METGASCO has had its CSG exploration licence at Bentley in northern NSW suspended last month. The reason given by NSW Energy Minister Anthony Roberts was that the company had failed to properly consult the community. The minister was quoted as saying that he had "concerns about the way which Metgasco has characterised its activities".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In my opinion the minister should have similar concerns about AGL's activities in relation to the Gloucester CSG project.
AGL has been publishing material asserting that it has been extensively consulting and engaging the Gloucester community. In my view it cannot be said that AGL has properly and fully consulted the community. Community consultation is only effective where the information provided is complete, full and accurate, and where the communication is undertaken in an appropriate way. On both counts AGL has failed.
It is not possible here to detail each and every piece of inaccurate information which has been put out by AGL, but a few examples are as follows:
- During CSG production large quantities of water are extracted. This is called "produced water", which must then be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable way. In its latest Gloucester Community Newsletter AGL describes produced water as "simply old salty water."
The statement is misleading because produced water is not simply old salty water. The water certainly contains much salt, which is problematic, but it also contains such things as heavy metals, other chemicals and radioactive material. Nothing was said about the real difficulty of disposing of the huge quantities of salt in an environmentally acceptable way.
- AGL has to date been attempting to dispose of its produced water by diluting it and using the diluted water for irrigation. It has misleadingly been calling this operation a "trial" when it is nothing of the sort. It is not a trial because no scientifically meaningful results can be obtained from it because of its flawed design. It was never approved by government as a trial.
- Fracking is a highly contentious issue. In the Herald on February 3, AGL said that for fracking ". . . AGL uses a combination of water, sand and non-toxic additives . . ." The statement is incorrect and misleading. Of particular concern is tolcide, which is just one of the fracking chemicals and which is toxic to aquatic life and can be toxic to reproduction.
- In another piece in the Herald, AGL asserted that produced water does not enter streams. AGL's own documentation does not support this unqualified assertion. The blended produced water that is being used for irrigation could in circumstances of heavy rainfall end up overflowing into streams, taking polluted soil with it.
- AGL's website asserted that a large percentage of Gloucester residents are in favour of its Gloucester CSG operations and in doing so relied upon the results of a survey. However it is very clear that the survey did not support that assertion in any way.
Apart from misinformation or "spin" being fed to the community, some of AGL's methods need to be called into question. At the recent Gloucester Show, AGL employees approached school children and handed out free goodies and material emblazoned with the AGL logo. No attempt was made that I know of to seek permission from the children's parents.
In a recent advertisement in the Gloucester Advocate AGL published a photo of children from a local school standing with AGL's community liaison person in front of the school sign which read "Thank you AGL". Apparently AGL had donated an airconditioner to the school. In my view it is quite unacceptable for AGL to market to school children and to use them and schools for a blatantly commercial purpose. That is not community consultation.
AGL is offering special rates of power to Gloucester residents and businesses. This should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to buy local support for its activities.
AGL has a website called "Your Say - AGL" (yoursayagl.com.au). It is clearly misnamed because the site contains nothing but comments and articles favourable to AGL. It unashamedly promotes a local pro mining group but does not mention any local group or issue that might challenge or question its activities.
It is clear that AGL has confused marketing and advertising with community consultation and has not been making a serious attempt to engage the Gloucester community. The position requires close examination by the appropriate authorities. The situation is such that until that is done AGL should not be permitted to proceed any further with its Gloucester operations.
John Watts is a Gloucester resident and a member of community group Groundswell Gloucester
