What's up with Australia's electricity sector? - YouTube

What's up with Australia's electricity sector? - YouTube

Wastewater well suspended after “frackquakes” rock Colorado - Salon.com

Wastewater well suspended after “frackquakes” rock Colorado - Salon.com

The (literally) earth-shattering implications of fracking have officially hit Colorado, where officials suspended a well used to dispose of wastewater from oil and gas drilling after researchers linked it to seismic activity in the area.

A 3.4 magnitude earthquake rocked the typically “aseismic” Greeley on May 31, its epicenter about 2 miles from the wastewater injection site. But it was a second, 2.6 magnitude quake this past Monday, picked up by a team of researchers from the University of Colorado that had been monitoring the area, that convinced regulators to take action.

In a statement, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission explained that it ordered High Sierra Water Services, the well’s operator, to stop disposing wastewater for 20 days, “as a cautionary step.”

“In light of the findings of CU’s team, we think it’s important we review additional data, bring in additional expertise and closely review the history of injection at this site in order to more fully understand any potential link to seismicity and use of this disposal well,” said COGCC director Matt Lepore.

A spokesperson for COGCC told Reuters that this is believed to be the first time that wastewater injection has been tied to seismic activity in the state. But it’s not the first time Colorado’s experienced drilling-related quakes, as DeSmogBlog notes:

Judge Rules Exxon Must Face Criminal Charges Over 50,000 Gallon Fracking Waste Spill | NationofChange

Judge Rules Exxon Must Face Criminal Charges Over 50,000 Gallon Fracking Waste Spill | NationofChange

Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiary XTO Energy will have to face criminal charges for allegedly dumping tens of thousands of gallons of hydraulic fracturing waste at a Marcellus Shale drilling site in 2010, according to a Pennsylvania judge’s ruling on Thursday.

Kimberley traditional owners green light Buru Energy fracking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kimberley traditional owners green light Buru Energy fracking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

" We told them make sure you keep your word and really, say the things you're going to do with not much chemicals, and explain it to us so we can explain it to the old people as well".
Thomas Skinner

Hands Off Country -

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent! Buru's Bullshit - I would like to see the minutes of the meeting and who, how and when did this meeting take place. Was the Kimberley Land Council present? Were there any legal representatives looking after the best interests of the people?. We all know too well how these corporations, all over the world operate in indigenous communities. Unfortunately, we  as a community have already experienced these types of corporate tricks and government lies. We know how to view these predicable propaganda of happy blackfellow snaps, we understand how these corporations operate, its a formula of lies and deceit of divide and conquer.

Just another one of Buru's Energy - Mitsubishi's  fabrication used for their manipulation games of people, the Stock Exchange, share holders and of course their investors - The Yawuru people are not playing the Buru's road map game.  Buru is scared of the coming community reaction and in all reality has already been warned by Country. Buru Energy took on the name Buru which means MY COUNTRY, in doing this they have already called upon themselves trouble, big trouble and they know it, because they can feel it but they are still refusing to heed even the dire of these warnings. 

This insidious corporation will never get what they seek because they are 10 years to late. By the time the infrastructure is in place to support their oil and gas development in the Kimberley, the world will have turned the corner and heading towards renewables and our Kimberley water will be priceless in the global economy.

If Buru are as smart as they claim, they would be harnessing the sun, and the water because it is free, abundant, clean, it would creates jobs and would be supported by the boarder community. Buru Bullshit - the Kimberley is not for shale.

 Buru Energy must appreciate the fact that thanks to the Woodside debacle the west Kimberley communities are now smart enough to know how to keep their power dry, aim straight and true and make it count!  We hold the ground.

Environs Kimberley

We are very concerned about fracking and this is the response of our Director, Martin Pritchard to this latest development:

"Environs Kimberley director Martin Pritchard said a recent survey by the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum found that over "twice as many Kimberley people oppose gas fracking [40 per cent] compared with those who support it [19 per cent]".

"What this means is that there is no social licence for fracking in the Kimberley and Buru Energy said late last year that they wouldn't frack if the community didn't want it," he said.

"What we're saying is please stick to your promises Buru."

Mr Pritchard is not convinced fracking is safe.

"We’ve had to request information through the Freedom of Information process with the department of Mines and Petroleum," he said.

"Buru Energy is refusing to give us their chemical risk assessment.

