Coal Seam Gas Water Management
|
|
- Albert Hancock
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Coal Seam Gas Water Management Response to 2012 Draft Policy 30 November 2012 AgForce Queensland Industrial Union of Employers ABN First Floor, 183 North Quay, Brisbane, Qld, 4000 PO Box 13186, North Bank Plaza, cnr Ann & George Sts, Brisbane Qld 4003 Ph: (07) Fax: (07) Web:
2 Introduction AgForce is the peak lobby group representing the majority of beef, sheep & wool, and grain producers in Queensland. AgForce exists to ensure the long term growth, viability, competitiveness and profitability of these industries. AgForce Queensland (we) has a keen interest in the development of an effective Government policy to guide the management and use of Coal Seam Gas (CSG) associated water. It should be noted that this submission is not intended to address broader questions regarding development of the CSG industry, but just how CSG associated water should be managed. As a fundamental principle we recognise the intrinsic value of the water associated with CSG extraction; water is a valuable resource not a waste product and must be recognised for its environmental, social and economic value. AgForce (we) are broadly supportive of the Government s proposed Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy Draft (draft policy) as currently drafted. Planning for the use of treated CSG water must demonstrate a balance between the social, economic and environmental outcomes such that one outcome is not realised at the significant detriment of another. Achieving this balance requires closer partnerships between communities, landholders and CSG operators and a stake-holder inclusive planning process to guide the treatment and use of this water. Such stakeholder involvement should be effective, ensuring companies act on reasonable stakeholder feedback about the management and use of CSG associated water. AgForce has been involved in recent discussions between CSG proponents and agricultural stakeholder groups (See Appendix) on the management and use of CSG water. This has been a constructive exchange to date and we recommend the Government hold a joint meeting with these two key sets of stakeholders before finalising their CSG water management policy. It is hoped that a range of policy issues can continue to be worked through in this forum and more efficient solutions developed that will find greater acceptance within the community in the longer term. Separate to this process and in consultation with a range of other agricultural representative groups, AgForce has developed a set of principles by which we recommend CSG-associated water be managed. Briefly, these are as follows: 1. Adoption of a proactive risk management approach to the use of CSG-associated water 2. Treated CSG water is a valuable resource that must be managed to achieve the greatest value for the environment, industry and the community 3. Management of treated CSG water should be planned for based on multi-stakeholder involvement 4. A priority consideration for the use of the water should be a focus on alleviating any depletion or deterioration that may have been caused on the existing water resources in the region of extraction and to ensure no negative impacts occur in relation to existing water rights or entitlements, now and into the future 5. CSG associated water must be treated by the CSG companies to the appropriate quality for its intended use and to avoid negative environmental impacts 6. Where impacts are understood and manageable, we would support reinjection, substitution, and other efficient beneficial uses for the water 7. Generally we do not support disposal of treated CSG water to surface waters unless under exceptional circumstances 8. We oppose use of unsustainable methods, such as evaporation, to dispose of CSG water. There may be limited circumstances such as during exploration and appraisal activities where AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 2 -
3 other beneficial uses are not available and evaporation is the only feasible option for small quantities of water. In these circumstances and only where environmental risks are negligible and the site is fully remediated after the exploration phase is completed, may there be a limited role for evaporation dams. The management of CSG water is a critical component to the overall success of the CSG industry in Queensland. The LNP s policy on the development of a sustainable CSG industry has made it clear that the Government will: not allow any CSG activity on strategic cropping land if it is likely to have a significant, adverse impact on the productive capacity of that land to produce food and fibre reflect community expectations in setting clear performance and environmental standards aim to ensure all landholders end up better off from their coexistence with the CSG industry 1. In achieving these outcomes, AgForce recommends a precautionary, risk management approach be adopted to the administration of CSG associated water and inclusion of a comprehensive water management plan under the environmental approvals process. Role of the policy AgForce are very supportive of the development of a policy that clearly and unambiguously sets out the Government s position on the management and use of CSG water and provides certainty to all stakeholders. In this it is important that the interaction of the policy with the range of legislative instruments relating to this area is stated clearly. While not wanting to see unnecessary duplication of Government administration, consistent with the need for certainty it is important that CSG companies can demonstrate in their water management plans that they have considered their potential impacts on the environment and other water users and have a robust and strategic plan for the amelioration of these environmental impacts and to deliver on their make good provisions into the future, including providing an ongoing supply of an equivalent amount of water of a suitable quality 2 where that is required. The policy must adopt a proactive risk management approach to authorising water use in order to deal with the uncertainty in potential impacts and the timing and amount of water and to increase rural community confidence that the water will be used effectively and ensure no net negative impact occurs. Relationship to CSG Water Management Policy 2010 AgForce support CSG water management options that minimise risks to the environment and maximise the value of the resource to the community and so we were not supportive of the adaptive management philosophy adopted by the previous State Government. We accept that CSG companies have secured approvals for some water management practices under the Environmental 1 accessed 14 November Chapter 3 of the Water Act 2000 AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 3 -
