New Coal Seam Gas Projects - Coursework Example

Report Name: Institute: The government of Australia is proposing a ban on all new Coal Seam Gas projects to protect food production concerns and health concerns? Introduction Gas mining has conventionally utilised some wells in deserted regions to mine gas from underground reservoirs that are naturally created (Wang et al., 2012). On the contrary, unconventional gas mining from coal seams, tight sands, as well as shale can include a lot of wells that are distributed across occupied regions. All means of unconventional gas mining use a general technology and entail the utilisation as well as discharge of comparable hazardous substances. According to McHugh et al. (2014) any mining company in Australia that exposes the locals to potentially dangerous processes or products has a responsibility to review and deal with health risks. In a globe where food production is turning out to be more and more significant, Engle et al. (2010) posit that CSG mining will decrease food production and leave the soils polluted. Legal responsibilities for care duty as well as due diligence need the holders of duty to keenly look for proof of likely risks, as well as to reflect beyond acknowledged threats to take into account every risk (Bruton, 2009). In this regard, the report provides a critical analysis about the Australian government proposal to ban all new Coal Seam Gas projects to protect food production concerns and health concerns. CSG effects on Food Production Presently, Australia is a leading grain exporter, shipping out an adequate amount of food to feed almost 60 million persons across the globe. A great deal of production takes place on land that is as well appropriate for CSG mining. Pressed by society concerns with regard to the loss of key agricultural land to coal seam gas mining, as well as industry fighting to reduce limitations on their access to such lands, the NSW government realized the need to draft new land legislation for strategic cropping. The Liverpool plains as well as Darling Downs with their heavy clay soils, widespread underground water wherewithal, as well as reliable rainfall are amongst the world’s most productive lands for agriculture. According to McHugh, Condon, and Herbert (2014), these soils stock up sufficient water to tide crops during durations of low rainfall. Furthermore, they have natural soil organic matter as well as soil fertility that strengthen their outstanding and dependable productivity; however, CSG mining in these areas can lead to soil contamination, which as a result will lead to reduced food production. According to Pash (2014), CSG wells occupy almost two hectares of land, and need underground pipes as well as accessible roads to enable gas collection. Even though this sum up to a somewhat enormous land loss with over 30,000 wells, the key setback that farmers experience is that a presence of CSG well close to a farming field can interrupt the flow of water, thus, affecting food production. Roads according to Hepburn (2013) are a key setback as they interrupt the control of flood erosion, which farmers have built up as well as signed up to with the state government. Basically, soils are not much deep and therefore, erosion is key setback endured in food production, and takes a lot of centuries to substitute the topsoil that are most fertile, and which can be misplaced in only one erosion occasion. The only solution is to relocate CSG wells to areas where they would not lead to erosion. Even though this is more expensive for sure, but it’s much less damaging to farm practice and the environment. CSG wells endanger a number of the best Australia cropping lands as well as the source of revenues of the Australian best farmers (Hepburn, 2013). Health Effects Karacan et al. (2008) maintain that there are some serious threats to Australian health related with CSG development. Study results by Doctors for the Environment established that the current level of regulation, monitoring as well as assessment of Australia CSG mining and exploration activities is insufficient to defend the health of present and upcoming Australians generations. What’s more, doctors for the Environment have highlighted three fundamental areas where there is possibility for severe human health effects: first, is through pollution of soil, air, and water; secondly, through land and water diversion clear of agricultural food production; and finally, communities’ mental health effects, especially those Australians who have experienced forced environmental changes. A study by the National Toxics Network established that there are solemn threats related with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) chemicals which may be occurring naturally as well as mobilised by hydraulic fracturing process (Engle et al., 2010).  