"We're very concerned that there could be a divide and conquer approach to the Kimberley.

"What we're calling for is a regional approach because if Buru Energy start producing commercial quantities of gas through fracking it will affect everyone in the southern Kimberley."

Poll shows most oppose fracking - The West Australian

Poll shows most oppose fracking - The West Australian

What's more, only 7 per cent of respondents strongly supported fracking, compared with 26 per cent who strongly objected to it. The results were contained in polling conducted by East Perth-based consultancy Research Solutions, which carried out the work on behalf of the Department of Mines and Petroleum. The weighted sample for the question was 237 respondents. It comes at a delicate time for the Government amid increasing activity by onshore gas companies, which use fracking to unlock unconventional gas resources.

Last week Environment Minister Albert Jacob upset green groups when he overruled their concerns and approved a fracking proposal by Buru Energy in the Kimberley. Buru wants to explore for tight gas in the Canning Basin, which is thought to hold some of the world's biggest onshore gas reserves and shapes as a key battleground in the fight over fracking.

A separate question posed by Research Solutions found opposition to fracking in the Canning Basin was even stronger than the State average. The department's deputy director general Michelle Andrews said the main finding of the research was that the community was not properly informed about fracking or the industry. She said the department was reforming its petroleum regulations to “provide more robust and transparent” oversight of the sector.

Hormone-disrupting activity of fracking chemicals worse than initially found | Science Codex

Hormone-disrupting activity of fracking chemicals worse than initially found | Science Codex

Many chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can disrupt not only the human body's reproductive hormones but also the glucocorticoid and thyroid hormone receptors, which are necessary to maintain good health, a new study finds. The results were presented Monday at the joint meeting of the International Society of Endocrinology and the Endocrine Society: ICE/ENDO 2014 in Chicago.

"Among the chemicals that the fracking industry has reported using most often, all 24 that we have tested block the activity of one or more important hormone receptors," said the study's presenting author, Christopher Kassotis, a PhD student at the University of Missouri, Columbia. "The high levels of hormone disruption by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that we measured, have been associated with many poor health outcomes, such as infertility, cancer and birth defects."

“Stolen Heritage Generation’’

NEW heritage laws in Western Australia will lead to a “Stolen Heritage Generation’’ and deliver the fate of thousands of indigenous sites into the hands of a single bureaucrat.

These are among a tide of criticisms aimed at proposed changes to the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act released for comment.

If passed, the changes would streamline approval processes for miners, but also increase penalties for destruction of sites and extend the period during which offenders can be prosecuted from one to five years.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Peter Collier said the recent pace of economic development in the mining and construction sectors had highlighted inefficiencies in the laws. The department identified a backlog of 6000 unassessed heritage sites, which resource companies argue is causing costly delays in getting approval to ­develop mines.

Mining lobby group AMEC welcomed the changes, saying they would increase clarity and certainty for all stakeholders. “AMEC is keen to see early passage of the amendments through parliament and will continue to work with government,” said chief executive Simon Bennison. But native title representative groups and anthropologists say the proposed changes to Australia’s first set of laws covering Aboriginal sacred sites will concentrate power in the hands of a single ­bureaucrat, the chief executive of the Department of Aboriginal ­Affairs.

The role of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee, which assesses applications to disturb or destroy sites, will be downgraded and the chief executive will ­assume powers to issue and ­expedite permits for development where that activity will not, in his opinion, disturb registered sites.

Mr Collier said the system “will mean decision-making will occur on an ongoing basis without relying on the system of monthly (ACMC) meetings”. The new system will also allow developers to transfer a permit to disturb a site to a new purchaser, replacing ­arrangements requiring a review if site ownership changes hands.

Simon Hawkins, from the Pilbara-based Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, was alarmed that decision-making powers would be concentrated in a single entity. “One person, not necessarily with any relevant expertise or experience in cultural heritage management, will have the discretion to protect or destroy Aboriginal heritage sites and objects.”

He said Aboriginal people continued to be denied any power to appeal a decision affecting their heritage, with no change to rules that permit only development proponents to appeal to the State ­Administrative Tribunal. “The WA government had wasted a unique opportunity to address the deep inequities in the Aboriginal heritage protection regime.”

Aboriginal heritage sites include the Burrup Peninsula, the world’s largest rock art site, ancient ochre pits and shell middens.