4 Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) under that approach. However, a continuation of those approvals should only occur where CSG water is being managed effectively, to best practice principles and in a way that maximises the value of the water resource to the community. Such approvals should therefore be regularly re-evaluated as part of annual auditing and reporting processes. AgForce largely supports the Government s 2010 policy position on evaporation dams, the ongoing decommissioning and conversion of existing evaporation dams, and their banning as a future primary management option for CSG water. We do not see that there is any suitable justification for evaporation as a method of management in the production phase. As per the 2010 policy, there may be limited circumstances such as during exploration and appraisal activities where other beneficial uses are not available and evaporation is the only feasible option for small quantities of water. In these circumstances and only where environmental risks are negligible and the site is fully remediated after the exploration phase is completed, may there be a limited role for evaporation dams. The circumstances for this should be regularly reviewed, for example as CSG extraction technology progresses and alternative management options become feasible. Future Government Actions As a policy relevant to a wide range of Government functions it is important that its principles guide the implementation of the suite of regulation that applies to the management of CSG water. AgForce are supportive of a review of the legislation that facilitates the management of CSG water as a resource, while ensuring that this does not reduce the environmental protections around dealing with untreated CSG water as a waste. A review may also help to reduce any duplication across legislation and Departmental administration while providing greater clarity and transparency to the community about the management of CSG associated water. AgForce recommends the development of a water accounting framework that would assist in ensuring that a sustainable regional water balance could be achieved, given variable production volumes from tenures across time. As the policy identifies this would be particularly applicable for reinjection and substitution systems and in relation to proactive make good and environmental remediation arrangements. Such an accounting framework would also facilitate improved cumulative water management across time and tenures and assist CSG companies in demonstrating their make good obligations are capable of being met for the period after water production has ceased. Where reinjection into non-source aquifers occurs and companies seek to retain an interest in that reinjected water, consideration must be given by the Government as to how this may impact on the rights of existing users of water from the receiving aquifer. Purpose of the policy AgForce are generally supportive of the strategic use of CSG water by firstly using it as a resource for preventing and minimising impacts on existing users and the environment and secondly looking to maximise the beneficial and productive use of treated water. The policy should seek to minimise unsustainable or wasteful disposal of CSG water. This is consistent with the LNP policy 3 towards the 3 accessed 14 November 2012 AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 4 -
5 protection of existing underground water user s rights to an undiminished quantity and quality of water supply and the absolute protection of the Great Artesian Basin as a matter of highest priority given its great importance to Queensland landholders and rural communities. Robust and effective stakeholder consultation Given the importance of groundwater resources to current and future rural communities, in any consideration of CSG water use planning it is vital that there be transparent and effective regional stakeholder and local landowner consultation in the ongoing process of making decisions about how CSG associated water is managed and used. The ultimate determination as to the correct balance of environmental, social and economic outcomes resides with the Government. AgForce does not want to see water use decisions being made in isolation by the CSG proponents. Indeed, CSG proponents already have community reference groups in relation to this issue which is a positive development. Such a process, if effective in achieving well-informed and agreed support for a suite of options, could largely negate the need for an exhaustive examination by proponents of every beneficial use option before achieving DEHP approvals of a water management plan. AgForce recommends that a consultation process should be developed by DEHP and included in the Government s draft policy and clearly define how relevant regional stakeholders and local landowners will be identified and their role in the process of examining water use options to ensure stakeholder views are appropriately included on an ongoing basis into water management plans. Greater community support for CSG proponent activity will be secured if stakeholders have some influence in local and regional CSG water use and can understand the feasibility or otherwise of various water use options in that locality. Prioritisation hierarchy for managing and using CSG water Priority 1: Offset any negative impacts AgForce are supportive of the proposed tiered approach to the examination of the use of CSG associated water whereby the strategic use of the water must firstly address any negative impacts on existing water users and the environment before looking to beneficial use options. AgForce currently does not have sufficient confidence that the CSG industry can make good over the longer term to ensure multi-generational access to an ongoing supply of a quantity and quality of water in line with what current groundwater resources have provided and what properties have been capitalised and developed on. CSG proponents must be able to plan for and assure other stakeholders that they have the capability to address these concerns. AgForce understands that the provisions around make good for impacts sit within the Water Act 2000 and that the process for addressing environmental impacts from CSG activities sits within the EP Act. Where the reassurance the rural community needs about the management of long-term impacts can be secured, there may be potential for the policy to achieve its first priority make good focus by reference to these legislated processes and for companies to provide evidence to DEHP for its assessment that these priority outcomes have been appropriately planned for and effectively met. This evidence could be provided as required from other relevant Government Departments in order to minimise administrative duplication and analysis requirements. In distinction to make good at the bore head, DEHP should continue to have the lead oversight role in ensuring that actual AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 5 -
