The Queensland port city of Gladstone has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately.
Fish and other marine life have been infected by a strange parasite that seemed to make the leap to humans. The outbreak led to a local fishing ban which was recently overturned, despite lingering concerns about water quality and the health of fish.
Some commentators have suggested liquified natural gas (LNG) developments on nearby Curtis Island could be responsible for the ill health of marine life and the flow-on effects.
So what sort of assessments were done to predict the environmental effects of LNG developments? Was enough done? And what will be the long-term effects for the local environment and the people of Gladstone?
Fundamentally flawed
Quite simply, the Gladstone case highlights the flaws in the environmental impact assessment and approvals processes overseen by state and federal governments.
In order to start a project such as the one on Curtis Island, LNG companies are required to carry out environmental impacts assessments (EISs). These assessments must be approved by the state government and by the Commonwealth, if the type of environmental damage is covered under Commonwealth legislation – in the case of biodiversity impacts, for example.
Notably, these EISs are done by private companies hired by the businesses backing the project.
In the case of LNG, there are separate EISs covering the extraction and piping of coal seam gas to Gladstone by four companies: GLNG, QCLNG, Australia Pacific LNG and Gladstone LNG. Shell LNG is currently at the proposal stage.
In addition to these assessments, EISs were required for the development of Gladstone harbour by Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC); a development necessary for the processing and shipping of LNG.
The Queensland Coordinator General and the Commonwealth’s Minister for the Environment have approved the four gas company proposals and the development of the harbour by GPC.
However, it is apparent from reading the EISs that there is great uncertainty about the environmental effects of coal seam gas extraction. These include:
- the effect of drawing excessive water from the artesian basin
- the chance of polluting groundwater by gas extraction
- the risks of watershed damage associated with disposal of highly saline groundwater that comes to the surface.
The Queensland Coordinator General has been forced to apply a great number of conditions to his approval of coal seam gas extraction.
One condition is that: “There shall be no release of contaminants to groundwater”. Given chemicals are used in the hydraulic fracturing process (known as “fracking”) that forces gas to the surface, this seems to be a condition that cannot possibly be met.
The Coordinator General has had the task of adding up the cumulative impacts of the LNG projects. In examining the cumulative level of greenhouse gas emissions from coal seam gas extraction and processing he came to a rather startling conclusion: the LNG projects will contribute greatly to Australia’s total emissions.
The EISs suggest there will be some 39 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emitted from the five Gladstone projects, per year, once fully operating after 2014. This will amount to:
- more than 10% of Australia’s 2020 emission target of a 25% cut on 2000 levels of greenhouse emissions
- 8% of its 2020 emissions target of a 5% cut, and
- 19% of the 2050 target, which is 60% below 2000 levels.
This finding leaves the Commonwealth embarrassed, having omitted this large source from its latest assessment of Australia’s future greenhouse gas emissions. Quite simply, LNG was wrongly seen as a benign activity.
Dredging the Gladstone Harbour
The massive development of Gladstone Harbour – including dredging to allow large LNG vessels through – will cause many environmental and social problems, the extent of which has not been settled in EISs.
The Commonwealth will undoubtedly have to answer some questions from the UNESCO committee that monitors the management of world heritage areas.
The dredging of the harbour and the LNG plants being built on nearby Curtis Island all fall within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Moreover, the Commonwealth has approved the disposal of large amounts of dredge spoil at a site in the harbour mouth, which is situated only about one kilometre from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park boundary.
Gladstone is noted for its very big tides, so dispersal of spoil from the dumping ground into the Park is a legitimate concern.
Fishy business
Fish habitats in Gladstone harbour will also be diminished by the project. New wharves are being created on top of sea grass beds. The dredging stirs up silt which remains in suspension in harbour waters, affecting the ability of fish to extract oxygen from the water, before settling out on sea grasses and wetlands.
The quantity of food available for both commercial and recreational targeted fishes is thus diminished.
The environmental effects will be long term. Dredging will continue to at least 2015, and the sea grass beds that are smothered will take some years to recover after dredging stops.
