Environmental Assessment &

Management

EIA Scoping Report & Work Plan For
Santos GLNG Project.


Elyse Baker 2564136
James Connolly S2842338
Kyle McDermott 2842838
Emma Murrell-Orgill 2846207
Thomas Price 2761619
Rhiannon Sleep 2865674
Bianca Williams 2842322


Workshop Number 2
WorkshopGroup 2.3



1

Table of Contents
Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Abbreviations: .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.1.1 Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Project Waste ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 CSG Air Pollution .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.4 Fly in Fly Out ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project Location and Details ......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Main activities of projects ............................................................................................................. 7
1.3.1 Exploration ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.3.2 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3.3 Operation phase..................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.4 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Phase .......................................................................... 9
1.4 Project Timeline .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Ground and Surface Water ......................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Lake Murphy Conservation Park .......................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Federal listed threatened ecological communities .............................................................. 12
2.2.3 State listed threatened vegetation ...................................................................................... 13
2.3 Fauna ........................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Social and Economic.................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Taroom Demographics: ........................................................................................................ 14
2.4.2 Community Concerns ........................................................................................................... 15
3.0 Screening ......................................................................................................................................... 16
4.0 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................ 17
4.1 Scoping Impact Matrix ................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Explanation of Major Issues ........................................................................................................ 23
4.2.1 Fly In Fly Out (FIFO) .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2.2 Impact on groundwater through hydraulic fracturing ......................................................... 23
4.2.3 Waste management through all project phases .................................................................. 23
2

4.2.4 Impacts through the construction of wells to flora and fauna ............................................ 23
4.2.5 Impact on air quality through CSG project emissions .......................................................... 24
5.0 Work Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 25
6.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 29
7.0 Reference List .................................................................................................................................. 30

























3


Table of Figures
Figure 1: Overview map of the existing and developing gas field areas (Santos, 2012) ........................ 6
Figure 2: Timeline for the multi phased CSG process ............................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Typical drilling layout (Santos 2012) ........................................................................................ 8
Figure 4: Example of CSG well pump. Source: Klohn, Crippen and Berger. 2012. .................................. 9
Figure 5: Timeline of the Santos GNLG project ..................................................................................... 10
Figure 6: Land tenure for Taroom. ........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 7: Commonwealth matters of state significance ....................................................................... 12

List of Tables
Table 1: Queensland listing of near threatened, Vulnerable and Endangered plants at the site. ....... 13
Table 2: Queensland listing of Near threatened, Vulnerable and Endangered animals ...................... 14
Table 3: Demographic Analysis of Taroom (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014).............................. 15
Table 4: Screening of relevant legislation ............................................................................................. 16
Table 5: Table of definitions.................................................................................................................. 17
Table 6: Impact rating evaluation matrix. ............................................................................................. 17
Table 7: Decision matrix definitions...................................................................................................... 19
Table 8: Impact decision matrix ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 9: Project Work Plan .................................................................................................................... 25

List of Abbreviations:
Authorities to Prospect (ATP)
Coal Seam Gas (CSG)
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas (GLNG)
Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)
Fly In Fly Out (FIFO)
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Sustainable Planning Act (SPA)



4

Environmental Assessment & Management ~ EIA Scoping Report &
Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
This scoping document is to quantify the baseline conditions and objectives for the Santos
Coal seam gas (CSG) proposal for the subsection of Taroom; to inform decision makers.
CSG is a natural gas consisting of methane that is held in seams underground by water
pressure (Santos, 2012). The gas is extracted by removing the water to release the pressure on
the gas in the coal seam. The two are then collected separately and the water is known as
CSG water (Santos, 2012).
1.1Project Description
The proposed project is to extend the pre-existing Santos GLNG
Gas Field Development of the Surat and Bowen Basin to a new sub section which is
north- west of the town of Taroom, Queensland, Australia (see Figure 1). From a
preliminary study of the proposed project, number important topics have been
addressed.
1.1.1 Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) occurs in processes that require
the rock bed to be broken to assist in the act of mining natural gases. Fracking
fluid is applied to cracks and openings in the rock bed and when high pressure
is applied the rock bed cracks increase in size and allows for more efficient
resource mining. The main negative impacts associated with fracking are the
contamination of ground water due to the presence of fracking fluid or flow
back from the well operation which could include harmful constituents.
Another negative impact of fracking is the need to use extremely large
amounts of fresh water during operation (approximately 11,000 to 30,000m
3

of fresh water per well over the lifetime of the well) with could to any
groundwater sources being utilized by surrounding communities running dry.
(Abdalla, Drohan, 2010).
1.1.2 Project Waste
The waste attributed from the construction, maintenance/ office and
decommissioning of CSG projects is an area that should be analysed to see
how proper mitigation can be undertaken to minimise/reduce the harm to both
the natural and built environment. During the construction stage of a CSG
project site, the generation of waste can be in the form of: timber framing,
concrete, scrap metal, cable wire, plastics and materials packaging waste).
Mechanical vehicles (cars, drills etc.) will be used to prepare and commence
construction of each project site, producing waste: tires, batteries, hydraulic
fluid and waste oils. If there any existing buildings on the proposed sites,
removal of the structures will take place, thereby creating waste that will be
removed appropriately. The waste produced in the maintenance/ office stage
5

will see wastewater from kitchen and toilet facilities, while also producing
domestic office waste (paper, food etc.).
1.1.3 CSG Air Pollution
In terms of pollution from CGS techniques, groundwater pollution is usually at
the top of the list in terms of what whereas the impact the processes can have
on air quality is quite often ignored or pushed to the side. During CGS
extraction processes, methane poses the risk of always escaping. This can
occur not only through the excess groundwater runoff, but through the air
excess itself as well as the potential of leakage of other gases as well which
can pose significant risks.