Former WA Museum curator and archaeologist Kate Morse said the loss of prehistoric objects and sites of significance was at stake. “It’ll become the Stolen Heritage Generation if we don’t look out. This is part of our heritage that is being lost and nobody will ever know (the sites) where Aboriginal people lived,” Dr Morse said.

Fiona Hook, president of the Australian Archaeological Association, said she would be seeking input from international heritage bodies. “There is now no way for Aboriginal people to be involved in the process and it removes expertise from the ACMC. Yet it should be going in the other direction.”

She said new definitions requiring a higher threshold of significance for a site to be registered would see smaller sites destroyed.

The Western Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Hon Peter Collier, released the AboriginalHeritage Amendment Bill 2014 (WA) (the Bill).  The Bill proposes a number of amendments to the currentAboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (Act) and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) is accepting written submissions on the changes until 5pm on 6 August 2014.    

The Bill responds to industry concern about delays in the administration of the current Act. The basic idea of the amendments is to lessen the timeframes associated with that administration and increase penalties for offences under the Act.

The Bill provides for:

1. Providing that the CEO will evaluate, on behalf of the community, the significance or otherwise ofAboriginal sites and places;
2. Engagement with the Aboriginal cultural Committee only if the CEO requests it;
3. The making of declarations about the non-existence of sites on land;
4. The granting of permits for the purposes of section 18 to deal with land affected by sites of significance; and
5. The creation of registers to record sites and places.

1. Section 18 permits

Similar to the current regime, a section 18 permit is required to use the land in circumstances which would normally breach the Act.  The CEO’s evaluation of sites and places is likely to cause significant concern in the Aboriginal community and may create delays in the introduction of these amendments.

Currently, only the land owner can lodge a section 18 application; conversely, the Bill drafting allows anyone¹  to make the application.

The Bill also provides for the permits to be transferred between different land users, where their activities are within the scope of the permit.

2. Streamlining

Under the Bill all section 18 applications will be considered by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the DAA.  The Committee no longer has an “as of right” involvement in the assessment of applications.

The Bill provides that where the CEO considers that:

• there are no Aboriginal Sites on the land, it may issue a declaration  (new process);
• there are Aboriginal Sites on the land, but such sites will not be adversely affected by the proposed activities, it may issue permit (new process); or
• there are Aboriginal Sites on the land and such sites may be adversely affected by the proposed activities, the application must be referred to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee to assess and the Minister to grant or refuse (maintains status quo).

A new register of declarations and permits is proposed by the Bill to assist with enforcing breaches.

3. Heritage surveys and land access

The Bill does not require heritage surveys and consultations with traditional owners to occur.  Although, it will be easier to obtain a CEO declaration that there are no sites if such steps have been undertaken by the proponent.

Obtaining a section 18 permit or a CEO declaration does not give a proponent permission to access the land.  Access will need to be obtained through other processes such as the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

4. Aboriginal Sites evaluation and registration

The Bill looks to introduce new regulations which include a consistent assessment criteria and process for evaluating a site or object.  If an Aboriginal Site or Object is identified, the Bill requires more detailed information to be registered about the nature and location of a site.

The CEO will be the main entity assessing the sites, objects and areas.

To encourage sites to be registered and trust between the DAA and traditional owners, the Bill provides that the defendant in any prosecution for damage of a site will have to prove that the area is not a site on the balance of probabilities.

5. Stronger compliance regime

If you damage an Aboriginal Site or Object, the Bill provides for:

• infringement notices to be issued for minor offences;
• the Court to order remediation where acceptable to the traditional owners;
• significantly higher penalties (aligned to the Queensland and Victoria Aboriginal heritage legislation, for example: $500,000 for a body corporate first offence, up from $50,000); and
• a limitation period of five years for bringing prosecutions (currently one year).

For a copy of the draft Bill and details on lodging a submission click here. 

Miner Northern Minerals strikes Browns Range deal with traditional owners - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Miner Northern Minerals strikes Browns Range deal with traditional owners - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Traditional landowners in the Kimberley say they are satisfied environmental, cultural and heritage values will be protected if Northern Minerals begins mining at the Browns Range.

The miner has struck a deal with traditional owners group KRED to mine rare earths about 180 kilometres south of Halls Creek.

KRED CEO Wayne Bergman says the deal includes employment and financial benefits to the Jaru Aboriginal families of the central Kimberley.

