Right: protesters rally outside Queensland's parliament, calling on farmers to "lock the gate" against coal seam gas explorers.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of a temporary moratorium on fracking
1. There is no federal plan regulating fracking
The Victorian Energy and Resources Minister, Michael O'Brien, has stressed that the moratorium has been put in place while scientific studies are undertaken and the national plan is finalised.
The Minister is concerned that developers not proceed until the full regulatory climate has been established. The Government is concerned that it may give approval to developments that would later be found to be contrary to yet-to-be-developed federal regulations.
Mr O'Brien has stated, 'This approach will help to avoid a situation where applications for hydraulic fracturing works might be approved now, only to be inconsistent with new standards to be set in the near future.'
Since 2010 the Federal Government has used the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to regulate operational CSG projects in Queensland, and the one operational field, the Camden project, in NSW.
In late 2011, in a deal with Tony Windsor as part of the carbon trading scheme, the Federal Government introduced the National Partnership Agreement for the Regulation of Coal Seam Gas (NPACSG). This provides national oversight of CSG projects in areas where the Federal Government has (limited) regulatory authority under the constitution.
The formal establishment of the federal Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development is still pending.
2. Landowners are concerned about potential damage to drinking water, the environment and structural stability
Fracking uses massive amounts of water. The Federal Government "Water Group" estimates, based on existing permits, that 5400GL of water could be used in fracking each year, almost three times the 1872GL used by all the households in Australia combined.
The technique also creates micro-seismic events (mini earthquakes), which cause the connection of naturally separated geological layers. This process can contaminate ground water with volatile organic compounds, methane, other gases, heavy metals, enormous quantities of salt as well as naturally occurring radioactive material.
When fracking fluid is used only between 20 and 80% of the toxic mixture is recovered to the surface, while the rest remains under ground. It can, and often does, find its way into ground and surface water, endangering the health of local communities and ecosystems that rely on this water. The regulation in Australia does not require companies to list the chemicals they use in fracking fluids. However, it has been clamed, experience in the United States of America, Queensland and New South Wales shows the use of known carcinogens as well as other chemicals including: ethylene glycol, which affects kidney function, the lungs and heart; the BTEX group (Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylene), which affect bone marrow, the blood system and cause leukaemia; and other toxins that affect hormone regulation and the reproductive system.
On August 24, 2012, Friends of the Earth Melbourne campaigns co-ordinator, Cam Walker, claimed, 'Coal seam gas mining can produce vast amounts of contaminated waste water, which thus far appears to be inadequately managed. In addition, extraction of coal seam gas can cause damage and depressurisation of aquifers during in the drilling process.'
3. Farmers are concerned about the contamination of the food they produce
Some opponents of fracking note that Australia is an important food producer and that food production is threatened by widespread fracking.
In the Darling Downs in Queensland massive tracts of land have been taken over by fracking infrastructure, displacing farming activities and restricting Australia's capacity to produce food.
In Victoria, the exploration licenses granted cover some of the most productive agricultural land. Quit Coal is a Melbourne-based collective, which campaigns against the expansion of the coal industry in Victoria. The lobby group has stated, 'There is a dangerously high risk that contaminated air and water will directly impinge on our ability to produce healthy, clean food.'
There is also the issue of what to do with the salt produced as part of the fracking process. It is estimated to amount to millions of tonnes. The ABC site Coal Seam Gas by the Numbers reports the amount of salt to be generated as up to 31 million tonnes, enough to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground 15 times.
Dr Merryn Redenbach from Doctors for the Environment Australia has stated, 'Coal seam gas and tight gas drilling inherently risk the contamination of land and groundwater by releasing salt, methane, and naturally occurring carcinogenic chemicals from the coal seam. These chemicals can leak from the seam or drill holes into land and ground water during the extraction process and pose a risk to human and animal health as well to crops, land and water.'
In response to these risks to the state's food production capacity, the Victorian Farmers Federation has said it supports the state's ban and wants farmers to be given veto power over future mining activity on their properties.
4. There is general concern about a reduction in land values
In a Landline report televised in May, 2010, it was stated that the Queensland Valuer General had found that even one well could mean a reduction of 12% in the value of a property.
On March 9, 2012, Crikey reported, 'The situation appears not to have improved, but is complicated by a depressed property market and insufficient sales data to provide definitive evidence about the impact of CSG operations on land values. The interim Senate inquiry report was told that compensation agreements do not take into account potential loss of land values, only loss of annual production.'
Darling Downs farmer Jim Baker stated, 'No one will buy a gas farm.
Our land which was very valuable grazing country has depreciated in value very significantly.'
Landholders have consistently reported that the cost and availability of labour has also been adversely affected with reports of a 50% increase in costs.
Anna Bassett, of Jenavale, Roma, 'They've got a business [the coal seam gas producers]; we've got a business. It's unfair if their business impacts ours. And so they have to pay correctly just the same as any other commercial arrangement.'
Robert Loughman, the Mayor of the Maranoa Regional Council, has stated, 'I won't name which companies are paying more or less than others, but it's certainly at the lower end. The lawyers not so long ago were extracting more out of every transaction or every document than the landholders were, and you haven't got the balance right when that's happening.'
Many farmers have indicated that they do not believe they are receiving a fair compensation. The compensation regime at the moment makes no allowance for the social impacts and no allowance for the compulsory nature of the imposition.
5. Fracking will discourage the development of other more environmentally friendly power sources
There are many who are concerned that the widespread development of fracking will halt investment in other more environmentally friendly power sources.
Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA), has stated that the threat to renewables was plain. Fatih Birol has noted, 'Renewable energy may be the victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their renewable support schemes.'
The International Energy Agency has warned that a 'golden age of gas' spurred by a tripling of shale gas from fracking and other sources of unconventional gas by 2035 could stop renewable energy in its tracks.
Gas is now relatively abundant in some regions, due to the massive expansion of hydraulic fracturing - fracking - for shale gas, and in some areas the price of the fuel has fallen. The result is a threat to renewable energy, which is by comparison more expensive, in part because the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are still not taken into account in the price of energy.
An American study conducted in January 2012 concluded, 'Growth in alternative energy projects may slow materially since low gas prices adversely affect their economic viability, particularly solar and wind, although it does reduce the cost of backup power needed to improve their reliability.'
The Socialist Alliance's policy on coal seam gas states, 'The gas industry is rapidly increasing its scope in the Australian energy market. Gas is talked up by some as a clean energy source, or as a "transition fuel", while we develop renewable energies. But gas is a fossil fuel. Burning it creates carbon emissions.'
Critics of coal seam gas maintain that only renewable energy sources such as sun and wind should be being developed.