1.1.4 Fly in Fly Out
Fly in fly out (FIFO) is a term used when the workforce for the job/project is
flown to the worksite to complete the job. Typically the employees work for
around 14 days and 10 days off. The workforce stays in temporary or
permanent camps near or on the work site. There are constantly the same
amount of workers at the work site, to prevent too much staff on the site which
can cause overcrowding and the carrying capacity of the camp to be reached.
These camps require the construction of sewage pipes, water pipes, power
lines for functionality. Using a FIFO workforce is advantageous in that it is
smaller cost in tax, the workforce does not require training compared to if
locals were employed and reduces the pressures of housing availability
through the accommodation at camps instead of renting or buying of a house
in the near town (Morris 2012: Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick 2012:
SheltwerWA 2013).
1.2 Project Location and Details
In 2010, Santos GLNG began a multi phased liquefied natural gas (LNG) extraction
project in the Surat and Bowen basins (Santos, 2012). The entire project area aims to
secure a supply of natural liquefied gas for Australia over the next 30 years (Santos,
2012). The overall project area is located across four local government areas
including Maranoa, Western Downs, Banana Shire and Central Highlands (Santos,
2012). The overall project involves reserves across 35 petroleum tenements
comprising an area of 11,190 square kilometres (DSDIP, 2012). The entire project
area runs gas pipelines to the LNG facility located on Curtis Island.
This EIA will focus on the sub section that has now been proposed at a 372km
2
area
which is adjacent to the township of Taroom (see Figure 1).This EIA will examine
impacts associated with the CSG wells and the pipelines within the Taroom area.
According to an exploration study of the Taroom gas wells by Scott et al 2004;
indicates that the Taroom coal measures contains up to three gas seams. Uncertainty
arises in this project as the amount and the location of wells has not yet been decided.
6

This document will aid in the decision of where to place the well, to reduce the impact
on the natural environment.




Figure 1: Overview map of the existing and developing gas field areas (Santos, 2012)
The general process for the project from exploration through to decommissioning is
outlined below in Figure 2. Exploration and appraisal is estimated to take up to 3-5
years, while development and production has the longest duration from 10-30 years
Site location
7

depending on the amount of gas found at the site. Once the gas declines
decommissioning begins which is an ongoing process to rehabilitate the site to its
original state.
.
Figure 2: Timeline for the multi phased CSG process
1.3 Main activities of projects
The process of CSG extraction consists of four main phases; exploration to locate
seams, construction, operation and decommissioning and rehabilitation.
1.3.1 Exploration
The exploration phase involves studies to locate CSG seams in conjunction
with representatives to liaise with all affected land owners, and explore current
and future land uses to ensure the study site is managed sustainably
(Commonwealth of Australia 2011). Once the process begins it starts with the
exploration of the site by creating vertical core pilot holes in order to collect
and analyse rock cores and solid coal (Origin, 2013). This process can take up
to two weeks and will require the use of a drilling rig (see Figure 3). Sites will
be maintained for monitoring if enough results are returned positive. The sites
then become commercially viable to initiate a CSG plant on the site, initiating
the construction of production wells to commence.
1.3.2 Construction Phase
The construction phase is the most involved stage in terms of alteration of the
natural landscape; activities including vegetation clearing approximately 75m
by 75m for access road construction and drilling of the wells (NSW
Government, 2013). Heavy earth-moving vehicles will be frequently onsite
during construction phase in order to successfully alter the landscape.
8

This phase also includes the completion of gas production wells, underground
gas storage injection wells, gas treatment and compression, water storage and
water management facilities, power supply and generation infrastructure, gas
and water gathering and transmission systems, and support infrastructure such
as access quarries, accommodation facilities, and communication and
maintenance facilities. (DSDIP, 2012).An onsite staff camp will also need to
be built, including all facilities required for living, like bathrooms, waste
management etc.
Overall construction takes over five weeks, usually occurring over a number
of months to completion, and it also depends on the infrastructure required
along with where construction occurs. The drilling of the wells takes from
three to five days, with the spacing between these wells ranging between 500
to 1000 metres (Origin, 2013).Following this the wells are then connected by
underground water and gas pipelines, linking up to the main processing
facility, which can take anywhere between three days to three weeks (see
Figure 3).

