http://csg.getup.org.au/

And please sign the petition:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/coal-seam-gas/map/petition-module

Coal Seam Gas
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/coal-seam-gas

The coal seam gas rush
http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/coal-seam-gas-by-the-numbers/

How is coal seam gas mined?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/coal-seam-gas-by-the-numbers/drilling/

Basically just too much risk for the environment and people inhabiting it.

muso wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:26am:

Muso you are getting predictable.
Focus on one tiny thing to try and discredit an idea 1000000000x bigger.
The closest well to Gladstone is roughly 50km away but they are completely surrounded and their drinking water is at risk among other things.
There are plans to develop CSG in the area and this is what people are talking about.

Please leave this issue here now that it has been resolved and do not try and derail my thread over a tiny piece of crap.

So, what makes CSG exploration so different from oil and gas exploration?  Are you suggesting that open cut coal mining is better, or are you suggesting that we stop all energy production except for solar henceforth?

Quote:


I'd love to know where this well is. I'd also love to know how you can develop coal seam gas production in the Gladstone area. Apart from the Oil Shale deposits, you're talking about predominantly volcanics.

Exactly how does it affect the local water supplies anywhere in the region?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:49am:



I'd love to see more renewable energy projects, but I also prefer to deal with the facts rather than sensationalising.

Sensationalising things without checking facts provides ammunition for the real Luddites who would prefer business as usual.

We need to present the risks associated with all developments on an equal footing.  Some of that might not fit your propaganda machine, but people deserve to know the facts.

For example, the fact that rooftop solar has 3 times the fatality rate per MWhr that nuclear power does.  (People fall off roofs and soalr panels have been known to set buildings on fire)

Everything carries risk. It's just a question of evaluating that risk rationally.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:49am:



Singling out CSG as being a bigger problem than coal mining is ridiculous.  You realise of course that wherever coal is produced, that has had a much greater effect on groundwater, and most CSG production tends to be in those areas, with the exception of coal fields that are yet to be produced.

The main problem is a result of poor quality groundwater in coal mining areas. When that is produced, it can have a severe effect on crops if its allowed to run off. In cases where the groundwater is of good quality, it is no longer an issue. The production of CSG in the absence of other mining activities is not a significant  environmental hazard.

You can see evidence of that around Chinchilla, where the water is made available to farmers. Now if they actually start large scale coal mining in that area and the area around Wandoan, the ground water will be useless.

You might read about BTX and fracking. No CSG company uses BTX in Queensland, although these aromatics are naturally present in oil and coal deposits.

The risk of exposure to BTX is much greater when refueling your vehicle. Do you wear chemical gloves when you refuel your vehicle?

Hang on. If they were drilling for the purpose of running a pipeline under the Condamine river, then the "fluid" would be muddy water. Big Deal. This is an example of the hysteria surrounding this issue, and our environment department are hopelessly inept at reporting the facts.

They do geotechnical drilling all over the place. Just because this is associated with a CSG pipeline doesn't make it any different. No frac fluids, it's construction of a pipeline.

An example of current EPA ineptitude - a lagoon of waste water was a major hassle for the EPA. They insisted on a new containment area constructed with HDPE lining.  What happened next? The company brought in an environmental consultant who brought in  other waste products and then classified it as an agricultural resource (fertiliser). The EPA's reponse? - Not our department. OK, eventually it will be used as fertiliser, but in the meantime, it poses probably a greater risk to the environment.   

Do you want to know the real problem in Gladstone harbour? I'll tell you privately if you like.

The major dangers are no greater to that of conventional oil and gas exploration.  Everything carries a risk. CSG is usually a purer form of methane than conventional natural gas and has a much lower carbon footprint than coal by a magnitude or so. LNG is a slightly more complicated issue.

Point 2 - You're asking the right questions. I have some figures somewhere. I currently have dealings with coal seam gas, but that's about to change in June. I'm moving back to the central coast with a new position.

What I object to is the fact that environmental activists blow the wrong things way out of perspective. They single out extremely low local or regional risks as being more important than issues which have high global risk.  That's one of my pet hates.

Sure, we need renewable energy, but CSG is a stepping stone to that. In order to survive, we need high intensity energy sources in the short term until we have established a totally renewable infrastructure.

If anybody is going to sabotage that effort, it will be the deep greens, the headless chooks. I'm a proud environmentalist, but I distance myself from these people. There is a difference between an environmentalist and a "greenie".  I manage real risk and I prefer to take the lowest overall risk path.