Chapter 2Views of affected stakeholders
2.1Glencore’s proposed Surat Basin Carbon Capture and Storage Project (the project) generated significant opposition from the local community and considerable evidence received by the committee reflected these concerns.
2.2This chapter discusses some of the key issues raised by affected stakeholders who rely on the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) for a variety of reasons, including water security, economic development, agricultural production, and cultural heritage.
2.3It also discusses the project’s potential to set a precedent for further carbon capture and storage (CCS) across the GAB and considers the implications of the recent decision by the Queensland Government to legislate a ban on all CCS activities within the state’s component of the GAB.
2.4It concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
Protecting the Great Artesian Basin
2.5The GAB is one of the largest underground freshwater resources in the world. It is Australia’s largest groundwater basin and lies beneath parts of the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales.
2.6As seen in Figure 2.1, approximately 70 per cent of the GAB lies within Queensland.
2.7According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), the GAB generates approximately $33.2 billion per year in economic output. It is a vital resource for 180,000 people, 7,600 businesses and 120 towns.
2.8Evidence to this inquiry demonstrated the extent to which regional communities in Queensland rely on the GAB for water. Several water users near the proposed project site submitted that water from the target aquifer, as well as surrounding aquifers, is used for a range of activities, including grazing, irrigation, industry and urban consumption.
2.9Further, a 2016 report commissioned by the Australian Government and the GAB jurisdictions observed:
It is…hard to imagine much of the town/urban water use and domestic water use in GAB regions being possible without access to GAB water.
In many localities, alternative water supplies are prohibitively costly and total reliance on surface water would significantly reduce liveability.
2.10The Western Queensland Alliance of Councils (WQAC), a collaboration of 24 local councils across Western Queensland, described the GAB as the “lifeblood” of the state’s regional communities, adding that numerous of its aquifers hold significant economic and cultural importance.
2.11In his submission to the inquiry, the Federal Member for Flynn, Mr Colin Boyce commented:
The Great Artesian Basin is unique, only one of its kind in the world. It is the world’s largest underground potable water source and covers 22% of the area of Australia, 65% of Queensland, 1.7 million square km, estimated to carry 65,000 cubic kilometres of water.
2.12Across the southern Queensland region, landholders use bores from the GAB’s numerous aquifers to supply fresh water for a variety of purposes. It is also an important source of supply for some towns—including Roma in southwestern Queensland.
2.13According to the Queensland Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, the Precipice Sandstone aquifer has a ‘moderate level’ of groundwater use—about 2,225 megalitres per year from more than 186 water bores within the area of interest, primarily for town water supply and stock-intensive purposes.
2.14Overwhelmingly, submitters sought to emphasise the value of the receiving groundwater from the target aquifer and bring attention to the major constraints on water availability across the region.
2.15Since Glencore’s proposal would involve the injection of CO2 into an aquifer which yields usable groundwater for a range of existing water licence holders, there was broadscale concerns over risks of potential contamination and degradation of this water source.
2.16More generally, stakeholders also encouraged the committee to consider the delicate balance between efforts to reduce emissions and long-term risks to the natural environment. Farmers for Climate Action, for example, noted that the risks of the project to water security and food production outweigh the benefits of emissions reduction.
2.17Australian Pork Limited (APL) echoed these concerns, commenting that ‘as our climate changes, secure water resources, such as the GAB aquifers are increasing in their significance and importance.’
Figure 2.1Map of the Great Artesian Basin
Source: Environment Resources Information Network (ERIN), Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; May 2011.
CO2 injection into water resource aquifers
2.18The committee also received evidence relating to the project’s anomalous target site for CO2 injection. Several submitters noted that the vast majority of onshore CCS projects currently in operation across the globe do not target active water aquifers.
2.19For example, hydrogeologist Mr Edward Hamer argued that CCS projects conventionally target high salinity formations, not water resource aquifers, and that the proposed location for the project is ‘not consistent with global best practice’.
2.20In a similar vein, Hancock Agriculture, whilst contending that CO2 sequestration ‘can be an appropriate and safe technology’, noted that:
[t]he vast majority of CCS projects that are being undertaken around the world are in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs whose characteristics are well known to the project proponents after long production life. Depleted reservoirs are stable geological structures with known ‘seals’, which is why the hydrocarbons were trapped there in the first place. Injecting CO2 into those depleted reservoirs is a known proposition with very limited risk of adverse environmental consequences.
2.21Conversely, Glencore maintained in its EIS for the project that the target aquifer was a ‘confined aquifer’ and contended that any CO2 injected into it would remain entirely contained to the extent of the GHG plume (predicted to be approximately 1,300 to 1,600 meters in diameter).