6 and potential environmental impacts are managed for effectively and that CSG water is available as required for that purpose. However, such community confidence in current make good provisions within an adaptive management framework does not currently exist and achieving this assurance will require greater community and landowner engagement and education by the Government and proponents around the make good provisions so that stakeholders can confidently move their attention to other beneficial use applications for the water. Until that confidence is achieved AgForce are supportive of a rigorous application of the proposed prioritisation tiers within the draft policy and a riskmanagement based approach to CSG associated water. Priority 2: Maximising the productive use of water for beneficial uses AgForce accepts that the best design and selection of beneficial use options will vary between individual tenures, as a result of the different range of feasible options available and varying stakeholder agreement as to desirable water use. As a result we are not supportive of a prescriptive hierarchy within the beneficial use priority tier beyond protecting the existing security and reliability of pre-existing water rights, allocations and entitlements. CSG companies exhaustively examining all potential options on a list will be costly and, if done in isolation, will be unlikely to find the optimum balance of water use options that delivers the outcomes of greatest benefit to the local community and other water users. As a result, it is important that CSG companies undertake an effective engagement process with regional stakeholders and local landowners. As the representative body for broadacre primary producers, AgForce would like to see opportunities for food and natural fibre production by existing or new users from treated CSG water maximised. In planning for how beneficial use is undertaken the final complement of uses must demonstrate an acceptable balance between the social, economic and environmental outcomes achieved, such that one outcome is not realised at the significant detriment of another. For example, using CSG water for dust suppression may achieve a least cost outcome and environmental benefit but does not maximise the potential economic or social values. AgForce considers that beneficial use of treated CSG water should occur in the areas of extraction, where possible, in order to achieve a water balance at a local and regional level that is sustainable in the long-term. All CSG associated water must be treated at the CSG operators cost to the appropriate quality for its intended use and to avoid negative environmental impacts, including during storage in holding ponds. AgForce are sceptical that release to the environment in a way that improves local environmental values is an appropriate use for treated CSG water, particularly given the relatively short term nature of CSG water availability. In such cases, the local environmental value improvement resulting from any such release should be independently scientifically assessed and reported. AgForce agrees that treating and disposing to the environment of CSG associated water in a way that protects the environmental values after beneficial use options are found to be not viable should be the last option considered and support this as the lowest priority tier in the draft policy. We agree that this should rarely be appropriate due to the value of water as a resource. Prioritisation hierarchy for managing saline waste Given the potential for environmental harm, it is important that saline waste use and disposal is addressed in the policy as part of a comprehensive approach to the management of CSG associated water. AgForce s preferred option for salt and brine recovery is beneficial use for commercial purposes, which is the production of useable and/or saleable products, as identified in the draft AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 6 -
7 policy. Remaining brine waste must be disposed of using best-practice, environmentally-sustainable methods. This could include reinjection of brine waste where robust risk assessment shows that this will not result in potential environmental harm or any damage to aquifers. Alternatively, greater control and hence lower risk to the environment may be delivered through hazardous waste disposal methodologies at or near ground level. These should not disadvantage other land users. Strategically managing CSG water Management strategies for plan variations Within their strategic water management plan the CSG company should indicate the range of water production and quality volumes that can be managed effectively under their plan, while still ensuring the capacity to deliver remediation of environmental and existing water user impacts. AgForce are supportive of a proactive, risk management approach and the regular review of Water Management Plans in light of the inherent uncertainty in predicted water production volumes and the potential for impact on the environment and other water users. Stakeholders should be informed of the reasons for any change and be involved in this review process where water management and use plans will be changed significantly. Exceptional discharges to streams AgForce supports the requirement that the CSG proponent has to proactively demonstrate that their water management plan has the capacity to manage an exceptional circumstances rainfall event. Treated water discharge into passing natural water flows must occur in accordance with clearly defined, science-based conditions that relate to natural water quality and flow, treated CSG water quality and discharge rates, and suitable start and cease release trigger points 4 to ensure the environmental values and interests of downstream stakeholders will not be adversely impacted. Disposal of untreated CSG water to surface waters is not supported as a management option, even in unusual weather events, unless a greater environmental hazard from uncontrolled release can be demonstrated to exist. In such a case, release must require approvals from DEHP and be managed to minimise the risk of harm to the environment and other stakeholders in the area. Cumulative impacts from multiple release sites must be managed. Glossary There appear to be some definitions that are apparently not included in the current version of the draft policy and these should be removed. The CSG Evaporation dam definition needs clarification. AgForce does not agree that a dam where evaporation occurs up to the same amount of water as being actively treated should not be classified as an evaporation dam. This may not be the intent of this wording and if so it should be reworded for clarity. For example, on page 4 of the current 2010 CSG water management policy a figure of less than 15% evaporation is implied within a 30-day period. The principle of maximising water available for beneficial uses should be applied. 4 accessed 14 November 2012 AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 7 -
8 Conclusion As a fundamental principle, AgForce recognise the intrinsic value as a resource of the water associated with CSG extraction, not as a waste product. Planning for the use of treated CSG water must demonstrate a balance between the social, economic and environmental outcomes such that one outcome is not realised at the significant detriment of another. Effective stakeholder consultation is vital in finding this balance and their views must be effectively considered when developing water management plans. AgForce wants to see an appropriate risk-based process applied to the management of CSG associated water. As part of this we support a policy approach that has as priority considerations the offsetting of environmental impacts and delivering on any make good provisions within a strategic and comprehensive approach to water use. This will assist in providing confidence to the community that they will have ongoing access to an effective supply of a quantity and quality of underground water for generations to come. Following this beneficial uses should be maximised and wastes requiring disposal minimised as per the priority tiers within the draft policy. AgForce has been involved in recent discussions between CSG proponents and agricultural stakeholder groups about the management and use of CSG water. This has been a constructive exchange to date and we recommend the Government to hold a joint meeting with these two key sets of stakeholders before finalising their CSG water management policy. It is hoped that a range of policy issues can continue to be worked through in this forum and more efficient solutions developed that will find greater acceptance within the community in the longer term. Appendix List of stakeholder groups currently in discussion (in alphabetical order): AgForce Queensland Arrow Energy Australian Lot Feeders Association Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Basin Sustainability Alliance Central Downs Irrigators Cotton Australia Origin Queensland Farmers Federation QGC Santos. Submission ends AgForce Queensland Draft CSG Management Policy submission - 8 -
