This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Coal Seam Gas Review | |
|---|---|
| Name | Coal Seam Gas Review |
| Type | Policy and scientific assessment |
| Jurisdiction | Australia |
| Established | 2012 |
| Purpose | Evaluation of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction |
Coal Seam Gas Review
The Coal Seam Gas Review was a national assessment initiated to evaluate coal seam gas extraction practices, scientific evidence, regulatory arrangements, community impacts and industry standards. It drew on expertise from institutions, agencies and stakeholders across energy, environmental science, public health and law, producing recommendations aimed at harmonizing operations, monitoring, and community engagement.
The review brought together contributions and submissions from parties associated with Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Queensland Government, New South Wales Government, Victorian Government, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Australia), Geoscience Australia, CSIRO, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Medical Association, Central Queensland University, University of Queensland, University of Sydney, Australian National University, James Cook University, Griffith University, Curtin University, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Flinders University, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Melbourne, Deakin University, Charles Darwin University, University of Western Australia, University of Tasmania, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Environmental Defenders Office, The Wilderness Society, Lock the Gate Alliance, Farmers for Climate Action, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Business Council of Australia, Queensland Resources Council, New South Wales Resources Council, Australian Energy Market Operator, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Clean Energy Council, Energy Networks Australia, Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, and numerous regional councils and landholder groups.
Technical evaluation referenced technologies and operators active in fields like Bowen Basin, Surat Basin, Gunnedah Basin, Denver Basin, Powder River Basin, Appalachian Basin, Wellington Basin, Cooper Basin, Mackenzie River basin, and practices influenced by operators such as Santos Limited, Origin Energy, Chevron Corporation, BG Group, ExxonMobil, Shell plc, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, TotalEnergies, Apache Corporation, Peabody Energy, BHP, Rio Tinto Group, and service companies including Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International. The review examined drilling, directional drilling, hydraulic fracturing, well integrity, produced water handling, dewatering, flow testing, pipeline construction, and rehabilitation, referring to technical standards from International Organization for Standardization, American Petroleum Institute, Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS) and state petroleum legislation frameworks such as Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Queensland) and analogous instruments.
Evidence synthesis referenced peer-reviewed work and monitoring programs involving National Environment Protection Council, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, CSIRO Land and Water, Australian National University Fenner School, Flinders University School of Medicine, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Public Health England, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey, Health Effects Institute, World Health Organization, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Energy Agency, and environmental NGOs. Topics included groundwater aquifer interaction, surface water contamination, methane leakage, greenhouse gas accounting, air emissions, seismicity, biodiversity impacts in regions like Great Barrier Reef, Brigalow Belt, Koala Coast, and cumulative impacts on ecosystems recognized by Ramsar Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity.
The review considered economic inputs and fiscal arrangements drawing on analyses from Australian Bureau of Statistics, Reserve Bank of Australia, Productivity Commission, Australian Treasury, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and industry reports from Wood Mackenzie, IHS Markit, Rystad Energy, BloombergNEF, and Deloitte. Regulatory oversight and compliance referenced offices such as Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Office of the Chief Scientist (Australia), state regulators, environmental protection agencies including Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and NSW Environment Protection Authority, and legal frameworks like Native Title Act 1993, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and planning instruments used by local governments such as Brisbane City Council and regional councils.
The review documented stakeholder consultation with Indigenous representative bodies and land councils such as National Native Title Tribunal, Aboriginal Land Council of New South Wales, Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Council, Torres Strait Regional Authority, Central Land Council, Northern Land Council, and native title claimants associated with areas near Narrabri, Dalby, Roma, Queensland, Boggabri, Santos Basin communities, and agricultural communities including members of National Farmers' Federation. Social impact assessment referenced case law like Mabo v Queensland (No 2), Wik Peoples v Queensland, and policy instruments related to consultation, compensation, benefit-sharing, cultural heritage protection, and consent processes.
Significant inquiries and reports considered included reviews commissioned by Queensland Government (2012), New South Wales Government (2014), national audits by Productivity Commission, academic syntheses from Australian Academy of Science (2013), independent panels like the review chaired by Tim Winton affiliates or other eminent persons, and international comparisons with assessments by United States Environmental Protection Agency (2016), Royal Society of Canada, and state inquiries such as Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection studies. Case studies referenced community disputes in Pilliga State Forest, Chinchilla, Wallumbilla, Fairview, and international analogues in Barnett Shale, Marcellus Formation, Haynesville Shale, and consequent litigation involving High Court of Australia and civil tribunals.
Public response involved coalitions including Lock the Gate Alliance, The Wilderness Society (Australia), Friends of the Earth, EnvironmentalJustice Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, industry advocacy from APPEA, and political engagement tied to parties such as Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Greens (Australian political party), and local branches. Media coverage and legal challenges engaged outlets and institutions including ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, The Australian, The Guardian (Australian edition), Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio, and parliamentary scrutiny by committees of the Parliament of Australia.
Category:Energy policy of Australia