Figure 3: Typical drilling layout (Santos 2012)
1.3.3 Operation phase
The operation of the wells is less intense on the natural environment compared
to the construction phase which requires alterations to the landscape. To
extract the gas after a well is drilled through the coal seam and rock layers into
the coal seam; water is pumped from the coal seam to reduce the water
pressure and release the gas from the coal (Santos 2009). The coal seams and
rock layers that make up a coal formation (also known as a coal measure), are
generally filled with water (groundwater), and the pressure of this water keeps
9

the gas in place as a thin film on the surface of the coal. (Klohn, Crippen and
Berger, 2012).

At first, only water is produced but, as the water pressure drops, gas also flows
to the surface. Once the water pressure reaches a target level, the gas flows
readily. Pumping of water is then maintained to keep the water pressure at the
target level. At the surface, the gas is separated from the water (Figure
4)(Klohn, Crippen and Berger, 2012).



Figure 4: Example of CSG well pump. Source: Klohn, Crippen and Berger. 2012.
Once the wells are in working order, constant access is required for vehicles
for transportation of both materials and workers. Maintenance and well
operation crew will be on site to maintain the running of the wells and excess
water is stored in water storage facilities on site.
1.3.4 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Phase
The decommissioning and rehabilitation phase of the project is undertaken
when sites individual coal seams have been extracted of the entirety of the
gases within (Arrow Energy, 2013). Proper remediation of the sites water and
soils is required to ensure that no additional stress to the sites vegetation and
fauna is caused (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2014).
Before the first three stages of CSG projects is commenced (in the previous
sections), an analysis of the landscape including: soil qualities, the direction of
10

slope and the climate (the intensity and severity) are taken into account so that
efficient and effective rehabilitation can be undertaken to restore the site as
close to prior commencement state, so that site isnt crippled after the
decommissioning phase has concluded (BeneTerra, 2014).
1.4 Project Timeline
The Surat and Bowen Basin CSG project overall, commenced in 2008.This EIA which
focuses on the expansion to the Taroom area is set to commence in 2016.The project in
its entirety consists of several different stages. The rate of development will not be
consistent, and not all gas fields will be developed at the same time. Some areas of the
project maybe expanded if reliable seams are found, while others may be
decommissioned and rehabilitated if CSG is not as plentiful see Error! Reference source
not found..

Figure 5: Timeline of the Santos GNLG project











The timeline for the
Taroom section for
the gas field
development
11


2.0 Baseline Conditions
The current land use for Taroom is majorly contributing to farming, for either cropping or
grazing land for beef cattle. Below Error! Reference source not found. indicate what areas
are freehold and leasehold for the site. The site is majority freehold. The site also partially
consists of woodland ecological communities (EPBC). The average rainfall for the area is
500mm to 750mm per annum. Rainfall is highly unpredictable, with cycles of drier and
wetter periods with a 28 year periodicity (Gunn, 1984). The temperature ranges from
45degrees Celsius in the hotter months down to lows of potentially -5 degrees Celsius (BOM,
2014).Understanding of the baseline conditions aids in the decision to place wells. Wells are
placed in areas that will cause minimal impacts to land owners and the natural environment.

Figure 6: Land tenure for Taroom.


2.1 Ground and Surface Water
The catchment area of the site is Surat North (Queensland Government, Department
of natural resources and mines). There are known groundwater dependant ecosystems
that occur in the project site. Figure 7. Major creek lines and water flows for the
Taroom project include Juandah Creek and Back Creek. Investigation by Santos of
the Taroom site indicates only minor watercourses exist in the project area. The Surat
basin which covers 270,000km
2
and is adjacent to the Bowen basin, are both
connected to the Great Artesian basin which stretches greatly across Queensland
(DEHP 2013). Connectivity between basins is currently undergoing research, and the
aquifer has been assessed as stable in terms of current water inputs and usages
(Santos Limited 2012). Another issue of CSG is the volume of CSG water produced
and as a result, how it is management and disposed. These issues pose both challenges
regulators. CSG water is generally saline and needs to be managed in accordance with
Land Tenure
for CSG site
Taroom.
12

Queenslands CSG Water Management Policy (Klohn, Crippen, and Berger, 2012).

Figure 7: Commonwealth matters of state significance
2.2 Vegetation
2.2.1 Lake Murphy Conservation Park
Lake Murphy, previously deemed a reserve in 1986, is a regional park
overseen by the Banana Shire Council and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife
Service. The park is known as a seasonal refuge for water birds however the
lake only fills after heavy rain as a result of overflow from connecting creeks.
The park is relatively undisturbed, with no clearing of the area documented.
The park is thirty-one kilometres North-west of the town of Taroom
(Department of NPRSR, 2014).
A rare and threatened species search of the Lake Murphy Regional Park area,
from the wildlife online extract, returned with five records. Near threatened
species of the park are the; cotton pygmy-goose, black-necked stork, black-
chinned honeyeater and the little pied bat. The vulnerable species of the park
is the powerful owl.
2.2.2 Federal listed threatened ecological communities
The project area west of Taroom is made up of Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) listed ecological communities are
listed as
1) Coolibah - Black Box of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt
South Bioregions
2)Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions, Weeping Myall Woodlands,
13


3) Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)
EPBC Act listing status as Endangered. As these ecological communities are
listed as endangered under the EPBC Act, surveys of the site to identify these
communities will be necessary to minimising impacts to these communities
Figure 7.
2.2.3 State listed threatened vegetation
The township of Taroom has areas where particular provisions of the Nature
Conservation Act 1992 are in place see Appendix 1. The areas highlighted in
blue indicate high risk areas in regards to areas of protected plants. These
areas are adjacent to the project site and avoidance of these areas is
importance. This information will need to be considered when deciding on
CSG well locations. Table 1 below is the state listings of Vulnerable and
endangered plants obtained from the project site

Table 1: Queensland listing of near threatened, Vulnerable and Endangered plants at the site.
Class Family Scientific name Listing
Higher dicots Myrtaceae Eucalyptus
beaniana
Vulnerable
Higher dicots Asteraceae Rutidosis glandulosa Near Threatened
Higher dicots Mimosaceae Acacia argentina Vulnerable
Higher dicots Mimosaceae Acacia sp. (Ruined
Castle Creek)
Endangered
Higher dicots Rhamnaceae Cryptandra ciliata Near threatened
Higer dicots Surianaceae V Cadellia pentastylis
(ooline)
Vulnerable
Monocot Arecaceae Livistona nitida Near threatened

2.3 Fauna
Currently there are eleven species of fauna listed as vulnerable in the area according
to the Queensland Government, Nature Conservation Act 1992, one of which is the
native Koala species Table 2. Further investigations will have to be conducted by field
studies to ensure the species is not located within the targeted site area. Several other
species located in the area include; Brigalow scaly foot, the golden tail gecko, little
pied bat, echidna, powerful owl, pail imperial hairstreak, black breasted button quoll,
black chinned honey eater, squatter pigeon, black necked stork, cotton pygmy-goose
and the grey goshawk. The site also includes sightings of a range of migratory bird
species including: the Eastern Egret, Lanthams Snipe and the Sharp tailed Sandpiper.

14


Table 2: Queensland listing of Near threatened, Vulnerable and Endangered animals
Class Family Scientific name Common
name
Listing
Birds Accipitridae Accipiter
novaehollandiae
Grey
goshawk.
Near threatened
Birds Anatidae Nettapus
coromandelianus
Cotton
pygmy-
goose
Near threatened
Birds Ciconiidae Ephippiorhynchus
asiaticus
Black-
necked stork
Near threatened
Birds Columbidae Geophaps scripta
scripta
Squatter
pigeon
(southern
subspecies)
Vulnerable
Birds Meliphagidae Melithreptus
gularis
Black-
chinned
honeyeater
Near threatened
Mammals Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos
cinereus
Koala Vulnerable
Mammals Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus
picatus
Little pied
bat
Near threatened
Mammals Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus
dwyeri
Large-eared
pied bat
Vulnerable
Mammals Pteropodidae Pteropus
poliocephalus
Grey-headed
flying-fox
Vulnerable
Retiles Diplodactylidae Strophurus
taenicauda
Golden-
tailed gecko
Near threatened
Reptiles

Pygopodidae Paradelma
orientalis
Brigalow
scaly-foot
Vulnerable

2.4 Social and Economic
2.4.1 Taroom Demographics:
The settlement of Taroom is located 464 kilometres west of Brisbane (Aussie
Towns, 2013). ABS data from 2011 found that the population of Taroom was
873 people. Table... provides a brief analysis of the towns social and economic
figures. Taroom was found to have 46.2% of its dwellings to be owned
outright in comparison to Australias 32.1%. Tarooms agricultural industry is
a prominent, with 29% of residents being involved in; sheep, beef, cattle or
grain farming. As a result, Taroom acts as a service town for the surrounding
properties (Aussie Towns, 2013). Table 3 has been incorporated to summarize
the demographics of the town of Taroom.


15

Table 3: Demographic Analysis of Taroom (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014).
Category Taroom: Queensland: Australia:
Population 873 4,332,739.0 21,507,717
Males 425 2,148,221 10,634,013
Females 448 2,184,518 10,873,704
Median Age 45 36 37
What proportion is classed as
professionals?
9.1% 18.9% 21.3%
What is the unemployment rate? 1.8% 6.1% 5.6%
What is the median weekly
household income?
$909.0 $1,235.0 $1,234.0
What proportion of the residents
worked in Sheep, Beef, Cattle and
Grain Farming?
29.0% 1.1% 1.2%
What proportion of dwellings were
flats, units or apartments?
3.5% 11.7% 13.6%
What proportion of dwellings were
separate houses?
94.7% 78.5% 75.6%
What proportions of dwellings were
owned outright?
46.2% 29.0% 32.1%