Appendix X.6 Queensland Government CSG Water Management Policy
Appendix X.6 Queensland Government CSG Water Management Policy Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy June 2010 Tomorrow s Queensland: strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Purpose The purpose of this
More informationLNP Policy for a Sustainable Coal Seam Gas Industry
LNP POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE COAL SEAM GAS INDUSTRY IN QUEENSLAND INTRODUCTION Queensland is a State rich in energy and resources. A prosperous, well managed resources sector is critical
More informationSubmission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Inquiry
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Inquiry Management of the Murray-Darling Basin: Impact of Mining Coal Seam Gas June, 2011 1 Cotton Australia Cotton Australia
More informationAustralian Dairy Industry
Australian Dairy Industry Represented by Australian Dairy Industry Council Inc. Response to Inquiry into Australia s legislative regulatory and policy framework for unconventional gas mining 15 March 2016
More informationConsultation Regulatory Impact Statement
Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement Post Implementation Review of the Industry Levy to fund the petroleum and gas water functions of the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment December 2016 This
More informationCommunity Information Session Surat Basin
Community Consultation June 2010 Community Information Session Surat Basin May 2011 1 INTRODUCTION OF PRESENTERS Tony Knight, Vice President, Exploration St John Herbert, Groundwater Modelling Coordinator
More informationCOAL AND COAL SEAM GAS REGULATION
COAL AND COAL SEAM GAS REGULATION The Australian Government protects water resources from the impacts of coal and coal seam gas development through the water trigger provisions of the Environment Protection
More informationin brief corrs Policy What it means for developments in april 2012
corrs in brief april 2012 Delivery of the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy What it means for developments in regional areas The NSW Government has recently released a number of draft plans, policies
More informationSubmission. Re: Submission on the second review of the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement
QUEENSLAND FARMERS FEDERATION Primary Producers House, Level 3, 183 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000 PO Box 12009 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4003 qfarmers@qff.org.au 07 3837 4720 ABN 44 055 764 488 Submission
More informationCotton Australia welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Water Trigger Review.
Water Trigger Review GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 via email: wtreview@environment.gov.au 29 th January 2016 Dear Mr Hunter, Re: Water Trigger Review Cotton Australia welcomes the opportunity to comment
More informationEnvironmental Impact Statement Surat Gas Project
2. PROJECT APPROVALS This chapter details the principal approvals required by Arrow to construct, operate and decommission the including the role that the environmental impact statement (EIS) plays within
More informationAustralia Pacific LNG submission to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin impact
Australia Pacific LNG submission to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin impact on mining of coal seam gas Submitted 6 September 2011
More informationCOAL SEAM GAS WATER AND SALT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
COAL SEAM GAS WATER AND SALT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY COAL SEAM GAS WATER AND SALT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 2 1.1 Purpose... 2 1.2 Objectives... 2 2. ARROW OPERATIONAL AREAS...
More information15.0. Brine and salt management
15.0 Brine and salt management 257 258 15.0 Brine and salt management # Department Condition Description Completion date Status Pre-Dec 2012 Post-Dec 2012 48 Confirmation that salt regulated waste facility
More informationIMPLEMENTING WATER REFORM IN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA CASE # 24
IMPLEMENTING WATER REFORM IN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA CASE # 24 ABSTRACT Description This case describes a series of legislative and policy developments which were undertaken to reform the water sector in
More informationKey Environmental Constraints Affecting Queensland Agriculture
Key Environmental Constraints Affecting Queensland Agriculture March 2012 AgForce Queensland Industrial Union of Employers ABN 21 241 679 171 First Floor, 183 North Quay, Brisbane, Qld, 4000 PO Box 13186,
More informationGas Fields Commission Strategic Plan for the Coal Seam Gas Industry in Queensland
Gas Fields Commission Strategic Plan for the Coal Seam Gas Industry in Queensland CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY QUEENSLAND SUBMISSION 28 NOVEMBER 2012 ON BEHALF OF THE CCIQ SOUTH WEST QUEENSLAND REGIONAL
More informationSantos Gas Field Development Project (GFD Project)
Santos Gas Field Development Project (GFD Project) EPBC Approval No. 2012 / 6615 Annual Environmental Return 2017 Santos Ltd l 2017 GFD Project AER (2012/6615) l February 2018 Page 1 of 17 Introduction
More informationSouth Australian Multiple Land Use Framework
Government of South Australia South Australian Multiple Land Use Framework APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK S GUIDING PRINCIPLES Information Booklet www.yoursay.sa.gov.au South Australian Multiple Land Use
More informationOffice of Coal Seam Gas
Office of Coal Seam Gas Reviewing the regulatory outlook for Coal Seam Gas development in NSW 28 February 2014 Rachel Connell Director, Office of Coal Seam Gas Titles Existing Renewals New Petroleum Exploration
More informationPioneer Valley Water Board
Pioneer Valley Water Board ABN 94 307 589 053. PO Box 275 (Level A, 120 Wood Street) Mackay QLD 4740 Ref: GD:10/15/10 12 November 2015 Queensland Productivity Commission PO Box 12112 George Street BRISBANE
More informationReef Alliance Growing a GREAT Barrier Reef
Reef Trust Phase III Reef Alliance Proposal Reef Alliance Growing a GREAT Barrier Reef In late December 2015, the Australian Government called for applicants to deliver the Reef Trust Phase III $56M programme.