2.22The Queensland Government’s EIS assessment report did not support Glencore’s assessment of the aquifer’s impermeability. Rather, the report referenced the risk of any CO2 injected migrating ‘outwards (laterally and horizontally) from the injection site.’
Perspectives from local governments
2.23A number of local government bodies, including regional councils, water regulatory bodies, and elected officials, submitted to the inquiry.
2.24Broadly, local governments expressed opposition to the proposed project, relaying concerns from local community members and highlighting an inadequate consultation process with communities directly affected by the project.
2.25The Western Downs Regional Council (WDRC), which presides over the project’s area, argued that while the targeted aquifer was ‘generally underutilised’, it presented a significant opportunity for future agricultural, industrial, and urban expansion in the region. The WRDC also added that the proposed project is unlikely to generate significant economic activity for the region.
2.26Similarly, the Goondiwindi Regional Council, which neighbours the WDRC, pointed to potential risks to the road transport network surrounding the proposed site should the project go ahead:
…unless transportation operations are closely managed, additional traffic could utilise Council's network, creating road safety and maintenance risk. Expansion to a full-scale project would clearly increase risk associated with road transport of the compressed gas.
2.27The WQAC urged the committee to consider the significance of the GAB as a resource for town water supplies across the region, noting that putting it at risk could lead to ‘long-term economic, social, and environmental impacts.’
2.28Furthermore, the WQAC went on to state that:
As a nationally significant water resource, successive Governments have rolled out policies, plans and programs coupled with significant funding to protect the sustainability of the GAB. As such, it appears counter intuitive that the Government is not employing the pre-cautionary principle with regard to the CTSCo proposal or at the very minimum subjecting CCS projects to the requirements of the EPBC Act.
2.29The Queensland Water Directorate (qldwater), a central advisory body comprising 69 council water service providers in Queensland, emphasised the critical role the GAB plays in supplying drinking water for more than 35 towns across the state.
2.30Most notably, qldwater indicated that any changes to the temperature, pressure, chemistry, and any other condition of water supplied from the GAB could lead to severe water failures for local communities where there are no alternative potable water sources.
2.31Councillor Rebecca Vonhoff, the Deputy Mayor of the Toowoomba Regional Council, pointed to a lack of information and clarity in materials the Council received during CTSCo’s community consultation:
Nowhere in the report for Councillors' consideration were the words "Great Artesian Basin" mentioned. Instead, the report euphemistically referred to "injection sites". It was only upon questioning during the Ordinary Meeting that it was discovered that the matter referred to Green House Gas emissions from industrial sources being injected into the Great Artesian Basin.
2.32The WQAC echoed these concerns regarding the consultation process with impacted stakeholders. Whilst acknowledging Glencore’s community consultation efforts via the EIS Public Notice process, as well as via dedicated public sessions, the group explained that feedback from the community indicated that stakeholders found Glencore’s consultation material difficult to understand and questioned whether it presented unbiased scientific information.
2.33In its submission, Glencore contended that its community consultation process went ‘well beyond’ the key stakeholders located close to the project site and included a wide range of neighbouring landowners, indigenous groups, non‑governmental organisations, industry peak bodies, and community groups.
Concerns over impacts to agricultural production
2.34Submitters from the agriculture industry uniformly expressed concerns over potentially losing access to the Surat Basin, and the wider GAB, as a reliable water source underpinning primary production.
2.35Agricultural producers also underscored the considerable socioeconomic consequences that the potential loss of secure water access would bring to regional communities across Queensland and the nation more broadly.
2.36In its submission, APL emphasised the importance of a secure water supply to the agricultural industry, adding that the pork industry requires access to a consistent and well understood supply of water and that its ability to innovate and support the broader move toward emissions reduction is ‘reliant on access to water.’
2.37Similarly, the SunPork Group underscored the implications of this groundwater becoming unsuitable for pig consumption:
If the SunPork Group water supply from the GAB was compromised, we risk the welfare of 250,000 pigs at any point in time, we potentially render useless more than $200 million in production infrastructure and the $170million Swickers abattoir would not have sufficient volume to operate leaving more than 800 individuals unemployed and a 10% shortfall in national pork supply through all major retailers.
2.38The Australian Lot Feeders’ Association (ALFA) expressed similar concerns, particularly regarding water access for its 135 accredited feedlots located across the GAB. ALFA stated that the Precipice Sandstone aquifer is currently used in livestock production across a number of businesses, adding that preserving this water source is key to the country’s food production, safety, and security.
2.39Australian Organic Limited (AOL) echoed these views and emphasised that even the smallest water contamination in the aquifer could undermine the rigorous certification standards in the organics sector.
2.40Further, AOL noted that, given the project’s potential risks to groundwater, the cost of certification and compliance could become costlier and more complex for organic producers to navigate.
