On Coal Seam Gas fracking
Senator for Queensland and co-deputy Leader of the Australian Greens, Larissa Waters, has recently called to ban coal seam gas (CSG) fracking. After spending many years working for the environment, Max Thomas believes that the time for protest has passed and we need rational, evidence-based action.
In “Open Forum” (March 2015), Dr Shearman of ‘Doctors for the Environment Australia’ wrote: “The CSG industry is out of control in Queensland – it’s growing so rapidly there is barely time to consider the implications on health and the environment.” He said also that CSG proposals ought to be regulated and based on scientific risk assessment.
I agree with Dr Shearman that the ‘precautionary principle’ should apply and the onus of proof rests with proponents to show by verifiable scientific assessment that CSG proposals are safe.
However, some frightening assertions made by Dr Shearman about the health and environmental effects of CSG operations must be treated with caution if monitoring has been “totally inadequate” as also claimed by Dr Shearman. He was concerned that “fracking methods can use chemicals which have the potential to cause long-term health effects, including endocrine (hormone system) disruption, fertility and reproductive effects and the development of some cancers.” I acknowledge and respect Dr Shearman’s opinion but would add that many common industrial processes and products could be similarly characterized. Municipal sewage often contains substances which have similar potential effects on health and the environment. This has been managed by defining and understanding the problem and then devising solutions.
Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters says it’s “dangerous, under-studied, reckless. It’s time to ban fracking.” Applying that same logic to the presence of endocrine disruptors and pharmaceutical residues in sewage, would The Greens advocate closing down sewerage systems, banning medicines and the contraceptive pill?
If The Greens are serious about protecting farmland, ground water and surface water resources, they might be expected to extend their demand for a ban on CSG to include drilling for water. That is, if their agenda will admit the inconvenient fact that there exists a potential risk of aquifers containing high water quality being connected to aquifers containing naturally-occurring toxic minerals and gases. ‘One size fits all’ looks like a weak, lazy and politically expedient solution that will one day have to be replaced by rational, evidence-based decisions, case by case.
Max Thomas, Dip. Agric. (retired) worked in the public sector and in private consulting on a range of land, water and waste management projects. He prepared guidelines for irrigation with recycled water for EPA Victoria and developed a number of Environmental Management Systems in the water industry.
Rechelle Rozwadowski
November 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm
This is an issue I have only
This is an issue I have only recently bothered to delve into. After viewing the Documentary 'Gasland' by Josh Fox, I was deeply concerned about the environmental implications of Fracking. While I appreciate this is only 'one side of the story' I can't help but feel deeply unsettled by what seems to be the general lack of regulation and monitoring of this process. Are there unbiased scientific reports which look into the environmental factors and indeed implications for human welfare should water supplies be effected? Once governments and Industry make these decisions to Frack, the environment (and our inextricable connection with it) seem to be an after thought. And for a process that clearly has risk factors, surely the people whose land these wells are on, should be given solid unbiased information on the potential risks? We just need to know MORE, before charging ahead.