Taroom sits within the Surat Basin, which is part of the larger Great Artesian
Basin. The town sits within the Yiman peoples Native Title area (Henderson,
2014). Taroom has two major vehicular service roads leading into the town.
The Leichhardt Highway provides connection south to Goondiwindi and north
through to Rockhampton. Alternatively, the Roma-Taroom Road is a service
road between Roma and Taroom.
2.4.2 Community Concerns
In terms of community projects, many people are regularly involved in
working together with projects. When the expansion project first got federal
funding approved in late 2013, numerous members of the community were not
supportive. Access to properties was refused for further testing and sampling
of conditions, with "every one of the 100 to 150 land owners" locking the gate
on them and "refusing them access" (ABC 2013). With this in mind it is
possible to indicate the community is not initially supportive of the idea due to
the environmental impacts. With the project putting back into the community
through economic growth of the area, social implications are always bound to
arise; yet the main concerns will always be surrounding the environmental
aspects. Trial projects involving the assessment of various conditions to help
minimise future impacts are required to take place to ensure community
involvement and assurance. Communication between landholders, community
leaders and major companies is essential to ensure the best outcome for the
community is undertaken (Queensland Government 2013).

16

3.0 Screening
The Santos CSG development has been classified as a project that involves mining activity
which could threaten Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). As a result
two important forms of legislation have been triggered. The Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) (Federal) and the Environment Protection Act
1994 (EPA) (State) have been analysed in accordance with the projects details. The findings
from this analysis can be found in Table 4, which discusses the projects processes that have
triggered each piece of legislation. Conclusively, preparation of a thorough Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project is mandatory as a result of the triggered legislative
pieces.
Table 4: Screening of relevant legislation

Legislation: Trigger relevant to act: Project Explanation:
Environmental
Protection and
Biodiversity
Conservation Act
(1999) (EPBC)
Under EPBC (1999) an EIS is required if-
Subdivision CListed threatened species and
communities
18 Actions with significant impact on listed
threatened species or endangered community
prohibited without approval.
-Endangered species
(3) A person must not take an action that:
(b) is likely to have a significant impact on a
listed threatened species included in the
endangered category.

Subdivision DListed migratory species
20 Requirement for approval of activities with a
significant impact on a listed migratory species.
(1) A person must not take an action that:
(b) is likely to have a significant impact on a
listed migratory
species.
See Table 1 for threatened
vegetation species.

See Table 2 for threatened fauna
species.
Environmental
Protection Act
(1994) (EP) .
Under the Environmental Protection Act
(1994) an EIS is required if
The application is for a mining activity, other
than a mining activity carried out for specified
works
(i) below the surface of a wild river high
preservation area or a wild river special
floodplain management area; or
(ii) under a nominated waterway in a wild river
preservation area;
See section 1.3 for a verification
of the project type.
17

4.0 Scoping
4.1 Scoping Impact Matrix

Applicable legislation and IUCN lists were used to understand what the values and the
significance of environmental values regarding the project site and its surroundings were
found. The impacts of the project site were derived through the desktop studies, research
of the baseline conditions and previous impact research of coal seam gas projects.

The impacts were put into an impact matrix (Table 8) that was separated into exploration,
construction, operation, decommission and were given an impact rating (minor, moderate
and major). The impact level was derived from the impact rating evaluation matrix which
combines the sensitivity of environmental value and magnitude of the impact (Table 6).
Sensitivity of environmental value and the magnitude is explained in Table 5 and the
levels (low, medium and high) of these two are defined in Table 7.

Table 5: Table of definitions.
Definition in this EIA
Sensitivity of the
environmental
value
Its concern to people and its classification under the IUCN
(common, rare, nearly threatened, threatened, endangered and
critically endangered)
Magnitude Incorporates the effects on the ecological community health, the
physical size of the impact, the time frame of the impact effect,
the effect to the communities survival capability and the effect
of the impact according to relative guidelines

With these predictions of this EIA (and all EIAs) there is uncertainty. The predicted
impact may not occur, occur to lesser extent or have more adverse effects. And some
impacts may occur that have not been impacted.

The major impacts from the impact matrix were determined to be Fly In Fly Out (FIFO),
damage to the national significant wetlands, waste management, impact on the flora and
fauna from the all four phases of the project, the impact on groundwater and the great
artesian basin through hydraulic fracturing and air pollution attributed from CSG projects.

Table 6: Impact rating evaluation matrix.

Sensitivity of environment
value effected by the impact

Low Medium High
Magnitude of
impact
Low Minor Minor Moderate
Medium Minor Moderate Moderate
High Moderate Moderate Major
18


19

Table 7: Decision matrix definitions.
Level of
impact
Description
Sensitivity of
environmental
value
Low The environmental value is of little to no concern to few or no people
Classified as common or near threatened through IUCN and is not protected through
the Commonwealth and state governments legislation
Medium The environmental value is protected at the regional or state level and or has a
moderate level of public concern
Is classified as Vulnerable or rare under the IUCN, Commonwealth or state
governments
Is important locally through occasional recreational or commercial usage

High The environmental value is protected on the international or national level through
legislation
Is classified as critically endangered or endangered under the IUCN and
commonwealth government