2.41In a similar vein, the Queensland Farmers’ Federation (QFF) drew attention to the potential impacts of the project on the local poultry industry. It explained that water for the sector is sourced exclusively from underground in order to mitigate risks of exotic diseases brought by migratory birds. As a result, a loss of access to groundwater in the basin would have significant impacts.
2.42The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) reiterated the QFF’s statements and suggested that potential risks to the groundwater could have impacts well beyond the local community surrounding the injection site:
CTSCo’s proposal is novel and significant and has the potential to inflict unacceptable risk to the Australian agriculture sector, public trust and confidence in domestic food production, public health and human security, and the pristine environment of the GAB which spans across several State and Territory jurisdictions.
2.43OBE Organic, a Queensland-based producer of certified organic beef, argued that its livestock are entirely dependent on water from the GAB and called for the Australian Government to develop new and more stringent regulatory safeguards to manage the GAB, particularly for activities related to CCS.
2.44Australian Country Choice (ACC) drew attention to potential impacts of the project to its operations, noting that all three of its feedlots and most of its grazing properties are completely reliant on groundwater supply from the GAB, including the Precipice Sandstone aquifer specifically. ACC added that the aquifer is the only viable water source available for future expansion of its operations, and any deterioration of the groundwater would significantly devalue the company’s water entitlements.
2.45In addition, ACC highlighted the contrast in economic activity for the local community between its operations and the project’s operations, arguing that its operations contribute to 41 regional jobs and 677 indirect jobs, compared to only five operational positions projected from Glencore’s project.
2.46Specifically in relation to the target aquifer for the project, the Cameron Pastoral Company observed:
Shallower aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin are already at capacity. As such, the Precipice Sandstone provides the only reliable source of water for the planned growth of livestock industries in Southern Queensland.
First Nations perspectives
2.47First Nations submitters noted that the GAB has long held significant cultural and spiritual significance for their communities.
2.48In its submission, the Queensland Indigenous Labor Network explained that mound springs, which are natural surface outlets for the waters of the GAB, hold great cultural value for First Nations peoples and present a natural oasis for communities and wildlife in the outback.
2.49The Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation emphasised the interconnectivity of the GAB as a water resource and the importance of protecting it in its entirety.
2.50Likewise, the Global Indigenous Elders Alliance (GIEA) called for the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage and environmental sustainability of the country’s natural waterways, adding that the destruction of any natural environment disproportionally impacts First Nations peoples and cultures.
2.51Further, the GIEA added that any assessment of proposed projects should be done in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal Elders in order to ensure their ‘questions, grievances and cultural caretaker aspirations and responsibilities are included in the decision-making process and the subsequent outcome.’
Environmental and ecological concerns
2.52In addition to concerns relating to groundwater contamination, environmental groups also pointed to other cumulative environmental impacts associated with CCS activities within the GAB.
2.53For instance, the Lock the Gate Alliance argued that contamination of the receiving groundwater could lead to potential damage to groundwater-dependent ecosystems along the nearby Moonie River, as well as health impacts to regional communities reliant on the GAB for public water supply.
2.54Similarly, Environmental Justice Australia called attention to the increased air pollution risks associated with the added infrastructure required for the proposed project, adding that ‘CCS capture at a facility does not account for the air pollution from the upstream and downstream processes of facilities with CCS.’
2.55Most notably, as outlined in Chapter 1, environmental groups uniformly submitted that CCS projects may be used to prolong fossil fuel production and delay the transition to clean energy, thereby exacerbating the climate harms faced by various ecosystems already under threat.
2.56As a result, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argued that governments should be focusing their efforts on increasing protection for ecosystems that absorb carbon by delivering swift nature positive law reforms.
Precedent of CCS projects in the GAB
2.57There was widespread concern about the potential precedent set by allowing CCS projects within the GAB and the implications for the long-term integrity of this important groundwater source.
2.58In its submission, the Goondiwindi Regional Council described the project as a ‘precursor’ to a larger project with significantly greater storage capacity and expressed opposition to any subsequent full-scale sequestration projects in the region.
2.59Similarly, the Queensland Conservation Council cautioned that allowing CCS activities in the GAB could permanently degrade water quality in the aquifer and cause ‘irreversible adverse impacts’ to its environmental and economic values.
2.60Further, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) noted that setting the precedent for CCS activities in the GAB could endanger the economy of rural Australia and put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk.
2.61The QFF also expressed alarm over the possibility of a large-scale CCS industry in the GAB, noting that the ‘clean and green’ image of Australia’s agricultural exports could be jeopardised.
2.62Australian Organics summed up these concerns in its submission: ‘the Basin cannot serve as a mere testing ground for experimentation; the stakes are too high to gamble with this crucial water resource’.
‘A missed opportunity for Queensland’
2.63On the other hand, proponents of the project and advocates of CCS argued that the decision by the Queensland Government was ‘a missed opportunity’ and that the state government was ‘sending mixed messages on emissions reduction to industry’.
