Image from QGC's request for submission from Wildlife QueenslandA great question but the answer is not known. There is certainty there will be environmental harm, loss of prime agricultural land, damage to 'endangered' and 'of concern' regional ecosystems, massive dredging and reclamation. This will have disastrous impacts on wildlife all in the name of progress.
Focussing on the Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) industry, the massive development planned for central Queensland and the Gladstone environs will result in significant environmental damage. Eight companies have proposals to extract and produce primarily for the export LNG market. The infrastructure required for their dreams to materialise is massive.
According to Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), with the processing plants housed on Curtis Island, a massive dredging of up to 55 million cubic metres over 235 ha of seabed, and reclamation of about 400 ha on the mainland, will be required to enable the extra shipping to transport the product. This will occur in the southern part of the Narrows habitat for several threatened and rare species including the Irrawaddy dolphin, the dugong, loggerhead turtles and many migratory birds. Submerging the pipeline under the sea bed, which is the best option, will also create havoc during construction but 'will be recolonised in 2 to 5 years probably with different species' according to one EIS.
On the mainland there will be clearing of vegetation at the well site for related infrastructure and the pipeline. Loss of 'endangered' and 'of concern' regional ecosystems will be offset. However in Wildlife Queensland's opinion, the Government guidelines that the companies are required to comply with are not adequate. If this environmental harm is to occur, such compensation should clearly demonstrate significant gain for conservation. 'Same for same' and a ratio of 5 ha for every 1 ha disturbed is more appropriate - and not the currently prescribed ratio of 1 for 1 ranging up to 3 for 1 depending on the situation. In some circumstances there is discussion about offsetting the loss of prime agricultural land. How can this be achieved when the Government states that prime agricultural land is a limited and finite resource?
The extraction of the natural gas from the coal seams requires the release of extremely large volumes of associated waters of questionable quality. Wildlife Queensland is not opposed to the beneficial use of these waters provided they are treated fit for purpose. A number of alleged beneficial uses are foreshadowed - including stock waters, urban use, agricultural use, industrial use as well as discharge to creeks. The use for irrigation following reverse osmosis treatment to achieve fit for purpose standards is not opposed provided crops grown are appropriate, not inappropriate such as leucaena, and prime agricultural cropping land is not used.
Discharge to creeks or rivers must be monitored, water quality cannot be any less than the waters into which discharge occurs and seasonal flows must be taken into consideration. The impact of these waters associated with the CSG extraction on the biodiversity is not known and current not fully understood. One wonders if the Queensland Government has heard of the 'Precautionary Principle'. The resultant brine, a by-product of treating the associated waters, is yet another problem. Millions of tons of sodium salts and other toxic substances will be generated that require disposing of. Re-injection is a possible solution in the long term provided the quality of the waters in the aquifer is no worse than the product being injected and leakage to adjacent aquifers will not occur. Overseas experience gives rise to major concerns.
This industry has expanded and grown so rapidly that Government policy has been made on the run. Wildlife Queensland has extreme doubts that adequate safeguards have been put in place.
Recent guidelines have established trigger points that addresses impacts on adjacent bore and ‘make good’ provisions. All evaporation ponds have a limited time in which to be rehabilitated but can this be achieved? Some industry sources have indicated that it is unlikely. The most damming aspect from Wildlife Queensland perspective is there is little or no indication that the Government has evaluated the cumulative effect of this massive industrial development. Will the next 20-30 years financial gain balance the long term loss of agricultural production and destruction to the natural environment?
What is WPSQ doing?
- Wildlife Queensland makes submissions to all relevant EIS's.
- Wildlife Queensland has one on one meetings and briefings with key industry groups.
- Wildlife Queensland attends key stakeholder meetings with Government officers.
- Wildlife Queensland has raised issues with relevant Ministers and the Premier.
- Wildlife Queensland has made media releases and radio interviews on the issue.
What you can do:
For more information on Wildlife Queensland's activities, call us on +61 7 3221 0194 or send us an email. |
