90% of submissions to Tasmanian fracking review say No!

The vast majority of those who wrote submissions to the government review on fracking in Tasmania sounded a loud and clear ‘No’ to the industry, including farmers, residents, UTAS, Doctors for the environment, Hydro Tasmania and Wine Tasmania.

90.4% of submissions said they didn’t want to see fracking in Tasmania. Many called for either an outright ban or to extend the current moratorium for several years to give sufficient time for thorough environmental and health impact assessments, or until fracking can be proved safe.

Even the Department for Health and Human Services has expressed grave concerns of public health risks warning the government to ‘take the precautionary principle where scientific evidence is incomplete or lacking.’

‘It is important to ensure that where public health risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures should be stipulated and subsequently implemented. Baseline and future monitoring of the surrounding environment including surface water, groundwater, soil and air should ensure that any risks to human health and the environment are minimised.’

‘Fracking’, or hydraulic fracturing is a controversial and unconventional method of gas extraction that has had huge media coverage in Australia and the USA for its links to ground water contamination and health problems. Some submitters to the Tasmanian review expressed their astonishment that the Tasmanian government would even entertain the idea of fracking. ‘Oy! You can’t eat money!’ wrote an exasperated Kevin Moore, and ‘It’s a no brainer’ says Kerrie Cross.

3.8% of submissions were supportive of fracking, 4.5% gave no definite stance on fracking, although most raised concerns and 1.3% were unknown because of confidentiality.

The re-occurring issues that came up for those writing in against fracking included water contamination, health risks, climate change, risks to agriculture, risk to the new irrigation scheme, effects on wildlife, environmental regulation of the industry, risk to tourism and increased noise and traffic.

David Sanderson of Wine Tasmania, the Tasmanian representative body for grape growers and wine makers have stated they ‘do not support fracking in Tasmania’ for two reasons: ‘Firstly the impact on sustainable agricultural production and, secondly, on the Tasmanian (wine) brand….

With vineyards being located across a large part of the island, the potential of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Tasmania is of impact and relevance for the Tasmanian wine sector.’

Truffles of Tasmania also wrote to express their concerns. ‘If Fracking was to be done on our farm, our entire business operation would be ruined overnight.’

Houston’s Farm of the Coal River Valley has been established for 20 years and is one of Australia’s largest producers of salad greens. They wrote ‘We are deeply concerned that if our limited sources of high quality water are degraded by the impact of hydraulic fracturing activities, then our business will prove to be unviable’ and go on to urge the government to take a precautionary approach.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association’s submission also asked the government to apply the precautionary principle, stating their concerns about the current questionable process of obtaining landowner consent for exploring or drilling, the integrity of the concrete wells and the impact on farming communities who are the ‘backbone of Tasmanian economic and social society in rural Tasmania’.

Many scientific organisations wrote submissions …

Other farms who wrote in against fracking were the Fork and Hoe Collective of the Huon Valley and Weston’s Farm who also supply and own Pigeon Hole café in Hobart.

Many scientific organisations wrote submissions expressing their concerns including the National Toxics Network, the Didel Institute for Scientific Research and Development and the International Association of Hydrogeologists.

Doctors for the Environment wrote: ‘Given the risks to water resources, the risks of chemical spills and contamination, and the multitude of other risks to human health, society and the environment, it seems unlikely that there would be adequate safety data generated in the near future to allow the public health community to endorse hydraulic fracturing or unconventional gas extraction more broadly. As such, DEA strongly recommends that the Tasmanian government continue its moratorium on exploration and mining for unconventional and coal seam gas in Tasmania indefinitely.’

Latrobe, Meander Valley and Kentish Councils wrote in to share their reservations about fracking in Tasmania with the latter expressing a very definite anti-fracking stance.

Hydro Tasmania, the largest supplier of hydro-electricity in Tasmania, wrote that the impacts they are facing from fracking are ‘most likely to arise from the contamination of surface water resources from drilling ….near our land or water bodies we manage.’ They call for the ‘prohibition of BTEX chemicals’, a group of carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals, including benzene, used in fracking.

Environmental advocacy groups wrote in their scores including the Tasmania Public and Environmental Health Network (TPEHN), Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), Tasmania Conservation Trust, The Environment Association, Climate Action Hobart, Lock the Gate, Tas Greens, Tas Land Conservancy, Our Tasmania and Mining Access Denied, all asking for a ban or extension of the moratorium until fracking is deemed safe.

Lush Cosmetics, winner of Australian Business Award for Environmental Sustainability 2013 & 2014, wrote their submission asking for a complete ban on fracking in Tasmania.

Interestingly, UTAS entered the debate with two submissions stating their concerns about the impacts of fracking on their $5 million Greenhill Observatory facility at Bisdee Tier, in the Southern Midlands. The facility hosts a 1.3m telescope which is ‘competitive’ to Australia’s premier telescope in Sliding Spring, Sydney. ‘Dark skies are a strong requirement in order to operate an astronomical observatory. This problem is so severe that the long-term operations of the Siding Spring Observatory are considered threatened by fracking in NSW. It is strongly desirable to eliminate any similar such threats in Tasmania.’ Dust is another issue for the facility.

‘The prospect of coal seam gas extraction by hydraulic fracking threatens the existence of this valuable research infrastructure and would have strong negative impact on the University’s investment.’

One regular tourist to Tasmania wrote of her concerns of the threat to Tasmania’s tourism industry: ‘As regular visitors to your clean, green state we strongly urge you not to approve any fracking in Tasmania to preserve your environment for all to enjoy. Your state currently has great appeal as a pristine destination and has a tourism and agriculture marketing advantage over the other states by remaining frack-free’ wrote Tanyia Maxted from Perth, ‘We would also become wary of foodstuffs produced in or anywhere regionally near them due to pollution risks associated with fracking.’

Of the 6 submissions (3.8%) that emerged as supportive of fracking in Tasmania, 2 are from organisations known to be funded by the oil and gas industry, two are advocates for the industry and receiving funding from the federal government, and one from a business run by an engineer known to have worked in the petroleum industry for 35 years. Is this any surpise?

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), ‘The Voice of Australia’s oil and gas industry’, states that fracking ‘techniques and technologies have been developed over decades of research, trial and testing and are safe and sustainable ways of developing resources when best practice is followed by operators.’