Regulations on unconventional gas development across Australia would be tightened up if Labor wins the next election.
Labor’s shadow minister for the environment Tony Burke says the party, if elected, will keep the commitment it took to the 2016 election to broaden the “water trigger” to include other forms of unconventional gas extraction. The current water trigger, introduced by the Gillard government in 2013, assesses water resources as a matter of national significance only in relation to coal seam gas and coal mining.
Quick GuideWhat's the difference between coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas?
Show
Coal seam gas
Coal seam gas is a type of unconventional gas found in coal seams underground, where it is trapped by water and pressure. It is predominantly methane. Coal seam gas reserves are usually shallower than shale reservoirs. Not all coal seam gas requires fracking for extraction. Gas is extracted by first drilling a vertical well into the coal seam which usually also requires drilling horizontally to extract the methane. It can require fracking using a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals to fracture the rock. Water found in the coal seam must be pumped out to depressurise the coal seam and allow the gas to flow to the surface.
Shale gas
Shale gas is predominantly methane that is found in shale rock formations. It is usually much deeper underground than coal seam gas and extracting shale gas requires more fracking to allow the gas to flow. While not all coal seam gas reservoirs require fracking, all shale reservoirs do. Fracking for shale gas is water-intensive and usually more expensive to extract than coal seam gas.
Tight gas
Tight gas comes from “tight” rocks, typically sandstone. The word tight refers to the low permeability and porosity of the rock. The permeability of the rock is so low that significant amounts of hydraulic fracturing are required to extract the gas.
It means that much of the country isn’t covered by the legislation, even though the process used to extract shale and tight gas is similar to that used for coal seam gas mining.
“Anyone from an environmentalist through to a local farmer can see that that’s a glaring omission,” Burke said. “Underground hydrology is incredibly complex, and you really need to have a robust scientific process to understand what the impacts might be.
“It could be that it all stacks up, but at the moment, without the water trigger being extended, those checks to see what the impacts are simply aren’t being done at a national level.”
Burke said concerns about the impacts of mining developments on water resources were not limited to the east coast and the Great Artesian Basin.
The Greens, who pushed for shale and tight gas to be included as part of the water trigger when it was introduced, said “anything that mandates closer examination of impacts on water or anything else is always welcome”.
But the party’s environment and biodiversity spokesman Andrew Bartlett said there were other issues that also ought to be considered, such as greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of projects on climate change, as well as the effectiveness of Australia’s existing environmental protection framework.
“Anything that looks more closely at water and climate issues is good, but I think there are much wider things to be looked at,” he said.
“We’re pushing for an overhaul of environmental laws.”
Conservationists, scientists and regional communities are calling for renewed consideration of water protections at a national level, amid growing concerns about the legislative scope of the water trigger as well as the 2017 revelations of systemic non-compliance within the Murray-Darling Basin framework.
Burke’s comments come after the Northern Territory Gunner government’s decision to reopen up to half of the territory to the unconventional gas industry, pending the implementation of some 135 recommendations from an inquiry into fracking.
Up to 90% of the territory’s water supply comes from ground water and the bulk of its gas resource is shale, to which the water trigger doesn’t apply.
One of the architects of the original water trigger, former independent MP Tony Windsor, says he would not have a problem with Northern Territory developments being captured by the water trigger, but he was wary that making the trigger too broad could render it meaningless.
“There’s been a number of attempts to either remove or make meaningless the water trigger,” Windsor said.
“If you apply the water trigger to every water resource everywhere, the practicalities of doing that make it meaningless anyway.
“If you make every water reserve subject to it, they’ll [the government] just hand it back to the states.”
The effectiveness of the water trigger is one of the terms of reference for the current senate inquiry into water use by the extractive industry.
A statutory review of the trigger in 2017 found it was operating effectively within its legislative scope, including the application of independent scientific expertise to the consideration of the impacts of coal and coal seam gas mining on water.
The Coalition does not support expanding the trigger and, in response to questions, environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg said: “The effectiveness of the water trigger legislation was independently reviewed in 2017. No legislative changes were recommended.”
Quick GuideWhat is the water trigger?
Show
What is the water trigger?
The water trigger identifies water resources as a matter of national environmental significance in relation to coal and coal seam gas developments. Australia's national environment laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act – were amended to include the trigger in June 2013. Under the water trigger, coal and coal seam gas developments must be comprehensively assessed at a national level by an independent scientific committee to determine whether a development is likely to have a significant impact on a water resource.
But environment groups, who have been calling for tougher environment assessments in relation to water as part of broader reforms to Australia’s system of environment laws, said an expansion would be welcomed.
Additionally the final report from the Northern Territory’s fracking inquiry specifically recommended the water trigger be expanded to apply to onshore shale gas.
The territory’s chief minister Michael Gunner has promised all 135 recommendations of the fracking committee’s recommendations will be implemented in full.
If followed through, this would require the current government to change its position on the water trigger.
“The federal government were very enthusiastic when the moratorium was lifted but actually extracting that gas is going to be dependent on them,” said Jimmy Cocking, CEO of the Arid Lands Environment Centre.
Evan Quartermain, Humane Society International’s head of programs, said the trigger’s current scope was too narrow.
“While the 2017 statutory review found the current water trigger to be operating effectively within its legislative scope, its focus is too limited and should be expanded to assess significant impacts on key water resources beyond coal or CSG projects,” he said.
“Recent revelations of alleged water theft, poor monitoring, systemic non-compliance and possible corruption have shaken public faith in Australia’s water management framework and strong oversight is clearly needed.”