Recent News

ENVIRONMENTALISM by itself is not a bad thing but left unchecked, as appears to be the case with green opposition to coal seam gas and other developments in Australia, it is a whole different ballgame entirely.

The National Energy Security Assessment appears to agree with this, saying environmental challenges to CSG were a threat to gas supply security just as Australia became more reliant on it as a power source.

It is not hard to find examples of this.

The strident opposition to CSG, especially in New South Wales, led to a moratorium on fracture stimulation in the state that has since been extended to April this year while the federal government caved to independent MP Tony Windsor’s demands for more oversight over the sector with the introduction of an expert scientific panel that would assess the impact of CSG projects on water.

This opposition has continued into the new year, with New South Wales Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham opening the offensive with claims that land access payments in the Pilliga forest were minute compared to the revenue the wells there were generating – a point that fails to take into account a broader range of issues such as company tax and the nature of CSG production.

Buckingham has since latched on to a new “study” from the US that alleges that exposure to gas drilling in the US is strongly linked to serious health problems in humans, pets, livestock and other animals.

However, scienctists polled by the Australian Science Media Centre said the study did not qualify as a scientific one but was more accurately an advocacy piece. University of Melbourne honorary professorial fellow Professor Ian Rae noted that its authors did not appear to have a track record of investigation in environmental studies.

Griffith University associate professor Dr Heather Chapman added that while the report was interesting, there were important differences between the shale gas drilling referenced in it and the coal seam gas drilling in Australia, namely that the latter took place at greater depths.

The comments clearly show that those opposed to CSG are willing to pull out all stops and even endorse half-baked “studies” to prove their point rather than carrying out proper and relevant scientific studies.

In contrast, the industry has at least generally been systematic about collecting data from its operations and has commissioned studies into its impact and how it compares with the coal industry.

After all, the industry has a vested interest in maintaining its licence to operate and ignoring any potential environmental impacts would be detrimental to this goal.

CSG has been in Australia for more than a decade and during this time there have been no major incidents. It is possible that this might change as operations ramp up for the massive export projects, but there is a clear awareness of this and little doubt that all is being done to prevent any incidents from happening.

The trick now is to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly the public, are aware of this and that the ham-fisted, sensationalist moves of those opposed to CSG development are exposed for what they are, without dismissing any genuine concerns.

http://www.energynewspremium.net//storyview.asp?storyid=2494254&sectionsource=s0