2.64In his submission, Professor David Close argued that such a black and white approach to CCS technologies is ‘not compatible with the trade-offs required for successful transition to a net zero emissions economy.’
2.65The Mining and Energy Union Queensland District (MEU) submitted that CCS projects in Queensland would ‘help major Australian industries to stay open as the world decarbonises.’
2.66Following the state’s decision not to allow the project to proceed, Glencore argued that ‘the Queensland Government has now effectively banned carbon capture and storage projects in Queensland’ and that the government would now have to explain how it would meet its emissions reduction targets ‘in the absence of CCS technology’.
2.67Speaking in support of the state’s ban of CCS in the GAB, announced after Glencore’s project was blocked, Queensland Premier Steven Miles noted that:
…CCS is unlikely to make a substantial contribution to our decarbonisation efforts. We are very confident of our pathway to 75% [carbon reduction emissions] by 2035. And it does not require carbon capture and storage.
Calls for greater clarity around CCS regulations
2.68Some evidence to this inquiry detailed regulatory challenges posed by CCS activities in Australia and called for a more integrated regulatory framework of CCS across the board, not just within the GAB.
2.69Some submitters called for change at the federal level. The WQAC, for instance, argued that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Cth) should be amended to ensure CCS projects are considered a controlled action.
2.70The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) called on the Australian Government to implement National Environmental Standards that provide ‘clear grounds to reject projects based upon their contributions to climate change’.
2.71Other submitters focused more specifically on regulatory frameworks at the state and territory level.
2.72The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), for example, put forward several suggestions for the integration of Queensland’s CCS legislation into the state’s wider environmental regulatory framework. Amongst them, there were calls for improved mandatory standards for monitoring and reporting of CCS projects as well as the amendment of the Water Act 2000 (Qld) to clarify regulations of CCS activities which involve interference with water.
2.73Likewise, the Lock the Gate Alliance, whilst acknowledging that Queensland was an early player in introducing legislation to regulate CO2 storage, contended that significant uncertainty on the unique impact of these activities remained, particularly regarding responsibility for the GHG plume after the term of the lease for a CCS activity has ended.
Next steps
2.74As detailed in the previous chapter, the Queensland Government announced on 31 May 2024 plans to legislate a permanent ‘blanket ban’ on all CCS activities within the state’s component of the GAB.
2.75According to the Queensland Government, the ban will clarify that ‘activities involving greenhouse gas storage or the injection of a greenhouse gas stream into underground formations within the Great Artesian Basin are not permissible’.
2.76Further, the state government also announced plans to establish an independent Technical Expert Panel to ‘review the safety aspects of greenhouse gas storage for areas outside the Great Artesian Basin.’
2.77The decision was welcomed by a range of stakeholders who had originally submitted to the inquiry to raise concerns about Glencore’s proposed project. Members of the agricultural industry, such as AgForce, QFF, and ALFA, all issued media statements commending the decision of the Queensland Government.
2.78As at the time of writing, the new laws were expected to be introduced and passed by the Queensland Parliament before the state election in October 2024.
2.79To date, other jurisdictions which preside over other portions of the GAB have not announced plans to follow suit.
2.80Meanwhile, there have been calls for a similar ban of CCS activities within the GAB at the federal level, with the Queensland Premier stating he ‘would welcome the support of the Australian government’.
Committee view
2.81The committee notes the regulatory environmental approval process undertaken by the Queensland Government to assess Glencore’s proposed project and determine it not suitable to proceed.
2.82The committee also recognises the subsequent steps taken by the Queensland Government to prevent any similar proposals from being approved by announcing plans to legislate a CCS ban within the entire Queensland component of the GAB.
2.83The committee notes the important cultural, environmental, economic, and social value that the GAB holds across regional Australia and the many livelihoods and ecosystems that rely on it. More specifically, the committee is aware that as the impacts of climate change intensifies, and drought conditions become more frequent, secure water access to the GAB will become even more critical for the environment, agriculture, and regional development.
2.84Lastly, considering the range of other proven abatement options available, as well as the risks posed by CCS to the long-term integrity and quality of the GAB’s ecosystem, the committee believes that the Australian Government alongside states and territories should collaborate to build on the Queensland Government’s proposed legislation and implement stronger protections of critical water resources.
2.85The committee is of the view that CCS activities are not consistent with the long‑term interests of the GAB and other critical water resources and that legislation is accordingly required to preserve water supply and quality for current and future generations.
2.86The committee recommends that states and territories consider a legislated ban on CCS activities across the GAB to ensure this important natural asset is uniformly preserved.
2.87The committee recommends updating the water trigger in the EPBC Act to include onshore CCS.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Chair