Govt acknowledges Linc contamination

Landholders are calling for answers after the government admitted to groundwater contamination at the Linc Energy site in the strangest of ways.

COMMITTED: Chinchilla landholder, advocate, and consultant Shay Dougall. Picture: Brooke Duncan

LANDHOLDERS and environmental groups are calling for answers after the government admitted to groundwater contamination at the Linc Energy site in the strangest of ways.

Last December the Queensland Government granted two petroleum leases to Arrow Energy that sit above and near the former UCG plant at Hopeland, just outside Chinchilla.

Last April Linc Energy was found guilty of wilfully and unlawfully causing environmental harm at the site between 2007 and 2013.

Buried within one of the Environmental Authorities granted to Arrow Energy was a condition - that the extraction of groundwater (as part of the petroleum activity) from underground aquifers must not "directly or indirectly influence the mobilisation of existing groundwater contamination”.

A further condition prohibited placement of CSG production wells within 10km of the centre of the former Linc site.

According to Chinchilla landholder, advocate and consultant Shay Dougall, those few words marked the first time the government acknowledged groundwater contamination (as opposed to just soil contamination) at the Linc Energy site.

"They've just confirmed for the first time there is contamination in the most bizarre of ways, buried in an EA, they haven't even named Linc, they just put a lot and plan number,” Mrs Dougall said.

"Even in the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment report that's just come out, not one mention of this existing contamination and how it's incorporated into their management.”

In a statement, an Arrow Energy spokesman said their modelling indicated the approved activities would not "change the direction of groundwater flow at the Linc site”.

"Arrow used the entire OGIA model of cumulative CSG production, by all companies, to assess the potential changes in groundwater flow.”

But, according to Mrs Dougall, the data those models - and therefore the approvals - were based on, could now be entirely outdated.

Mrs Dougall said Arrow's application used modelling from the 2016 Underground Water Impact Report to show any risks could be kept at a manageable level.

Yet, according to the 2019 draft UWIR released earlier this year, some aquifers were set to experience greater impacts than predicted previously.

For Basin Sustainability Alliance chairman Lee McNicholl, the modelling Arrow used in its application needs to be made public for immediate review.

"This is a short-term issue on whether there is going to be any immediate transmission of affected groundwater,” Mr McNicholl said.

"All models need to be peer reviewed, that's what it boils down to.

"There's nothing to say that a model is 100 percent accurate.”

The Arrow Energy spokesman said the 2019 UWIR was only in draft form but, when it was approved, Arrow would "assess any potential for change to the current understanding”.

The spokesman said as per the EA, Arrow would install eight groundwater monitoring bores at three sites on one of the leases this year.

"The bores will provide hard data on groundwater movement for Arrow's use, as well as contributing to public knowledge of the regional hydrogeology,” the spokesman said.

He said for these monitoring bores Arrow had lodged a Regional Interests Development Approval application (advertised for public comment, and which is on the government website) for one set of two groundwater monitoring bores in its own property (a legislative requirement where a CSG company proposes activities on a property that it owns).

"Arrow is negotiating with private landholders to install the remaining two sets of groundwater monitoring bores on their land, through the standard conduct and compensation agreement process,” he said.

"Monitoring bores and pilot wells are constructed to government regulations for bore construction, which include requirements to prevent cross-contamination of aquifers.”

Mrs Dougall was aware of the RIDA application and has, along with a group of concerned landholders, prepared their own submission listing their concerns if Arrow's proposals was to go ahead.

"Linc's water monitoring bores behaved as a pathway for contamination, we know that,” she said.

Despite believing there was "very little chance” the submission could ever result in change, she said it was the "only satisfaction you get at the end of the day is to know that you've actually said it, that it's on the record, that they can't say it wasn't said”.

But, putting aside concerns surrounding the new data, even the 2016 modelling was problematic for Mrs Dougall. She said even the original application identified four "potential receptors” of contamination mobilised by Arrow from the Linc Energy site. No information was provided on whether the owners of those bores had been consulted, or how high the risk was, she claims.

According to a Department of Environment and Science spokesman, both of the EAs were "granted on the basis that this CSG activity must not influence the mobilisation of contaminants at the former Linc site, and have been conditioned accordingly.”

"The existing six wells to the south west of the former Linc site have been approved to transition to production with appropriate conditions, including strict groundwater monitoring requirements as well as requirements to install further groundwater monitoring bores.

"To date, the department has had over 1700 landholder interactions relating to the former Linc Energy site.

"The department engages extensively with a range of other stakeholders, including the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment and the local community.

"Once the 2019 Underground Water Impact Report is finalised, DES may use the findings in that report to inform decision making in new and existing CSG projects.”

Perhaps the most frustrating element of the approval for landholders is the difference in conditions on the two EAs.

It presents a unique problem for Chinchilla landholder Brian Bender, whose property is cut in two by the leases.

Mr Bender said one prohibited any new Arrow CSG production wells (besides six already established), while the other established the 10km zone, outside of which Arrow had permission to drill.

"We've got a line dividing the two PLs (petroleum leases) but then also a line for the 10km exclusion zone from Linc,” Mr Bender said.

"The rule is they could come into PL493 and put a well right in the corner outside the 10km.

"But just a hop a skip and a jump you're into the 10km zone where they can't do it.

"Then on the other side of it where PL253 goes past the 10km zone they can't put any there as well.

"It's all on the same property.”

Mr Bender said he believed the whole area should be exempt from CSG activities "until the Linc debacle is understood by everyone”.

"It's already been stated to be irreversible damage so why go stick more wells and stuff, put more potential pathways?” he said.

"It's all modelling... you know what the weather models are like, there are 10 different weather models and they all get it wrong sometimes too.”