Campaign to protect GAB to go federal

As it stands now, a decision is pending on whether mining company, Glencore, through it subsidiary CTSCo, can inject liquified carbon dioxide from the Millmerran power station into the GAB near Moonie.

At the request of Glencore, the decision by the state government has been pushed back by a couple of months.

AgForce's court action in the Federal Court involves challenging a federal decision of February 9, 2022, under the EPBC (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation) Act on the basis the decision "was flawed" because the National Environmental Significance provisions of the act were "not adequately considered" in the case of Glencore and the GAB.

AgForce CEO Michael Guerin said the lobby group was prepared to put its balance sheet of $30 million in assets on the line to underwrite that court action.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the Great Artesian Basin is, like the Great Barrier Reef, one of Australia's iconic natural assets, worthy of protection.

And, ever since Glencore's trial project first came to light, the list of organisations opposed to the proposal has continued to grow. As well as farm organisations in Queensland, NSW and South Australia, the coalition of concerned parties now includes conservation groups, local government, community groups and business.

In response to this mounting opposition, Glencore has continued to state its case that its carbon capture proposal is perfectly safe and based on "robust scientific fieldwork, data and analysis".

Glencore insists the robust, scientific data they have compiled gives them "very high confidence that the food grade CO2 injected deep underground will not impact the regional agricultural sector".

It also gives assurances that the injected CO2 would form a plume which would stay in proximity to the injection point and that the water quality outside this plume is unlikely to change in any way, and that the pH levels within the plume would only drop to about four, which is the equivalent to the pH levels of black coffee or tomato juice.

At this point, I find the word "unlikely" in reference to any changes to water quality somewhat disturbing and lacking in any guarantees. And, it begs the question, what will happen if the water quality does change adversely because of the CO2 injection? What can Glencore do to rectify the situation if the water changes to where it is no longer drinkable because that word 'unlikely' is not definitive?

Glencore also says the aquifer it has identified "contains brackish water with high fluoride levels and is not used by any agricultural producer within a 50km radius", a claim that has been challenged by Anthony Lee of Australian Country Choice which has a major feedlot near Moonie.

Oil and gas company, Santos, is also doing carbon capture and storage in South Australia, but it's understood to be storing its CO2 waste in reservoirs that previously held oil and gas in place for millions of years. So, if that's an option, why can't Glencore do likewise? As many others have asked, why would they want to risk damaging one of Australia's, if not the world's, greatest natural wonders?

With this in mind, if you support AgForce in its efforts to challenge the matter federally, then you might like to consider contributing to its recently announced fighting fund.