It is pretty hard to move in the Darling Downs area and fail to notice the multitude of gas wells springing up. Now I’m pretty used to seeing gas wells but previously this has been in remote parts of the country largely undesired by the rest of humanity.I’m talking out beyond Thargomindah at places like Eromanga and Moonie that if it wasn’t for gas and oil, pretty much nobody would be out there except rock farmers.
Now coal seam gas is pretty much a hot topic at the moment. Sadly though for the Greens who were completely unable to get any traction on the issue in the recent state election and in fact went backwards overall, but I digress. In concept CSG seems like a good idea to all but the most ardent renewable energy advocates. Historically, gas emerging from coal has been a hazard, demonstrated most dramatically recently by the Pike River mine explosion in New Zealand. It makes underground mining a dangerous prospect. However, you can leave the coal underground and just extract the gas through a small bore-hole. Seems like a good idea.
That’s the theory. In practice it is a little different. If you go to all of the trouble of digging a well then you want to extract the maximum amount of gas from it you can. Gas also has a tendency to escape into the atmosphere unless there is a good geological seal keeping it in. That kind of seal is also good at retaining water. Historically, the value of the water has been exploited in those areas before that of the gas. That water has been used for agriculture and in the case of the Darling Downs, the land has considerable agricultural value.
If you extract gas from an underground reserve, then something has to go in to replace what has been taken out. If the gas escapes under pressure, then the release of the pressure could lead to unnatural seismic activity. If it needs to be pumped out, then you need to pump something in to replace it. In general water is used to replace the gas. Water is also used as the principal ingredient in hydraulic fracturing of the rock, or “fracking” to maximise the release of gas from the rock.
In addition, we think we have a general handle on the geology that leads to gas. Less certain, and more controversially, we aren’t certain how underground water is created, stored and replenished. Indeed, there are some that argue that in some cases underground water is “fossilised” and not part of a shorter-term renewal cycle. This is where one of the controversies of the CSG extraction comes in. Because water and gas share geology and water is used by agriculture and gas in mining there is a tussle over how best that water may be used or shared.
There are very great questions in the minds of those that promote agriculture, a “renewable” use of the land, that the interaction of CSG extraction with ground and surface water may result in permanent changes to the water table, and contamination of the resource. Their argument is that we cannot be certain. In that context, the one-time use of the land for CSG extraction should not be allowed to disturb the ongoing use for agriculture.
And it is a not unreasonable concern given the range of things we don’t know. Lake Broadwater is an ephemeral lake, meaning it dries out at times. We know in times of drought it dries, and in times of floods, it fills. However, the exact conditions in which it fills and empties is not well understood and it is not a great leap to believe that altering underground water table conditions could change the behaviour of this lake.
So much for water. What about the land? It turns out I had an opportunity to get out in a truck to retrieve a water truck damaged on a CSG site. The land was typical black soil plain cleared for agriculture. This patch was being developed for a gas well. Not only was the drilling pad being covered in basically road construction materials (an area of perhaps a couple of hectares) but also a road was being constructed to access the well, in much the same fashion.
In such a way probably several hectares of agricultural land is now buried in road-base for each well. I imagine this may be rehabilitated when the gas is exhausted and that is a good thing, but in the meantime that may be a not insignificant portion of the land now out of agricultural service. And what happens if the gas company goes broke in the meantime?
On balance is it a good thing? Well, I don’t think I know anything like enough about it to judge, but I think I do know enough to believe there is good reason for caution. It is easy to see that a “gas rush” could do a lot of irreversible damage, and it could also be safe if done properly. It is also apparent that we will look pretty stupid if in our rush to exploit the apparent reserve, we can’t feed ourselves either now or in the future. 