The
Magnitude of
impact
Low Small localised impact that wont expand and isnt long lasting or impact unlikely to
occur
The ecological community reduced between 0 and 14%
The ecological community health and population is stable or minor changes to life
cycle (breeding, migration and feeding)
Little to no effect to the communities survival capability
Applicable guidelines are not breached
Medium The effects will last for a substantial amount of time (months to a year)
The ecological community reduced between 15%-59%
20

Changes to the ecological communitys health - moderate effects to the life cycle
(breeding, feeding and migration)
Moderate effects to the communities survival capability
Guidelines close to being breached or may be breached


High The country or region will be affected for a long time after (years decades)
The ecological community being reduced over 60%
Severe interruption to ecological communitys life cycle such as breeding, feeding and
migration
Damage to the ecological community that will have an adverse effect to the
communities survival
Guidelines will be breached or unknown due to insufficient data
21

Table 8: Impact decision matrix
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Impact Exploration Construction Operation Decommission
Impact
rating
Loss of concerned flora regional ecosystems
from land clearance and transport services x x Major
Loss of concerned fauna species/ reduction of
their population size x Major
Loss of, and changes to concerned fauna species
habitat x Major
The negative noise and vibration pollution effect
on sensitive wildlife receptors from construction
vehicles and construction processes x Moderate
Changes to soil characteristics due to waste,
hydraulic fracturing water, general, compaction
from land use (cars, trucks, humans walking
over repeatedly) x Moderate
The noise & vibration pollution from
operational processes and the effects of these on
sensitive wildlife receptors x Moderate
Negative changes to soil characteristics from
land clearance, construction process and
compaction from land use (cars, trucks, humans
walking over repeatedly) x Moderate
Atmospheric Emissions due to transport services
and phase operations x x x Minor
Adverse effects to sensitive receptors due to
carbon monoxide emissions x Minor
Negative alteration on the groundwater
properties of the wetlands, the catchment of the
area and the great artesian basin from hydraulic
fracturing x Major
22

Inappropriate Waste management Sewage,
construction, operational, water, general waste,
fracking x x x Major
Weed invasions to the cleared land and the area
surrounding the cleared land x Moderate
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l

Jobs created from the project x Major
Negative impacts due to large scale investment
if the project fails x Minor
Local business not benefitting from the project -
because of FIFO camps x x Major
Damage to the Beef industry in town due to the
clearance of farmland x Moderate
the project site area cannot be used for other
purposes or project x Minor
Costs of housing increase because of FIFO
x x
Major
Damage to infrastructure through high usage of
roads x x Moderate
Impact to project area due to increase in
infrastructure x x Moderate
Impact to private and public infrastructure due
to gas field infrastructure x x Moderate
S
o
c
i
a
l

Loss of aesthetic value land from land clearance
and development of wells x x Minor
The potential impact of Cultural heritage listings
being cleared and upset in the indigenous
community resulting from the project x Moderate
Health concerns regarding emissions from
construction vehicles and FIFO transport x x Moderate
The project producing community tension due to
different views on the project (for or against)
(Rijke 2013) x x

Moderate
23

4.2 Explanation of Major Issues

4.2.1 Fly In Fly Out (FIFO)
FIFO causes pressure on home life and relationships and can cause feelings of
loneliness and isolation. One of themajor issues of big projects is the adverse impact on
housing availability and affordability due to the workforce, which can cause local
residents to leave. Fly in fly out avoids negative impacts to housing availability and
affordability in the local town of Taroom. When companies employ the method of
FIFO, the company does not usually use supplies and resources from the local town;
instead the resources are delivered from elsewhere as a cheaper method, thus not
benefitting the local town. The positive impacts of FIFO include increased income of
the workers, uninterrupted holidays to spend with families and a smaller ecological
footprint of the FIFO workers. (Morris 2012: Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick 2012:
SheltwerWA 2013).
4.2.2 Impact on groundwater through hydraulic fracturing
This is of special significance for the Taroom site as the groundwater source around the
proposed site is linked to the Great Artesian Basin. Due to the magnitude of this
groundwater basin any major contamination would be evident throughout a large
portion of Queensland and Australia. The contamination and large-scale use of
important water sources is the main impact from hydraulic fracturing. As the site is
located well inland and with no large river systems in the area, the ground water has
increased importance in the community.
4.2.3 Waste management through all project phases
The Taroom CSG project has a three waste production stages: construction,
maintenance and office and a decommission phase. Each stage has its own unique
forms of waste as a result of: transportation, maintenance and domestic waste created in
the onsite office. If management of the projects waste is not properly addressed,
unnecessary and irreversible harm may be inflicted to the projects existing flora and
fauna.
4.2.4 Impacts through the construction of wells to flora and fauna
The main impacts due to vegetation clearing are the loss of individuals in the area, loss
of recruitment area and changes to the natural habitat and also the loss of forage areas.
Also the fact that threatened and endangered species of fauna and flora may be
impacted through clearing.
Loss of individuals to the area: The loss of individuals could potentially result in the
extinction of the species within the area. This would be a significantly negative impact
especially if the species is of concern. This would also decrease the diversity of the
ecosystem and possibly result in a degradation of the ecosystems overall health.
Loss of recruitment area/loss or changes to habitat: Loss to habitat would result in the
loss of its habitat and therefore affect its overall health, possibly leading to extinction
24

