Ten weeks out from AgForce having to use a federal court process to try to stop an impending environmental and economic disaster in the Great Artesian Basin, and we are still facing much the same issues as when we first raised concerns months ago.
With no proponent led community engagement, misleading and unbalanced terminology from Glencore, a natural wonder of the world at significant and immediate risk, and a Federal Environment Minister with the power to bring the proposal back for proper consideration, it's hard to believe how little movement there's been on what to us are obvious concerns in the national interest.
In other carbon capture and storage projects, approval has only been granted after rigorous scientific studies demonstrate that there can be no leakage of CO2 into freshwater aquifers.
Typically, great care and effort is taken to avoid this risk, whereas in contrast, this CTSCo project is proposing to directly inject CO2 into a major water supply aquifer and cause deliberate harm.
The terminology used throughout the Glencore literature has been misleading and unbalanced. Key project impacts such as the dissolution of aquifer rock and water contamination from the mobilisation of heavy metals, have been hidden and irresponsibly downplayed.
Instead, they have used terminology such as 'food grade CO2' and compared the waste to soft drink to tone down potential risk and avoid direct communication of possible hazards to stakeholders.
And making it even more galling is the stakeholder engagement process, which it would be kind to describe as incompetent and inadequate. A good example of this is how neighbouring Precipice Sandstone Licence-holders found out about the proposed project by accident. The process has become absurd.
The aquifer that is targeted for injection by Glencore is regionally significant and high quality in terms of both groundwater yields and quality. Groundwater from the aquifer provides invaluable supply to numerous towns, agricultural enterprises, power stations, mines, and other important facilities across southern Queensland.
Yet in the company's draft Environmental Impact Statement, Glencore/CTSCo incorrectly stated that the aquifer does not hold any significance locally as a water source, nor does it have any Environmental Values (EVs).
After an outcry from industry, their final EIS submission conceded the aquifer's EVs - but with breathtaking arrogance seeks to harm it regardless.
Without a review of alternative targets outside the GAB, the intent of the project appears abstract, reckless, or at best hopelessly naive. Make no mistake, AgForce will not rest until this is resolved through the Federal Parliament and the national treasure that is the Great Artesian Basin is given the proper protection it deserves.
