❓ A parliamentary question regarding the rejection of Stratigraphic Test Wells Rosabrook due to environmental concerns, specifically questioning if hydraulic fracturing was proposed and if chemicals were a factor in the rejection. The answer clarifies that fracking was not proposed and the rejection was due to a substandard application.
AnsweredQoN 4332Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the answer to my question on notice No. 3684 and note that the Stratigraphic Test Wells Rosabrook in EP455 were rejected by the Department of Mines and Petroleum on environmental grounds, and I ask -
(1) Was -
(a) hydraulic fracturing; or
(b) hydraulic stimulation proposed for these Test Wells?
(2) If yes to (1a) or (1b), were any chemicals proposed as part of the fracking?
(3) Please specify the aspects of this drilling program that were deemed to be environmentally unacceptable?
(4) If the presence of fracking chemicals was all or part of the reason for the rejection on environmental grounds, please specify which chemicals were the causes for environmental concern?
(1) Was -
(a) hydraulic fracturing; or
(b) hydraulic stimulation proposed for these Test Wells?
(2) If yes to (1a) or (1b), were any chemicals proposed as part of the fracking?
(3) Please specify the aspects of this drilling program that were deemed to be environmentally unacceptable?
(4) If the presence of fracking chemicals was all or part of the reason for the rejection on environmental grounds, please specify which chemicals were the causes for environmental concern?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 August 2011
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
42 days
The reference to EP455 as the permit area for the Rosabrook wells is incorrect. This should read EP445. The EP number was incorrectly recorded in the system due to an error in Red Mountain's covering letter to the Department of Mines and Petroleum.
(1) (a) No.
(b) No.
(2) Not applicable as fracking was not proposed to be undertaken.
(3) The application was not for drilling or fracking but for a survey to obtain geological information. The document supporting the application was of a sub-standard level and did not meet Departmental requirements.
(4) Not applicable as fracking was not proposed to be undertaken.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(1) (a) No.
(b) No.
(2) Not applicable as fracking was not proposed to be undertaken.
(3) The application was not for drilling or fracking but for a survey to obtain geological information. The document supporting the application was of a sub-standard level and did not meet Departmental requirements.
(4) Not applicable as fracking was not proposed to be undertaken.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.