More information31 March Dear Sir / Madam
Department of Planning and Environment Planning Legislation Updates Level 22, 320 Pitt St Sydney 2000 Via email: legislativeupdates@planning.nsw.gov.au 31 March 2017 Dear Sir / Madam Our organisations
More informationINFORMAL PARTNERSHIPS TO FACILITATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR MAJOR PROJECTS IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA 1
1 INFORMAL PARTNERSHIPS TO FACILITATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR MAJOR PROJECTS IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA 1 Trevor Blake, Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development, Australia, email: trevor.blake@dpcd.vic.gov.au
More informationAttachment 4. Brimbank City Council Submission to EPA Ministerial Advisory Committee 2015
Attachment 4 Brimbank City Council Submission to EPA Ministerial Advisory Committee 2015 About Brimbank Brimbank City is located in Melbourne s west, one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. The
More informationResponse of the Law Society of England and Wales to the Legal Services Board consultation on Reviewing the Internal Governance Rules
Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to the Legal Services Board consultation on Reviewing the Internal Governance Rules February 2018 The Law Society 2018 Page 1 of 6 PREFACE 1 The Law Society
More information11 CONTAMINATED LAND ENTER HERE BACK TO CONTENTS
11 CONTAMINATED LAND ENTER HERE BACK TO CONTENTS 11 Contaminated Land This chapter provides a description of Arrow s approach to contaminated land within the Project area. Potential contaminated land issues
More informationDraft Submission on social impact assessment draft guidelines for State significant mining, petroleum production and extractive industry development
Draft Submission on social impact assessment draft guidelines for State significant mining, petroleum production and extractive industry development Table of contents Opening 3 Purpose 3 LGNSW position
More informationDRINKING WATER INCIDENTS: THE REGULATOR S PERSPECTIVE. Nigel Garson. Office of the Water Supply Regulator, DERM Qld
DRINKING WATER INCIDENTS: THE REGULATOR S PERSPECTIVE Paper Presented by: Nigel Garson Authors: Nigel Garson, Senior Project Officer, Claire Tallis, Senior Project Officer, Office of the Water Supply Regulator,
More informationPART 2 Tabs EIS General Comments
EIS ES1 J:\Jobs\42626440\6 Deliv\GLNG EIS Supplement Final for Stakeholder Release\0. EIS Responses\Part 2 00a EIS \Part_2_00a EIS _Final.doc GLNG Project - Environmental Impact Statement Supplement GLNG
More informationA Risk to Groundwater from Coal Seam Gas Extraction in the Surat Basin
A Risk to Groundwater from Coal Seam Gas Extraction in the Surat Basin Bridle, A. 1 and Harris, C. 2 1 Talbingo Dalby, Qld 4405, Email: rabridle1@bigpond.com 2 Bungara Ironpot, Qld 4610, Email: caroline.harris1@bigpond.com
More informationFeedback on the Draft Point Source Water Quality Offsets Policy 2017
Industry Feedback qldwater consolidated feedback Feedback on the Draft Point Source Water Quality Offsets Policy 2017 September 2017 Contents 1. Summary... 1 2. Background... 2 3. Collated Industry Response...
More informationManagement of aquifer recharge and discharge processes and aquifer storage equilibrium
A Global Framework for Action GEF-FAO Governance Project A Global Framework for Country Action Digest 1 of Thematic Paper 4: Management of aquifer recharge and discharge processes and aquifer storage equilibrium
More informationSummary of submissions to SDLs Issues Paper
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY Summary of submissions to SDLs Issues Paper Introduction In November 2009 the MDBA released a discussion paper inviting comments on issues around developing sustainable diversion
More information6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD
6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD ENTER HERE BACK TO CONTENTS 6 Impact Assessment Method This chapter outlines the methods employed within the EIS specialist technical studies to undertake an assessment of potential
More informationSubmission on : Proposed Canterbury Regional Policy Statement
To: Proposed Canterbury Regional Policy Statement Environment Canterbury PO Box 345 Christchurch 8410 e-mail: mailroom@ecan.govt.nz Submission on : Proposed Canterbury Regional Policy Statement Submitter
More informationNamoi Water Resource Plan - Surface Water - Status and Issues Paper
31 March 2017 DPI Water PO Box 68 Armidale NSW 2350 Sent by email: namoi.sw.wrp@dpi.nsw.gov.au Dear Sir/Madam Namoi Water Resource Plan - Surface Water - Status and Issues Paper EDO NSW is a community
More informationSubmission to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities
Submission to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities Environmental Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin February, 2013 Cotton Australia Cotton
More information1 INTRODUCTION. Figure 1.1: Steve Tshwete Local Municipality
1 INTRODUCTION Hendrina Power Station is located at Pullenshope (near Hendrina) in the Mpumalanga Province and falls within the Steve Tshwete Local Municipality (Figure 1.1) which falls within the Nkangala
More informationDEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS. Submitted to: Department of Water and Sanitation Chamber of Mines of South Africa
REPORT July 2014 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS Water Conservation / Water Demand Management Implementation Guideline for the Mining Sector Submitted to: Department of Water and Sanitation Chamber of Mines
More informationEPA Inquiry: Submission on behalf of Paper Australia Pty Ltd
Our reference AGPAPE16499-9101755/01 567 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 GPO Box 9925 Melbourne VIC Tel +61 396723000 Fax +61 396723010 www.corrs.com.au CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH lawyers Sydney Melbourne
More information4.0. Surat QCLNG bore baseline program status
4.0 Surat QCLNG bore baseline program status 50 4.0 Surat QCLNG bore baseline program status 4.1 Summary of Plan Submitted and Approved by DEHP In accordance with the Water Act 2000 requirements (Section
More informationRE: Submission in response to Department of Agriculture and Water Resources AgVet Chemicals Regulation Reform Proposals
AgVet Chemicals Regulation Reform Department of Agriculture and Water Resources GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Via email: agvetreform@agriculture.gov.au 2 December 2015 Dear Sir / Madam, RE: Submission
More informationSubmission Re: Submission to the Enhancing regulations to ensure clean water for a healthy Great Barrier Reef and a prosperous Queensland
QUEENSLAND FARMERS FEDERATION Primary Producers House, Level 3, 183 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000 PO Box 12009 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4003 qfarmers@qff.org.au (07) 3837 4720 ABN 44 055 764 488 Submission
More informationArrow Energy. Surat operational update. July 2016
Surat operational July 2016 Why we are here today Provide an to the community on Arrow s operational activities over the past 24 months Approval stages for the Surat Gas Project Upcoming survey activities
More informationEnvironmental Risk Analysis
Appendix 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 Groundwater Controlled UHSA Air Agricultural Historic EIS Preliminary Environmental Blasting Quality Surface Secretary s Noise Statement Aboriginal Economic Action
More informationGovernance Institute of Australia Ltd
Governance Institute of Australia Ltd Management Policy 1. Overview management is a key element of effective corporate governance. In view of this, Governance Institute of Australia Ltd (Governance Institute)
More informationBIODIVERSITY OFFSETS ISSUES PAPER AND POLICY April 2014
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS ISSUES PAPER AND POLICY April 2014 Definition of Biodiversity offsets Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant
More informationArrow Energy. Surat development update. December 2017
Surat development update December 2017 Why we are here today Arrow has agreed one of the largest gas supply deals on Australia s east coast: - 27-year deal between Arrow and QCLNG to commercialise the
More informationPRODUCED WATER TREATMENT AND REUSE IN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA. Introduction
PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT AND REUSE IN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA Ronald M. Cass, P.E., PMP, MWH Americas, Inc 10000 North Central Expressway Suite 1140 Dallas, Texas 75231 Michael Bremer, Origin Energy, Brisbane,
More informationMr Rick Stankiewicz Director Queensland Competition Authority Level 19, 12 Creek Street GPO Box 2257 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia
Mr Rick Stankiewicz Director Queensland Competition Authority Level 19, 12 Creek Street GPO Box 2257 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia RE: Review of prices for SunWater water supply schemes I refer to the Ministers
More informationRegulatory reform to enhance efficiency & effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulatory reform to enhance efficiency & effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment Department of the Environment Deb Callister, Assistant Secretary Queensland and Sea Dumping Assessment Branch
More informationPIA NSW Submission into NSW Biodiversity Legislation Review
5 September, 2014 Office of Rob Stokes MP Minister for the Environment Minister for Heritage Assistant Minister for Planning Minister for the Central Coast CC Lydia Robertson Policy Advisor lydia.robertson@minister.nsw.gov.au
More informationin brief corrs Delivery of the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy What it means for coal and gas projects on or near strategic agricultural land
corrs in brief Delivery of the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy What it means for coal and gas projects on or near strategic agricultural land The NSW Government has recently released a number of draft
More informationIrrigation Price Review Submission Appendix B Governance arrangements and key legislative and regulatory obligations
Irrigation Price Review Submission Appendix B Governance arrangements and key legislative and regulatory obligations Public 6 November 2018 www.sunwater.com.au Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction...
