A striking feature of the debate over coal seam gas (CSG) is that most of the key issues involved are not unique to CSG, but arise to a greater or lesser extent with all kinds of mining, and particularly with other fossil-fuel industries such as oil production and coal mining.
The biggest issues involved with CSG, as discussed in Robert Merkel’s useful introduction are:
- Conflicts over drilling on private land, usually farmland, centred on the fact that Australian law theoretically vests ownership of mineral resources in the state, and in practice assigns miners rights to mine anywhere they can find resources;
- Damage to and depletion of groundwater supplies;
- “fugitive emissions” of methane and perhaps other pollutants;
- A potential economic cycle of boom and bust;
The issue of property rights is common to all kinds of mining, but has arisen more acutely in relation to CSG than for other resources, which are more commonly mined on public land. Where private ownership rights have been involved, they have commonly arisen from native title or Aboriginal land claims.
Damage to and depletion of groundwater is similarly a problem with all kinds of mining and drilling. Although the process of fracking (hydraulic fracturing to create fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into existing small cracks) has aroused a good deal of concern, it is not unique to CSG, and there is little evidence that fracking as such is more damaging than other drilling techniques. As this piece by Chris Mooney in Scientific American indicates, problems in near-surface drilling and groundwater disposal appear more serious.
The issue of fugitive emissions is contested but the same problem arises with coal, which also emits far more carbon dioxide when burnt. In addition, particulate emissions from coal mining are a major threat to human health and to the natural environment.
Finally, the boom-bust cycle is a characteristic feature of mining, and not specific to CSG.
From a public policy perspective, therefore, the best approach to the problems raised in the CSG debate would be to address them separately, and to aim for consistency in the treatment of all mineral resources. This seems particularly important in relation to the rights of land owners, where the current debate intersects the dispute of mineral resource rent taxation and questions of indigenous land rights.
Similarly, fugitive emissions fall naturally within the ambit of pricing schemes for carbon, where we have already seen a vigorous debate over the treatment of emissions from coal mining, and water quality issues related to mining are part of a much larger debate, encompassing such questions as irrigation-related salinity, groundwater extraction by farmers and so on.
However, the public policy perspective is not the only one to be considered. Politically, it is obviously easier to mobilise people around opposition to a new and intrusive activity such as CSG than to challenge the long-standing practices of coal miners and farmers. But a campaign that is based on demonising one industry for practices that are common to many others is doomed to failure.
The question is how the political energy surrounding the CSG debate can be mobilised to achieve reforms that would promote more sustainable use of land, water and mineral resources. The CSG debate has highlighted some of the problems with our existing policies, in particular, the privileged status given to miners as opposed to other stakeholders and the public in general. Reforms in this area are sorely needed and the CSG campaign provides an opportunity to promote them.
*FAQ Research writer Professor John Quiggin is a Federation Fellow in economics and political science at the University of Queensland
Quiggin takes it as given that privileged access to land for exploration
and mining means that, ipso facto, ‘reforms in this area are sorely needed’.
But has he considered that there might be good reasons why this
state of affairs exists? I’d be interested in exploring his view as to why
those reasons no longer stack up.
Quiggin is absolutely correct in identifying the fact that there are common practices and consequences of coal mining and unconventional (ie shale and coal seam) gas.
The long and short of it that we need to address all of these industries carry such a high cost in human and environmental health terms.
There are a couple of important aspects that are not mentioned. Firstly that the number of wells being planned is colossal ( >40,000) and the scale of this planned ( or unplanned ) activity involves a cumulative impact that largely escapes regulation and accountability.
Secondly the gas lobby, and governments, are taking the approach that gas will assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is both uncertain and false!
Gas may be “cleaner” to burn that coal, but the evidence to date is that fugitive emissions negate any benefit. ie there is no confirmed advantage.
Gas would also have to displace coal rather than be burned in addition to it.
But most of all, we have to reduce our emissions intensity of electricity generation to a small fraction of our current dirty supply ( around 800gCO2e/kWh ) if we want to avoid 2’C ( the threshold for extremely dangerous climate change ). UK is aiming for less than 50gCO2e / kWH by 2030 we will probably need to reduce to less than 10gCO2/kWh by mid century to stay within that cumulative CO2 budget.
Gas without fugitive emissions produces around 440gCO2/kWh.
In other words gas is a non-solution. Why would we want to fast track a new, damaging, divisive non-solution? It would be a choice that would guarantee failure.
Which ‘public’ land is being mined in Queensland and where?
How is fraccing the same or similar to other drilling techniques?
How does CSG differ from other ‘natural’ gases? It does you know.
This is not a latte over lunch issue. It is our country’s safe future.
The public interest in the CSG issue, thanks to a lot of activists and supported by a strong response from the Greens, has now generated to my mind a very very large community interest in looking at fossil fuel extraction generally, and I think you will find that coal is now being scrutinised much more closely than hitherto. This can only be a good thing as the current “gold rush” is not at all sustainable. Lets see what UNESCO say when they come to Gladstone this week.
Replying to Mark Duffett, the policies in question date to the 19th century, when mining was mostly undertaken (at least in the early stages of any given field) by individual prospectors while land ownership was dominated by the large holdings of squatters and (English-owned) companies like the Australian Ag Company. So miners’ rights were seen as a way for the small man to get a chance (see Eureka Stockade). Obviously, the situation is now reversed in dealings between major energy companies and individual farmers.