Another impediment to fishing is vessel traffic in the harbour. Hundreds of workers and materials need to be ferried to Curtis Island daily, and LNG vessels and their wharves have large exclusion zones around them.
The economic future of commercial fishermen using the harbour is not nearly as emotive an issue as damage to the Great Barrier Reef. But it is another cost of the development that has often been minimised in EISs and by the Coordinator General.
Social impacts assessments in the EISs suggest only a handful of fishing businesses will be adversely affected. But it is obvious that harbour-wide impacts affect – and will continue to affect – the livelihoods of a considerable number of fishing families.
Furthermore, local wholesaling, processing and exporting businesses will find it difficult to survive the reduction in supply of local fish.
An issue avoided in social impact assessments is the serious economic impact of the scarcity of skilled and unskilled labour on fishing and wholesaling businesses. These cannot compete with the high levels of remuneration offered by the transport, dredging and building companies operating in the harbour.
It’s time for change
Given the massive economic and tax benefits to both state and Commonwealth governments of LNG developments, there is a conflict of interest when these same governments make environmental assessments.
Moreover, the chances of these judgements being biased are exacerbated when the EISs are put together by the project developers themselves.
Something needs to change to mitigate the inevitable damage done under the present assessment system by large projects such as LNG.
Under a more rigorous process, the choice of Gladstone Port (which has shallow waters that need a significant amount of dredging) and Curtis Island (which lies in the World Heritage Area) for LNG development would be subject to much greater scrutiny.
It would be costly to mandate that independent bodies carry out environmental and social assessments and reviews of projects. Nevertheless it is a solution that should be considered.
MangroveWatch
logged in via Twitter
Well put. There is definitely a need to review the EIS process. With regard to Fish Habitat destruction in Gladstone, often the requirement placed on the proponents is to ensure appropriate environmental offsets are made in line with the State's "No Nett Loss" fish habitat policy. Unfortunately, this only works if there's enough habitat to be restored. With such large areas being disturbed by the LNG projects these companies and the State are finding it difficult to find areas requiring restoration to meet the offset requirements. Mangroves and fish habitat are protected, and we should therefore expect them not to be disturbed in the first place. Often where they are disturbed it's as a result of indirect and cumulative impacts which can't be mitigated with on-ground works at a specific site. So, what happens when we run out of areas to restore?
Colin Hunt
Honorary Fellow in Economics at University of Queensland
Your argument is borne out in practice. The offset for fish habitat proposed by Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) is 5,000 ha of coastal area within the GPC's strategic port land at Port Alma (Coordinator General 2010, p.96). However, this provides no additional habitat because: 1. The Port Alma land is already functioning as habitat and the offset is that the development that would take place in 20 years time is cancelled. 2. Seventy percent of the proposed area lies within the Habitat Zone of…
Read moreDarren Williams
logged in via Facebook
Have the environmental impacts of CSG drilling and production been considered? Possible contamination of aquifers, rise in salinity leading to ruination of farmland, methane flared, evaporating pond liners failing, compressor stations leaking plus the immense energy used to extract and transport the gas. Every time the precautionary principle should be played, instead we think of short term financial gain at huge environmental loss.
Simon George
Associate Professor of Organic Geochemistry at Macquarie University
Interesting article.
One thing to note though wrt CO2 emissions. Yes, an LNG plant such as this adds to Australia's emissions. But using gas in power stations produces only ~50% of the CO2 compared to burning bituminous coal, so if the exported gas is used (say by China) instead of coal for power generation, then globally this would lead to lower CO2 emissions. Which is more important, reducing Australia's emissions, or reducing global emissions?
Colin Hunt
Honorary Fellow in Economics at University of Queensland
A valid point. I would like to see a proper accounting for the CO2 equivalent from coal seam gas, however. This would account for the considerable emissions during extraction, piping and processing to LNG (as demonstrated in the article), plus emissions from the shipping and transport to the power station in China or Japan together with emissions on burning. I guess CSG would still be better than coal, but perhaps not by as much as 50%!
My aim in the aticle was to point out that achieving Australia's emission targets will be even harder with the considerable emissions from LNG added into the Australian government's official 'business as usual' forecast for 2020.