More informationIntegrated System Plan Consultation submission
06 March 2018 Ms Audrey Zibelman, Chief Executive Officer AEMO Level 22 530 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Dear Ms Zibelman, Integrated System Plan Consultation submission Energy Networks Australia
More informationQUEENSLAND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION
QUEENSLAND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION RESPONSE TO ISSUES PAPER ELECTRICITY PRICING IN QUEENSLAND 16 NOVEMBER 2015 Queensland Farmers Federation Ltd. A.C.N. 055 764 488 A.B.N. 44 055 764 488 PO Box 12009 George
More informationRegulation of Water Resources Planning in Scotland
Policy Position Statement Regulation of Water Resources Planning in Scotland Purpose The purpose of this Policy Position Statement (PPS) is to identify the procedures that apply to the planning, the protection,
More informationScoping Study Mining and Coal Seam Gas Development
Scoping Study Mining and Coal Seam Gas Development October 2011 Regional Development Australia: Darling Downs and South West Queensland Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798 Level
More informationFEBRUARY 2018 Human health and CSG development: a framework to investigate possible health effects
FEBRUARY 2018 Human health and CSG development: a framework to investigate possible health effects This fact sheet outlines a framework designed to ensure that research into possible health effects associated
More informationBowen Gas Project. EIS Community Information Sessions. June Arrow s Moranbah Compression Station Bowen Basin
Bowen Gas Project EIS Community Information Sessions June 2012 Arrow s Moranbah Compression Station Bowen Basin TODAY S AGENDA Arrow Energy Overview Arrow Energy Activities Bowen Gas Project Environmental
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: O Connor & O Connor v Arrow (Daandine) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 432 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: SC 13551 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: THOMAS JOSEPH O CONNOR
More informationCommunity wellbeing and adapting to coal seam gas: Survey highlights and key messages The Western Downs region in Queensland, Australia
Community wellbeing and adapting to coal seam gas: Survey highlights and key messages The Western Downs region in Queensland, Australia This communique highlights key findings from the 2016 CSIRO Community
More informationArrow Update. Arrow Research. Groundwater monitoring and modelling. Demonstrations at Theten. Arrow Update. Domestic gas expansion activities
Arrow appreciates the importance of groundwater for agricultural and domestic use, and the concern of potential impacts of coal seam gas development on water quality and supply. Groundwater monitoring
More informationNational Farmers Federation
National Farmers Federation Consultation Regulation Impact Statement on A National Scheme for Assessment, Registration and Control of Use of 11 April 2011 Prepared by Dr Sam Nelson Member Organisations
More information14. ENVIRON MEN TA L I MPAC T ASSE S SMEN T - INTE GR ATIN G FACTOR - OF FSE TS
14. ENVIRON MEN TA L I MPAC T ASSE S SMEN T - INTE GR ATIN G FACTOR - OF FSE TS The EPA s objective for offsets is to counterbalance any significant residual environmental impacts or uncertainty through
More informationBUSINESS CHECKLIST FOR COMMONWEALTH REGULATORY PROPOSALS
BUSINESS CHECKLIST FOR COMMONWEALTH REGULATORY PROPOSALS Introduction On 15 August 2006, the Treasurer announced the Commonwealth Government s ( the government ) final response to the report of the Taskforce
More informationEIS TABLE OF CONTENTS
EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS... GL-1 Glossary and Abbreviations... GL-1 Units... GL-14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 INTRODUCTION... ES-1 PROJECT PROPONENTS... ES-1 LOCATION... ES-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...
More informationaustralian network of environmental defender s offices
australian network of environmental defender s offices Submission on Australia s Native Vegetation Framework Consultation Draft March 31 2010 Contact Us The Australian Network of Environmental Defender
More informationAppendix 1 METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
Appendix 1 METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY 2006-2009 1. Preface Historically, community engagement has tended to be seen as a means for securing
More informationCOMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Boral Gold Coast Quarry: Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (EIS advertising phase and beyond) APRIL 2013 TABLE
More informationTasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. Submission to: Review of Hydraulic Fracturing
Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association Submission to: Review of Hydraulic Fracturing December, 2014 AGRICULTURE IN TASMANIA The total Tasmania gross state product (GSP) was $23.9 billion for the 2012
More information5. Contaminated Sites
5. Contaminated Sites 5.1 Issues What is a Contaminated Site? A contaminated site is: A site at which hazardous substances occur at concentrations above background levels and where assessment indicates
More informationACOR is the peak national industry body for the recycling industry.
PO Box 9 Everton Park, Brisbane Q 4001 Phone 07 3051 5405 Email admin@acor.org.au www.acor.org.au ABN 60 574 301 921 pso@aither.com.au PSO 2/ 120 Gile St, Kingston, ACT 2604 Dear Professor Byron The Australian
More informationSubmission September Office of the Environmental Protection Authority. Contact Kane Moyle Manager Environment & Land Access
Submission September 2014 Review of EPA Environmental Assessment Guidelines 8 (Environmental Factors and Objectives) and 9 (Application of a Significance Framework in the Environmental Impact Assessment
More information12. A Sustainable Murray Darling Basin: The legal challenges
12. A Sustainable Murray Darling Basin: The legal challenges Douglas Fisher Introduction The range of legal instruments informing how the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) is managed is extensive. Some provide
More informationWater - policy and government regulation for heavy oil and oilsands development
Water - policy and government regulation for heavy oil and oilsands development Robert George, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta Summary This presentation outlines
More informationTHE 2017 REVIEW OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY SCHEME. Submission to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology
THE 2017 REVIEW OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY SCHEME Submission to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology September 2017 ABOUT US Agribusiness is defined as the business sector encompassing farming
More informationDEBORAH WILSON CONSULTING SERVICES
