Up to 130 spills of toxic waste could occur if the Santos Narrabri coal seam gas project goes ahead, potentially endangering high-quality drinking and irrigation water, according to a leading academic.
In a damning report obtained by Guardian Australia, RMIT hydrologist Matthew Currell said he found basic scientific gaps in the 7,000-page Narrabri gas project environmental impact statement (EIS).
Currell, a senior lecturer in environmental engineering, said the EIS was missing analysis of waste water from existing gas wells and contains conflicting information on whether the project area was part of the recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin.
He said neither Santos nor the New South Wales government had enough monitoring wells to ensure groundwater was properly monitored.
“[The company and NSW government] don’t have enough monitoring wells in shallow aquifers or baseline chemistry data to get good picture of groundwater chemistry and levels of key CSG-related contaminants,” Currell said.
If the project goes ahead, 850 gas wells will be drilled through
shallow aquifers – used by farmers and residents for drinking, stock
water and irrigation – into a hard layer of aquitard to access the coal
seams below. Santos says the project could provide more than 50% of the
state’s gas needs.
Based on previous studies, including one by UNSW for the state’s chief scientist in 2014, Currell said CSG-produced water contaminants included high levels of sodium as well as trace elements of barium and boron, heavy metals, fluoride and ammonia. But he said Santos had not provided its own wastewater tests on samples already being accessed in test wells in the EIS.
Currell said the water in the shallow aquifers in the area produced particularly high quality water which would be at risk given the engineering challenges of large amounts of waste water combined with the 25-year span of the proposed project.
He said all CSG wells produced wastewater which needed to be managed and the track record to date in the Pilliga showed a number of contaminations with a small number of wells – a fraction of the 850 that are in the project.
“Using these [US] spill rates, which are based on tens of thousands of wells across the US, something on the order of 15 to 130 spills of wastewater could be expected to occur in association with the Narrabri gas project, if the planned 850 wells are drilled,” Currell writes.
His report was commissioned for the Northwest alliance, a group of landholders opposed to the gas project, to inform its submission to the NSW government on the EIS.
Submissions closed earlier this week and it has been estimated more than 15,000 contributions were received. The NSW Department of Planning has yet to collate the total number.
The project has some support in Narrabri but many farming communities who rely on underground water are opposed to it. The local NSW Nationals MP, Kevin Humphries, supports the project but last week, the NSW Country Women’s Association passed a motion calling for a ban on unconventional gas exploration in the state.
While the Narrabri shire council has been generally supportive, its submission, reported by Fairfax earlier this week, outlined a number of concerns over the environmental impacts and a lack of faith in the capacity of the NSW government to monitor its effects. By-products will include 37.5 gigalitres of water and 430,500 tonnes of salt over the life of the project.
Santos needs the approval of the planning assessment commission in the NSW government. It also needs federal government approval following an assessment by the independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas under the so-called water trigger in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
It is highly likely any decision by the NSW government would not be made until at least the second half of next year, potentially in the lead up to a federal government election and the NSW election in March 2019.
Currell said, as a scientist, it was not up to him to form a view on whether the project should go ahead but to provide the data to inform the decision. He likened the shallow aquifers under the Pilliga to the headwaters of a river which would also have effects down stream.
“The fact that to date the Pilliga is a relatively pristine area, with few existing land-use impacts threatening groundwater quality, means that the project area is one where particularly high-quality water can be ensured,” his report says.
“As such, a greater than normal level of protection (eg, restriction of potentially polluting land-use activities) may be warranted – as is standard practice for many drinking water catchments.”
Currell’s report contradicts former CSIRO hydrogeologist, Richard Cresswell, who told farmers in 2015 the project was no threat to the water resource because there was no linkage between the shallow aquifers and the coal seam gas below.
Cresswell was employed by Jacobs Engineering who provide services to Santos.
Currell’s report echoes submissions by other groups, such as the Maules Creek community council (MCCC), who said fundamental data was missing from the EIS, including infrastructure locations, well locations, the baseline data for soil, surface and ground water quality, and the air quality at those locations.
“Crucial location information required by landholders to assess the [project] has been deliberately held back, post approval, to be revealed in the field development protocol, which is of little use to landholders making decisions today,” the MCCC submission says.
“Baseline data at those locations, critical to hold the proponent to account is also not available, further impairing affected landholders ability to make plans to manage the impacts whether they are supportive or against the NGP. Given Santos’s sketchy track record in the Pilliga, this information is essential to protect landholders, the environment and the community.”
Anne Kennedy, president of the Artesian Bore Water Users Association and the Northwest Alliance, said without underground water, farmers like her and her husband would have to walk off their farm at Coonamble near the Pilliga. They have little rain water and due to soil type, they cannot store water in dams.
She said Currell’s report backs up previous reports such as soil scientist Robert Banks’ scientific review for the Great Artesian Basin Advisory Group.
“The single most vital important point when considering this project is that water is life,” Kennedy said. “Matthew Currell has pointed out how critical water is and the Great Artesian Basin is Australia’s greatest resource as we move towards a time when wars will be fought over water, not oil or gas.”
After the submissions are collated, Santos will provide responses to the issues raised.
“Santos welcomes the opportunity for the community to have their say on the Narrabri gas project and the EIS and we recognise the important role this part of the assessment process will play in ensuring a robust and thorough assessment,” a spokesperson said.