within the area. Potential to also cause fragmentation of habitats, as smaller mammals
are less inclined to move across large areas of open space. This would result in inter-
breeding and therefore loss of species variation, making them more susceptible to
change.
Loss of forage area: Loss in forage would result in species either being famished, or
crossing open spaces which would in turn increase their chance of being predated upon.
This would also lead to an increase in species competition for limited resources,
therefore resulting in a dominance of one species.
4.2.5 Impact on air quality through CSG project emissions
The waste emitted from the processes surrounding CGS extraction is believed to be
having detrimental effects to not only the environment, but also peoples health by
emitting pollutants into the air (Osborne 2012, p. 23). Studies conducted have shown
evidence of higher levels of methane gases and carbon dioxide in immediate
proximities of the goal seam gas fields in comparison (Carey 2012; ABC 2012). The
Taroom site, while large-scale in terms of area coverage, can still be posed significant
risks from these potential impacts. Since air quality has a considerable impact on
quality of life, it is paramount proper care is taken.


25

5.0 Work Plan
The Gantt chart shown in Table 8 displays the current work plan to ensure the timely delivery of the final EIA report. This is a dynamic plan which may need
to be altered at a later date to ensure that the final EIA targets can still be met in the allocated timeframe.

Table 9: Project Work Plan
Week
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Research of Project Description:
Location of the project area EB & BW
Project activities and requirements for:
Construction phase EMO & TP
Operation phase RS & JC
Post Operation and Rehabilitation phase KM & EB
Possible economic advantages of CSG field JC
Research of Baseline Conditions of project area:
Fauna & Flora BW & EMO
Societal dynamics of Taroom KM
Economic climate of Taroom EB
Cultural Heritage of Area BW
Geology and Climate of catchment area TP & JC
Water sources in the area (ground and over land) TP & RS

Research of Legislation applicable to project and
triggers (Screening)
KM

26

Scoping
Develop impact assessment matrix TP
Collaborate to determine major and minor impacts
from the assessment matrix
ALL
Research on decided major impacts
Draft of assignment 1
Adjust assignment 1 as per feedback from tutors ALL
Delivery of Assignment 1
Obtain feedback for assignment 1from tutors and
adjust for resubmission
ALL
Impact Prediction
Use prediction methods and research to
determine the extent of impact for:

Impact on groundwater through hydraulic
fracturing
TP
Possible impact on cultural heritage sites BW
Impact on the community of Taroom
throughout all project phases
KM
Impact of a FIFO work force on Taroom and the
workers
RS
Positive impacts EMO
Impact of vegetation clearing for construction of
wells
EB
Waste management through all project phases KM
Impact Mitigation
Research mitigation measures or advise on
avoidance of activities in some areas for:

27

Impact on groundwater through hydraulic
fracturing
TP
Possible impact on cultural heritage sites BW
Impact on the community of Taroom
throughout all project phases
KM
Impact of a FIFO work force on Taroom and the
workers
RS
Positive impacts EMO
Impact of vegetation clearing for construction of
wells
EB
Waste management through all project phases KM
Draft Final Report table of contents EB EB
Edit Final report table of contents as per feedback
from tutors
EB EB
Draft presentation EMO
Adjust presentation as per group feedback and
deliver

Alternatives
Determine plausible alternatives to aspects of
the project
ALL
Public involvement
Identify Stakeholders EB, KM & TP
Determine what measures for public involvement
will be taken and how these will be executed,
relative to each stakeholder
EB, KM & TP
Swap work with other group members for proof
reading and editing
ALL
Final Report Draft
28

Adjust final report as per feedback from tutors and
submit



Legend
Work undertaken
Deliverable


Revisions/additions as per further research
TP: Tom Price
BW: Bianca Williams
KM: Kyle McDermott
EB: Elyse Baker
RS: Rhiannon Sleep
EMO: Emma Murrell-Orgill
JC: James Connelly
ALL: All group members
29

6.0 Conclusion
The Santos GLNG Coal Seam Gas fields occurring west of Taroom in Queensland (see Figure
1) requires the submission of an extensive EIA due to the triggering of EPBC (1999) and the
EPA (1994).The scope of works for this assessment is to determine the major impacts a
project of this nature will have on the environmental, social and economic environment of the
adjacent community of Taroom and also the surrounding ecosystems. Scoping has shown that
the following impacts should be considered as 'major';
Fly In Fly Out (FIFO),
Damage to the national significant wetlands,
Waste management,
Impact on the flora and fauna from the all four phases of the project,
The impact on groundwater and the great artesian basin through hydraulic fracturing
and,
Air pollution attributed from CSG projects.
As a result further investigations should be conducted continuing from this point,
highlighting possible mitigation and monitoring measures to provide alternatives for any
impacts that have arisen.