He says he is not concerned about radiation in the range.

"The radiation levels will be below national standards," he said.

"Everyone was pretty confident that this project in a very remote area can be managed well.

"Jaru is a desert group, so making sure environmental and water practices are the best is culturally fundamental to traditional owners in this area."

Mr Bergman says although he will not put a dollar figure on the agreement, it will offer more than just royalty payments.

"The agreement provides employment obligations and targets, contracting and business opportunities," he said.

"It also provides a compensation package.

"A contribution of the compensation package will go into a regional bucket to benefit a wider group of Aboriginal people across the Kimberley."

If Northern Minerals decides to proceed, construction of the mine could begin next year.

The Kimberley is not shale or open to be fracked

Buru Energy and Mitsubishi have a Google researched template about how to deal with Broome and the Kimberley Indigenous communities who oppose their fracking plans for the Canning Basin, in the Kimberley.  

• •       To beat us 
•          To divide us
• •       To convince us (or the kids in schools)
• •       To pretend they are listening/care!
• •       To make concerned community members exclude themselves from Buru’s process (road map)
• •       To lure in collaboration
• •       To get us to abandon the issue

This is never going to happen given Broome’s recent history. We are so much wiser now with our Woodside abrasions that Buru Energy’s weekly half page ads in the local paper are heedless in their efforts to convince anyone. On the contrary, these ads just scream “BURU BULLSHIT” to the readers.

Buru’s clinical template to undermine our community will not work. Woodside also made the very same mistake, they underestimated our community’s tenacity and our "never ever give up” aptitudes.

In communities across the world, people are standing up to the fracking industry, passing bans and limits on fracking and defending their right to do so in court. When the gas industry tries to bully communities into backing down or shutting up, communities are fighting back—and winning.

Buru’s bullshiters and their cohorts may wish it were otherwise, but communities have the right to determine what types of development and land use is appropriate within their area. They issue the Social Licence to operate. The Broome community has clearly shown that they are firmly committed to defending that right.

Buru Energy allowed to frack for gas in Kimberley without ...

The Guardian

 ‎

The West Australian government has decided to allow Buru Energy to frack for gas in the Kimberley region without an Environmental Protection ..

The West Australian government has decided to allow Buru Energy to frack for gas in the Kimberley region without an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment.

The Perth-based company plans to test tight gas flows using hydraulic fracturing stimulation at four existing wells along its Laurel Formation prospect in the second half of 2014.

The EPA told the company in January that the proposal raised several environmental issues but it had decided against subjecting it to an impact assessment process.

"The EPA considers that this small scale, ‘proof of concept' exploration drilling proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment," it said.

Potential impacts such as vegetation clearing and pollution of groundwater due to well failure could be monitored and mitigated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the Department of Water, the EPA said.

On Tuesday, the WA environment minister, Albert Jacobs, said the EPA's decision was justified and dismissed 48 appeals.

Conservation groups were outraged and renewed their call for a moratorium on gas fracking in WA.

"This is WA's largest ever fracking proposal by a long shot, and for it to have no scrutiny by WA's only independent environmental watchdog is appalling," Environs Kimberley director Martin Pritchard said.

"While the government claims that gas fracking has been done safely in WA for decades, they fail to say that modern day fracking is completely different, with much higher risks for the environment, groundwater and public health."

  063-14 MinFinalLetter Middleton 16Jun14 by Michael Roberts

Buru Energy to gas frack without EPA assessment The Australian Financial Review  Reprints & permissions. Buru Energy to gas frack without EPA assessment. According to Buru Energy, some 780 wells have been fractured for oil and gas in the state since 1958, including seven tight gas wells that were fracked since 2005. Photo: Bloomberg ... Environment minister Albert Jacob Source: News Limited Perth Now - ‎ “While the government claims that gas fracking has been done safely in WA for decades, they fail to say that modern day fracking is completely different, with much higher risks for the environment, groundwater and public health.” According to Buru Energy, ... Buru to gas frack without EPA assessment Yahoo!7 News - ‎ The West Australian government has decided to allow Buru Energy to frack for gas in the Kimberley region without an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment. The junior explorer plans to test tight gas flows using hydraulic fracturing stimulation ...

  016-096-14 Signed AC Report 3 June14 FINAL by Michael Roberts