and fences (s18).

These provisions mandate using existing infrastructure (such as roads) minimising disturbances, notifying the landholder and

remedying any damage cause. These have been further supplemented by Exploration Restricted Areas, a temporary halt on

new applications which allows for buffers around urban areas, and Strategic Cropping Laws (2011) which provide further

restriction on developments in specified ‘protection’ or ‘management’ areas.

For further on the strategic cropping laws see:

Department of Environment and Resource Management, “Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011”. At:

www.derm.qld.gov.au/land/planning/strategic-cropping/legislation-planning.html

For a legal analysis see:

Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers (2012). “Strategic Cropping Land: Ploughing ahead for agribusiness or putting up walls for

urban developers and digging holes for resource companies?”. At: cgw.com.au/legal-alerts/february-2012/strategic-

cropping-land-ploughing-ahead-for-agribusiness-or-putting-up-wa

22


68 Swayne, N. (2012). “Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland”. p. 17.

69 Australia Pacific LNG, “Working with farmers” website. At: www.aplng.com.au/community/working-farmers

70 Swayne, N. (2012). “Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland”. p. 19.

71 Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2012). Land Access Code. Web page last updated 22 March. At:

www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/land-tenure-pdf/land_access_code_nov2010.pdf 72

Uniting Church (2011). “Mining Taskgroup Environmental Impact Summary”. p.1. 73

Basin Sustainability Alliance (2012). “Social and economic impacts”. Web page at:

www.basinsustainabilityalliance.org/socialeconomicimpacts.html 74

Swayne, N. (2012). “Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland”. p. 21. 75

Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport & Recreation (2007). A Sustainable Futures Framework for Queensland

Mining Towns. Sustainable Planning Division, February. At:

www.deedi.qld.gov.au/cg/resources/planning/planning/sustainable_futures_framework.pdf 76

Queensland Government (2008). Sustainable Resource Communities Policy: Social impact assessment in the mining and

petroleum industries, September. At: www.qrc.org.au/_dbase_upl/FINAL%20SIA%20Policy.pdf 77

Rutovitz et al. (2011). Drilling down. Coal Seam Gas: A background paper. p. 35. 78

Carrington, Kerry and McIntosh, Alison and Scott, John (2010). “Globalisation, frontier masculinities and violence: booze,

blokes and brawls”. British Journal of Criminology (in press). Full print also at: eprints.qut.edu.au/29763/ 79

Queensland Government (2008). Sustainable Resource Communities Policy. p. 1. 80


International Energy Agency (2012). Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook Special Report on

Unconventional Gas. 29 May. At: www.worldenergyoutlook.org 82

Anglican Communion News Service (2012) “Environmental change not ‘a secular fuss imported into the church’ but a moral

issue”. 1 November. At: www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2012/11/1/ACNS5225 83

The Earth Charter is a declaration of fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global

society in the 21st century, based on “the most inclusive and participatory process ever associated with the creation of an

international declaration”. It is available at: www.earthcharterinaction.org

On 21 June 2005 the Australian Senate endorsed the Earth Charter with a motion stating among other things that the

Senate “recognizes and supports the Earth Charter as an important civil society contribution to our understanding of

sustainable development and the ethics and principles needed to promote a more just, sustainable and peaceful world”.

See: www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/Countries/Australia