30

7.0 Reference List

Arrow Energy. 2013, Decommissioning and Rehabilitation, viewed 25 September 2014,
<http://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/3852/Section_29-
Decommissioning-and-Rehabilitation.pdf>.

Australian Broadcast Corporation. 2013, Surat gas project gets federal approval, viewed 26
September 2014, < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-23/nrn-arrow-surat-
approval/5172412>.

Australian Broadcast Corporation. 2012, CSG study sparks renewed moratorium call, viewed
26 September 2014, < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-15/scu-csg-
follo/4373258>.

Anderson, B., Crosdale, P., Dingwall, J., Leblang, G., & Scott, S 2007, Coal Petrology
and Coal Seam Gas Contents of the Walloon Subgroup, International Journal of Coal
Geology, vol. 70, no. 1-3, pp. 209-222.

Aussie Towns. 2013, Taroom QLD, viewed 22 September,
<http://www.aussietowns.com.au/town/taroom>.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2014, 2011 Census Quick Stats: Taroom QLD, viewed on 22
September 2014,
<http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat
/SSC31588?opendocument&navpos=220>.

BeneTerra. 2014, Land Rehabilitation, viewed 25 September 2014,
<http://www.beneterra.com.au/Disturbed-Land-Rehabilitation-pg21611.html>.

Bureau of Meteorology 2014, Latest Weather Observations for Taroom, viewed
13August 2014, <http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94525.shtml>.

Carey, M. 2012, The Conversation: Air pollution from coal seam gas may put public health
at risk, viewed 26 September 2014, <http://theconversation.com/air-pollution-from-
coal-seam-gas-may-put-public-health-at-risk-10819>.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2014, Coal Seam Gas Water, viewed 25
September 2014, <https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/non-mining/csg-
water.html>.

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning 2009, Coordinated
Project Declaration, viewed 11 August 2014, <
http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-project-
declaration.html>.
31


Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning 2012, Santos GLNG Gas
Field Development Project Initial Advice Statement,
viewed 11 August 2014, < http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/santos-
glng/santos-glng-project-ias.pdf>.

Fensham, R., McAlpine, C., Seabrook, L 2006,Cattle, Crops and Clearing: Regional
Drivers of Landscape Change in the Brigalow Belt, Queensland, Australia,
Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 373-385.

Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. 2005, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment,
viewed 21 September 2014,
<http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/sghabayen/files/2013/02/John_Glasson_Riki_Therivel_Andrew_Ch
adwick_IntBookos.org_.pdf>.

Gun, R 1984,Soil Landscapes of the Brigalow Belt in Queensland, The Royal Society of
Queensland, vol, 1, no. 1, pp. 7-21.

Henderson, L. 2014, Nathan Dam, Glebe Weir Raising and Pipelines Project Indigenous
Land Use Agreement (ILUA), viewed 22 September 2014,
<http://www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=6560>.

Klohn, Crippen and Berger. 2012. Forecasting coal seam gas water production in
Queenslands Surat and southern Bowen basins, viewed on the 19 September 2014,
<http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/106094/csg-water-
forecasting-summary.pdf>.

McAlpine, C., Sutcliffe, T., Taylor, K 2002,One Hundred and Fifty Years of Landscape
Change for Two Subregions of the Southern Brigalow: Patterns and Management
Implications, Landscape Health of Queensland, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 27-41.

Morris, R. 2012, Scoping Study: Impact of Fly-in Fly-out/Drive-in Drive-out Work Practices on Local
Government, Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of
Technology, Sydney.

New South Wales Government 2013, Coal Seam Gas, viewed 14 August 2014, <
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/landholders-and-community/coal-seam-
gas >.

Origin Energy 2013, Coal Seam Gas, viewed 14 August 2014,
<http://www.originenergy.com.au/1143/Coal-seam-gas>.

Osborne, K. 2012, Is Coal Seam Gas Polluting Groundwater?, Australasian Science, vol.
33, no. 8, pp. 22-25.


32

Queensland Government. 2013, Report on the coal seam gas engagement and compliance
plan 2013, viewed 26 September 2014,
<http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/171646/report-csg-
engagement-compliance-plan.pdf>

Queensland Government. 2014. Labour Force Status by Region (a), Queensland, 2003-2004 to
2013014 (b)(c)(d), viewed 20

September, <
http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/tables/labour-force-status-region-qld/index.php>.

Surat Coal Alliance 2011, Surat Coal Alliance: Water, viewed 13 August 2014,
<http://www.suratcoal.com.au/index.cfm/surat-latest-news/fact-sheets/about-the-
project/>.

Santos 2012, Executive Summary, viewed 11 August 2014,
<http://www.santosglng.com/media/pdf1923/Executive_Summary.pdf>.

Shelter WA. 2013, The Impact of Fly-In/ Fly-Out on Housing Affordability in Western Australia,
viewed 20 September, <http://www.shelterwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FINAL-
The-Impact-of-Fly-In_Fly-Out-on-Housing-Affordability-in-Western-Australia.pdf>.