❓ Hon Jon Ford asks about mandatory EPA notification for fracking operations near town sites. Hon Norman Moore confirms the requirement, explaining the EPA's role in ensuring environmental acceptability and addressing public concerns, while also highlighting the potential economic benefits of shale gas exploitation in WA.
AnsweredQoN 785Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FRACCING OPERATIONS — NOTIFICATION TO Environmental Protection Authority
I refer to a report in The West Australian today which says the Department of Mines and Petroleum is required to notify the Environmental Protection Authority any time a proponent wants to carry out a fraccing operation within two kilometres of a town site. (1) Is this report correct? (2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to a report in The West Australian today which says the Department of Mines and Petroleum is required to notify the Environmental Protection Authority any time a proponent wants to carry out a fraccing operation within two kilometres of a town site. (1) Is this report correct? (2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(1) Is this report correct? (2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(1) Is this report correct? (2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(2) If yes to (1), why; and what effect, if any, would there be on any related proposal? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
(1)–(2) Yes, I understand the report is correct. I was advised recently that the EPA was putting in this particular requirement for any company wishing to undertake hydraulic stimulation, which is the proper term. I know it does not sound quite as sexy as fraccing, but it is a word that describes what is being undertaken here. Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon Sue Ellery : Too much information! Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Yes, too much information. The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
The member needs to ask the EPA the reason this course of action has been taken. The EPA is an independent statutory authority and does not consult with me on these sorts of issues. I would imagine the EPA has taken the view there are some sectors of the community who are frightening people over fraccing and creating the impression out there that somehow or other this is environmentally unacceptable. In order to ensure people are comfortable and understand the environmental impact of any fraccing operation, an EPA determination may in fact alleviate some of those concerns. I think that is probably a good thing because, regrettably, we have in this nation people who, for reasons which I do not quite understand, want to put an end to any of this sort of activity that could generate a significant amount of gas. I will cite a simple example. In the south west of Western Australia, probably from about south of Geraldton, there is an estimated nine to 12 trillion cubic feet of shale gas or tight gas. That sort of supply could in fact keep the south west of Western Australia under current consumption levels for about 20 years. That would be a very significant contribution to the economy of the south west of Western Australia, which, as members know, is very reliant on one single pipeline coming from the north west to provide for our energy requirements. Members would know that during the term of the former government we had an explosion at Varanus Island that cut out about 30 per cent capacity of the north west shelf pipeline. Energy security is something we should be taking very seriously. Indeed, if we can find this gas in the south west and exploit it, it will be a good thing for the economy of Western Australia. I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
I should also make the point, which needs to be understood very clearly, that the sort of fraccing that has taken place in Western Australia—on a couple of occasions only—and that is likely to happen in the future will be for the exploitation of tight gas or shale gas. In Western Australia, those gas reserves are about 2 000 to 3 000 metres under the ground, which is well beyond any aquifers that might in any way be affected. The issue that is attracting the most attention is coal seam gas. Unfortunately some people refuse to differentiate between the two. Tight gas and shale gas are different from coal seam gas, which is what is being exploited in Queensland and which has been the subject of some commentary and, I might say, some unfair documentaries in the United States. It is important that people recognise the difference between the sort of tight gas and shale gas that we might exploit in Western Australia and the coal seam gas that is arousing some interest in the eastern states. To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
To come back to the member’s question, I think it is perfectly fine for the Environmental Protection Authority to be involved in this process. I am sure that those people who have some philosophical or political view that fraccing is not acceptable will at least understand, if the EPA says it can go ahead, that it is environmentally acceptable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.