Some of health hazards related with BTEX exposure as outlined by the National Toxics Network include: short term exposure effects can lead to problems with central nervous system (weariness, giddiness, headache, and loss of coordination), skin irritation, as well as impact on the respiratory system (nose as well as eye irritation). Lengthened exposure to BTEX can as well harmfully have an effect on the functioning of the blood system, liver and kidneys. Long-standing exposure to high benzene levels can result into cancers as well as leukaemia of the blood (Pash, 2014). Additionally, there are threats related with the waste water produced in CSG operations; for instance, Validakis (2013) established that this waste water can have chemicals utilised during fracking or drilling, hydrocarbons such as BTEX, heavy metals (like cadmium, lead, and mercury), and radioactive elements such as thorium as well as uranium. Therefore, when CSG waste water is accumulated in holding ponds that are open, Karacan et al. (2008) posit that it can create a solemn threat to the neighbouring environment as well as to inhabitant animals.  Effects on Farms and Natural Reserves CSG mining extension across lands meant for farming has generated an unprecedented conflict in claims of resource in Australia. This collision has been aggravated by the social as well as environmental consequences of CSG expansion. Pash (2014) posit that skeletons of animals have been discovered in CSG waste water ponds in areas such as Pilliga State Forest as well as wide-ranging tree-kill has been noted in areas close to water treatment facilities in addition to holding ponds. The CGS contamination of underground water leads to poisoning of soils used for farming as well as deaths of animals in natural reserves. Recommendation There is a noteworthy risk of soil contamination, since the hydrological systems used are multifaceted and poorly investigate. Therefore, Coal seam gas mining in Australia needs keen supervision of possible contamination, and CSG mining should be banned in areas it goes up against agricultural as well as human needs. Evidently, human health depends heavily on having hygienic secure drinking water as well as uncontaminated air. Therefore, CSG mining operations must not be permitted to put such basic health needs in danger. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that mining for CSG as well as other forms of unconventional gas is an unmatched danger to Australians. Without doubt, Australians have by no means ever experienced the possibility of living as well as raising children amongst heavily industrialised CSG fields. The whole society in CSG areas are exposed to countless of social as well as psychological stresses, in addition to a witch’s brew soil and air pollutants. Presence of CSG wells close to farming areas in Australia pose the risk of soil erosion as well as soil contamination, which in turn, leads to decline in food production. References Bruton, A. (2009). Coal seam gas water; Part 3, Facilitating commercial supply. Oil and Gas Gazette, 3(1), 34-35. Colaizzi, G. J. (2004). Prevention, control and/or extinguishment of coal seam fires using cellular grout. International Journal of Coal Geology, 59(1-2), 75-81. Engle, M. A., Hower, J. C., Stracher, G. B., O'Keefe, J. M., Henke, K. R., & al., e. (2010). Gases emitted from spontaneous coal fires: composition and potential environmental impacts. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 42(1), 62-75. Hepburn, S. (2013, March 13). Federal government’s control of coal seam gas a welcome relief . Retrieved from The Conversation : http://theconversation.com/federal-governments-control-of-coal-seam-gas-a-welcome-relief-12782 Karacan, C. O., Ulery, J. P., & Goodman, G. V. (2008). A numerical evaluation on the effects of impermeable faults on degasification efficiency and methane emissions during underground coal mining. International Journal of Coal Geology, 75(4), 195-203. McHugh, B., Condon, M., & Herbert, L. (2014, February 21). Santos signs agreement with NSW Government for Narrabri CSG project. Retrieved from ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-21/santos-nsw-government-signmou-for-narrabri-gas-project/5274804 Pash, C. (2014, March 3). Australian Doctors Have Raised A Health Red Flag Over Coal Seam Gas Developments . Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-doctors-have-raised-a-health-red-flag-over-coal-seam-gas-developments-2014-3 Validakis, V. (2013, November 21). Arrow Energy warns of job losses if CSG ban passes . Retrieved from Mining Australia: http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/arrow-energy-warns-of-1300-job-losses-if-csg-ban-p Validakis, V. (2013, November 12). CSG work banned from water catchment areas . Retrieved from Australian Mining: http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/csg-work-banned-from-water-catchment-areas Wang, L., Cheng, Y.-p., Wang, L., Guo, P.-k., & Li, W. (2012). Safety line method for the prediction of deep coal-seam gas pressure and its application in coal mines. Safety Science, 50(3), 523-529. Read More