DEBORAH WILSON CONSULTING SERVICES Capabilities Deborah Wilson Consulting Services (DWCS) is a leading expert in the major projects market providing high performance services to all levels of the supply
More informationSUBMISSION GUIDE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. May
SUBMISSION GUIDE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT May 2017 1 CONTENTS Part 1: The new Biodiversity Offsets Scheme 5 What is the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? 6 Step 1: The proponent determines if the
More informationBritish Columbia s. VVater Act. Modernization. Policy Proposal on British Columbia s new Water Sustainability Act. December 2010
British Columbia s VVater Act Modernization Policy Proposal on British Columbia s new Water Sustainability Act December 2010 British Columbia has a rich heritage in our lakes, rivers and streams. Linked
More informationInquiry into reform of business licensing in Western Australia
Inquiry into reform of business licensing in Western Australia Consultation paper 2: Analytical framework and guideline 19 February 2018 Inquiry into reform of business licensing in Western Australia:
More informationSpring Gully North-West and North-East Project Preliminary Documentation. Appendix 2: Cross Reference with Request for Information
Spring Gully North-West and North-East Project Appendix 2: Cross Reference with Request for Information Spring Gully North-West and North-East Project Table 1 provides a cross reference of the request
More information5 February Dear Sir, Submission Planning Bill 2015 supporting instrument consultation
5 February 2016 Mr Frankie Carroll Director General Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning PO Box 15009 City East, QLD 4002 Email: bestplanning@dilgp.qld.gov,au Dear Sir, Submission
More informationRisk Management Strategy
Risk Management Strategy 2017-2019 Created by: Role Name Title Author / Editor Kevin McMahon Head of Risk Management & Resilience Lead Executive Margo McGurk Director of Finance & Performance Approved
More informationCoal Seam Gas Groundwater Field Day. AgForce Projects Moura Tuesday 18 March 2014
Coal Seam Gas Groundwater Field Day AgForce Projects Moura Tuesday 18 March 2014 Today s presentation will cover: What is Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Hydrogeology Surat VS Bowen Basins Groundwater Investigation
More informationQCOSS Energy Consumer Advocacy Project. QCOSS Submission to the QCA Interim Consultation Paper on Regulated Retail Electricity Prices for
QCOSS Energy Consumer Advocacy Project QCOSS Submission to the QCA Interim Consultation Paper on Regulated Retail Electricity Prices for 2013-14 19 October 2012 Introduction The Queensland Council of Social
More informationSpring Gully Water Treatment Facility Water Quality Discharge Annual Report
Public Report Q-8220-15-RP-005 Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility Water Quality Discharge Annual Report Version: Rev 0 Released: 15/12/2011 Document Owner: Manager Land, Stakeholder and Environment
More informationBoard Corporate Governance and Risk Committee
Policy Risk management Authorising Committee / Department: Responsible Committee / Department: Document Code: Board Corporate Governance and Risk Committee POL OPCEO Risk management Introduction The purpose
More informationMonitoring and Evaluation Framework
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Contact details Sugar Research Australia Limited (SRA) Head Office Mailing Address 50 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, Queensland, 4068, Australia PO BOX 86, Indooroopilly,
More informationCustomer Support Group (CSG) Invoicing and Monitoring Arrangements. April 2016
Internal Audit Customer Support Group (CSG) Invoicing and Monitoring Arrangements April 2016 Distributed to: Chief Operating Officer Commercial Director Director of Resources Head of Finance Partnership
More informationProposed Amendments to the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health
Proposed Amendments to the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health CONSULTATION DOCUMENT Disclaimer The opinions and options contained in
More informationAgForce Training. Handbook
AgForce Training Handbook AgForce Training PO Box 13186 North Bank Plaza Cnr Ann & George Streets Brisbane, Qld 4003 Ph: (07) 3236 3100 Fax: (07) 32366 3077 Email: training@agforceqld.org.au AGFORCE TRAINING
More informationCLEAN TEQ COMPLETES SUCCESSFUL PILOTING OF PROPRIETARY CIF TECHNOLOGY AT COAL SEAM GAS FIELDS IN QUEENSLAND
ASX / Media Announcement Melbourne, 26 August 2013 CLEAN TEQ COMPLETES SUCCESSFUL PILOTING OF PROPRIETARY CIF TECHNOLOGY AT COAL SEAM GAS FIELDS IN QUEENSLAND TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATES SUPERIOR WATER RECOVERIES
More informationEcological Society of Australia submission on Australia s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Consultation draft
Ecological Society of Australia submission on Australia s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 Consultation draft May 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ESA commends the Australian Government on drafting
More informationDRAFT NSW COASTAL PLANNING GUIDELINE: ADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE SUBMISSION BY THE PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (PIA) DECEMBER 2009
PO Box 484 North Sydney NSW 2059 T: 02 8904 1011 F: 02 8904 1133 E: nswmanager@planning.org.au DRAFT NSW COASTAL PLANNING GUIDELINE: ADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE SUBMISSION BY THE PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA
More informationCarbon Market Institute. Submission - Review of the National Carbon Offset Standard and Carbon Neutral Program
Carbon Market Institute Submission - Review of the National Carbon Offset Standard and Carbon Neutral Program April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Carbon Market Institute... 3 Background... 3 Key issues
More informationPeter Blundell Chairman Queensland Murray-Darling Committee Inc
Queensland Murray-Darling Committee Inc. ABN 46 082 833 823 Cnr Campbell and Bellevue Streets Phone: 07 4637 6270 PO Box 6243 Fax: 07 4632 8062 TOOWOOMBA WEST QLD 4350 Email: info@qmdc.org.au 23 June 2009
More informationARROW ENERGY UPDATE COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSIONS SEPTEMBER 2018
ARROW ENERGY UPDATE COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSIONS SEPTEMBER 2018 Arrow Energy update Community information session 4-5 September 2018 Introduction In September 2018, Arrow Energy (Arrow) held a series
More informationNSW Government finalises Strategic Regional Land Use Plans
September 2012 By James Plumb, Partner and Laura Letts, Associate and Danny Maxwell, Graduate Lawyer NSW Government finalises Strategic Regional Land Use Plans The New South Wales Strategic Regional Land
More information