“The Department of Planning and Environment will highlight the submissions they feel contain issues that require further consideration or information. Santos will respond to those issues in due course as part of the assessment process.”
In a damning report obtained by Guardian Australia, RMIT hydrologist Matthew Currell said he found basic scientific gaps in the 7,000-page Narrabri gas project environmental impact statement (EIS).
Currell, a senior lecturer in environmental engineering, said the EIS was missing analysis of waste water from existing gas wells and contains conflicting information on whether the project area was part of the recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin.
He said neither Santos nor the New South Wales government had enough monitoring wells to ensure groundwater was properly monitored.
“[The company and NSW government] don’t have enough monitoring wells in shallow aquifers or baseline chemistry data to get good picture of groundwater chemistry and levels of key CSG-related contaminants,” Currell said.
Based on previous studies, including one by UNSW for the state’s chief scientist in 2014, Currell said CSG-produced water contaminants included high levels of sodium as well as trace elements of barium and boron, heavy metals, fluoride and ammonia. But he said Santos had not provided its own wastewater tests on samples already being accessed in test wells in the EIS.
Currell said the water in the shallow aquifers in the area produced particularly high quality water which would be at risk given the engineering challenges of large amounts of waste water combined with the 25-year span of the proposed project.
He said all CSG wells produced wastewater which needed to be managed and the track record to date in the Pilliga showed a number of contaminations with a small number of wells – a fraction of the 850 that are in the project.
“Using these [US] spill rates, which are based on tens of thousands of wells across the US, something on the order of 15 to 130 spills of wastewater could be expected to occur in association with the Narrabri gas project, if the planned 850 wells are drilled,” Currell writes.
His report was commissioned for the Northwest alliance, a group of landholders opposed to the gas project, to inform its submission to the NSW government on the EIS.
Submissions closed earlier this week and it has been estimated more than 15,000 contributions were received. The NSW Department of Planning has yet to collate the total number.
The project has some support in Narrabri but many farming communities who rely on underground water are opposed to it. The local NSW Nationals MP, Kevin Humphries, supports the project but last week, the NSW Country Women’s Association passed a motion calling for a ban on unconventional gas exploration in the state.
While the Narrabri shire council has been generally supportive, its submission, reported by Fairfax earlier this week, outlined a number of concerns over the environmental impacts and a lack of faith in the capacity of the NSW government to monitor its effects. By-products will include 37.5 gigalitres of water and 430,500 tonnes of salt over the life of the project.
Santos needs the approval of the planning assessment commission in the NSW government. It also needs federal government approval following an assessment by the independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas under the so-called water trigger in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
It is highly likely any decision by the NSW government would not be made until at least the second half of next year, potentially in the lead up to a federal government election and the NSW election in March 2019.
Currell said, as a scientist, it was not up to him to form a view on whether the project should go ahead but to provide the data to inform the decision. He likened the shallow aquifers under the Pilliga to the headwaters of a river which would also have effects down stream.
“The fact that to date the Pilliga is a relatively pristine area, with few existing land-use impacts threatening groundwater quality, means that the project area is one where particularly high-quality water can be ensured,” his report says.
“As such, a greater than normal level of protection (eg, restriction of potentially polluting land-use activities) may be warranted – as is standard practice for many drinking water catchments.”
Currell’s report contradicts former CSIRO hydrogeologist, Richard Cresswell, who told farmers in 2015 the project was no threat to the water resource because there was no linkage between the shallow aquifers and the coal seam gas below.
Cresswell was employed by Jacobs Engineering who provide services to Santos.
Currell’s report echoes submissions by other groups, such as the Maules Creek community council (MCCC), who said fundamental data was missing from the EIS, including infrastructure locations, well locations, the baseline data for soil, surface and ground water quality, and the air quality at those locations.
“Crucial location information required by landholders to assess the [project] has been deliberately held back, post approval, to be revealed in the field development protocol, which is of little use to landholders making decisions today,” the MCCC submission says.
“Baseline data at those locations, critical to hold the proponent to account is also not available, further impairing affected landholders ability to make plans to manage the impacts whether they are supportive or against the NGP. Given Santos’s sketchy track record in the Pilliga, this information is essential to protect landholders, the environment and the community.”
Anne Kennedy, president of the Artesian Bore Water Users Association and the Northwest Alliance, said without underground water, farmers like her and her husband would have to walk off their farm at Coonamble near the Pilliga. They have little rain water and due to soil type, they cannot store water in dams.
She said Currell’s report backs up previous reports such as soil scientist Robert Banks’ scientific review for the Great Artesian Basin Advisory Group.
“The single most vital important point when considering this project is that water is life,” Kennedy said. “Matthew Currell has pointed out how critical water is and the Great Artesian Basin is Australia’s greatest resource as we move towards a time when wars will be fought over water, not oil or gas.”
After the submissions are collated, Santos will provide responses to the issues raised.
“Santos welcomes the opportunity for the community to have their say on the Narrabri gas project and the EIS and we recognise the important role this part of the assessment process will play in ensuring a robust and thorough assessment,” a spokesperson said.
“The Department of Planning and Environment will highlight the submissions they feel contain issues that require further consideration or information. Santos will respond to those issues in due course as part of the assessment process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment