CSG – Two sides to every story The CSG debate needs to be based on science and the assessment of potential environmental issues with the anti-CSG movement acting as a community watchdog. The EPA is the Government authority that oversees all pollution or environmental risk activities in NSW. To doubt their abilities to reliably assess and monitor the CSG industry is to doubt all environmental regulatory activities in NSW and Australia. This body is fully accountable for the regulation, enforcement and remediation of any industry-related environmental concerns. Also, the CSG industry is fully accountable for any environmental damage and full post-mining site remediation. Like all industries, sustainability is paramount to their survival. If they cause environmental impacts, they potentially risk or restrict all future mining activities. All mining industries have highly qualified professionals, experts in their fields, for all aspects of gas extraction design, construction, risk assessment, risk mitigation as well as environmental assessment and remediation. Equally, the anti-CSG movement has an important role to play – to use public pressure to ensure that all processes, controls, regulations are implemented to minimise any environmental risk. The NSW CSG regulatory requirements are now the most stringent in Australia and far beyond any environmental regulation in America. The anti-CSG movement can emphasise the importance of baseline air and water quality monitoring prior to disturbance. This data needs to be widely distributed, verified and validated. From the CSG industry, farmers can supplement income and gain beneficial farm infrastructure ie. lined dams, access to other water sources, all-weather roads, etc. Farmers should have the right to decide if the CSG industry is suitable on their property without fear of public retribution. The Australian CSG ‘environmental risk’ debate should not be based on an American Gas mining situation exaggerated in the theatrical production, ‘GasLand’. This ‘documentary’ is based on misleading information and should be balanced by the viewing of ‘TruthLand’. A balanced CSG debate in NSW would lead to a fairer assessment of potential short-term and long-term environmental risk, social gains, jobs, economics, cleaner energy requirements, etc. To assess environmental risk and damage in Australia, Google – ‘Environmental Damage in Australia’ – CSG isn’t identified as risk or damage. The environmental assessment of CSG by Australian independent authorities has identified the Australian risks as minimal. Major damage has occurred and is occurring in Australia from Deforestation, Agricultural clearing and overgrazing, overfishing, exotic species, intensive agricultural nutrient pollution, coastal population growth, urbanisation…
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 03:37:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015