Submission by Dr Quentin Farmar-Bowers This submission was sent to [email protected] on 25 September 2014 at 1:30pm: “Dear Sir / MadamI would like to make a submission about the proposed onshore gas extraction program south of Geelong. I have copied this email to the Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources, Mr Russell Northe, MP. I think the gas extraction program should not go ahead. I do not see any benefit for the region nor for Australia in allowing this kind of gas development. This energy project is a negative for everybody: (1) even for the shareholders of the fracking companies (as the opportunity cost is higher than investing in more modern energy technology companies). (2) And negative for the banks loaning them the money because there is a backlash against them that will grow in years to come (ethical investing options, divestment in fossil fuel industry … like the recent move by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Council of Churches and Superfunds [such as HESTA]). (3) And a backlash against the governments who sanction these projects, when people see the physical devastation and ill health they cause. (4) For the people in the region who will lose agricultural productivity and suffer from ill health because of the pollution and impossibility of getting compensation down the track. (5) For the property developers in adjacent areas who find their housing estates have lost value. (6) And finally, for everybody and every ecosystem on the planet as this gas production process and consumption produces more CO2e than coal. I would like to see a permanent ban on this industry in the region (State and Australia if possible). I don’t think it has any positive value and will cause a lot of harm. I see this harm in terms of: · Disruption to farming in the region both now and for decades to come because of the contamination of soil through the disposal of salt and fracking chemicals, the contamination of soil through fugitive methane and other (toxic) hydrocarbons, the contamination of ground water through chemicals, the contamination of surface water and soil from heavy metal and radioactive chemicals that will be brought up in the returned well water (placed in evaporative ponds or irrigated onto farmland or used on roadways for dust suppression), and the use of existing water resources for mining liquids. · Contamination of air through dust and hydrocarbons released from well-heads and seeping through the ground. This contamination may last decades and may increase in future when well-head capping structure and well linings fail. The cost of resealing these numerous wells is likely to be many times the Geelong city’s total budget for the whole region. The proposed gas field is up-wind of Geelong and very close to the enormous housing subdivisions taking place between Geelong and Torque. If the gas project goes ahead these housing developments should be deferred and safer areas set aside for housing. · There will be premature deaths from air, soil and water contamination and there may also be birth defects. · There will be little if any economic gains for the region as the shareholders (who are likely to get dividends) are mostly overseas. The jobs in the Geelong region will be short lived but this income (and the tax they will pay) will be offset by the loss of farming income and by the increase health cost for local people. The gas companies may not be in a position to provide compensation in the decades to come, so compensation will come (if it comes at all) from community money via state and federal governments. · The burning of the gas will increase global warming wherever it is burnt….and we know that Australia, being a hot and dry continent with its main cities on the coast, is especially vulnerable to even a small increase in warming and sea level rise and reduced rain fall. · This gas is actually worse for CO2e emissions than coal because of the ongoing fugitive emissions and because of all the energy used in getting it out of the ground, transporting it to ports (in Queensland) shipping overseas then transporting it within these foreign countries to factories and shops. · If in future, an Australian Government commits us to a global CO2e target, the ongoing fugitive gases (mainly methane with 72 times the warming forcing of CO2 over 20 years) will have to be taken into account. This means that Australian businesses will have to reduce their CO2 pollution further than they would have had if the gas fracking industry had not existed. In other words, Australian businesses and Australians will be left an ongoing legacy from the short lived gas fracking businesses. · The externalities of this gas are not included in the price…if the full costs were included, the gas would never be able to find a buyer. However, the subsidy Australia is providing the fracking industry means they will be able to sell the gas. So this industry is a massive market failure. And as far as global warming is concerned, it is a classic mal-adaption. Thanks for this opportunity to comment. Dr Quentin Farmar-Bowers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » Read more on frackfreegeelong.org/yoursay/
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:50:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015