11 February, 2015

Murray Darling Basin Plan

My thoughts, in brief, provoked by recent press comment and the ABC Landline TV programme-
  • water shortage environmental impacts in the Millenium Drought were caused (mostly) by lack of run-off -the natural impact of drought-not by "over allocation".(Not to mention the Lower Lakes fiasco of not allowing sea water to enter).
  • the very wet years that followed did much natural recuperative work and following the drought are a classic example of the natural variability of the basin, which is its central characteristic.
  • The Government (CEWH) bought entitlements -"phantom water"-not real water. This remains phantom water until such time as there are allocations. By way of example the current Macquarie and Lachlan issues appear to mainly relate to lack of allocations.
  • the Darling catchment (as distinct from the Murray) is again suffering extreme drought particularly in run-off terms.
  • the massive variability of our run-off largely dictates water availability, particularly in the Darling catchment and our storages, whilst very beneficial, really only "fiddle at the edges".
  • Richard Kingsford will say anything to support his anti-irrigation stance.
  • given the massive variability, setting single figure SDL's, even if they are averages, is nonsense.
  • the Murray Darling Basin Plan is an academic, impracticable "dog's breakfast" which will do huge damage to productive capacity and "bugger all" for the environment.

30 January, 2015

Health Update

Last year (02.08.14) I wrote " Last year (2013) I published three posts titled "Oh What a Feeling", "Cricket and Chemo" and "Contemplation" which gave the brutal facts of my flirtation with bowel cancer. In September last year I wrote a triumphant "Health Update" declaring a cancer "all clear". Nothing has changed in that direction, but a large hernia developed where the ileostomy had been and it was determined that I should have a "repair job" done on it. The practice is to strengthen the stomach lining with some plastic mesh.

As with the initial surgery and then the ileostomy closure, I took this latest procedure quite lightly. And again got a shock. Pre-op I was pleased that I didn't have to have the epidural-like back injection and persuaded the surgeon not to catheterise, me as I believe some bladder damage was done last time. However the post surgery pain was intense and they kept me in the recovery ward for quite a long time as any movement caused such pain. Daughter Susie got quite worried that I hadn't been taken to the ward. 

Four days of very considerable discomfort and largely sleepless nights followed. Thank God for family and friends visits and cricket and tennis TV diversions and a very amusing email exchange with my retired gynecologist friend in the wee hours one particular night. I emerged from hospital on a very wet day, five days after the operation. At home our low level bed and the lack of a hook above, made getting in and out of bed very difficult. I finally got a proper nights sleep seven days after the surgery, and that was heaven. I felt so well that yesterday I decided to join my usual lunch group at my city club. I will spare you the detail, but last night the bowel really rebelled and I am taking it very easy today. Have an appointment with my surgeon for next Thursday to have the 16 staples removed. Hopefully, there will be no need for any further "organ recitals"!

12 January, 2015

Snowy Scheme

As my readers know I have often questioned whether the management of the Snowy Scheme has sufficient emphasis on its original water conservation objectives compared with the apparent focus on hydro electricity generation. In late November I had the opportunity of joining a Snowy Hydro conducted tour of the Scheme which concentrated on the Northern end (Tumut/Murrumbidgee), as distinct from the southern (Murray) end.
It was a fascinating experience and whilst I remain no expert, I am gaining a better understanding of the scheme itself from an engineering perspective and how Snowy Hydro manage it in accordance with the requirements of their shareholders and the agreements which govern the management. I must say I come away with great admiration of both. The Scheme is a master piece of engineering and I was most impressed with the management and general efficiency of Snowy Hydro. That is not to say that I don't still harbor views that the management of the scheme has lost sight of its original prime objective of water conservation for irrigation. I do, but that is not the fault of Snowy Hydro.

Snowy Hydro shareholders are the Governments of NSW, Victoria and Australia. It makes its money from hydro electricity generation, not irrigation water and these shareholders require it to maximise its earnings which, it seems to me, it does very well. Amongst many other things, the agreements which govern its operations require it to make minimum releases of a little over 1,000GL per annum to both the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers. Interestingly about half of this water once flowed east to the sea. In my view it could do considerably more in the water conservation area, but that would be in conflict with its shareholder's requirements.

Much of this relates to the timing of releases and among other things, the need to keep airspace in Blowering Reservoir so that water can be released when the demand for peak load electricity is strong.

The tour had a nostalgic aspect for me. When I was a school boy at Canberra Grammar I spent many holidays with the Miners family at Adaminaby. They held some Kiandra snow leases and I had several trips on horse back with pack horses taking livestock to and from the high snow country. One of the leases was Happy Jack's and I spent some nights camped at the Happy Jack's hut. I was thus delighted to see when we received the itinerary for the tour that the first stop after Jindabyne

was
Happy Jack's Dam. The scenery above
Eucumbene Dam was magnificent
and for me the fact that one of our guides who I mostly travelled with was  Charlie Litchfield, a member of a well known local family who new the country and landholders backwards, was a real bonus. There was much reminiscing.
At the time of my school boy visits the Snowy Scheme was under construction and I well remember the houses being moved from the old Adaminaby to the new town site, before the old town area was flooded by Eucumbene Dam.

Suffice to say it was a thoroughly enjoyable and informative trip.

27 December, 2014

Food for Thought

The Harvard Business Review recently ran an interview with Robert B. Shapiro, chairman and CEO of Monsanto, on the subject of sustainability.

 

Sustainable development is the term for the dual imperative—economic growth and environmental sustainability—that has been gaining ground among business leaders since the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. 

 

As Shapiro puts it, “We can’t expect the rest of the world to abandon their economic aspirations just so we can continue to enjoy clean air and water. That is neither ethically correct nor likely to be permitted by the billions of people in the developing world who expect the quality of their lives to improve.”

 

The interview with HBR editor-at-large Joan Magretta, discusses how Monsanto has moved from a decade of progress in pollution prevention and clean-up to spotting opportunities for revenue growth in environmentally sustainable new products and technologies.

 

HBR: Why is sustainability becoming an important component of your strategic thinking?

 

Robert B. Shapiro: Today there are about 5.8 billion people in the world. About 1.5 billion of them live in conditions of abject poverty—a subsistence life that simply can’t be romanticized as some form of simpler, preindustrial lifestyle. 

 

As many as 800 million people are so severely malnourished that they can neither work nor participate in family life. That’s where we are today. And, as far as I know, no demographer questions that the world population will just about double by sometime around 2030.

 

Without radical change, the kind of world implied by those numbers is unthinkable. It’s a world of mass migrations and environmental degradation on an unimaginable scale. At best, it means the preservation of a few islands of privilege and prosperity in a sea of misery and violence.

 

Far from being a soft issue grounded in emotion or ethics, sustainable development involves cold, rational business logic.

 

Current agricultural practice isn’t sustainable: we’ve lost something on the order of 15% of our topsoil over the last 20 years or so, irrigation is increasing the salinity of soil, and the petrochemicals we rely on aren’t renewable.

 

Most arable land is already under cultivation. Attempts to open new farmland are causing severe ecological damage. So in the best case, we have the same amount of land to work with and twice as many people to feed. It comes down to resource productivity. You have to get twice the yield from every acre of land just to maintain current levels of poverty and malnutrition.

 

Now, even if you wanted to do it in an unsustainable way, no technology today would let you double productivity. With current best practices applied to all the acreage in the world, you’d get about a third of the way toward feeding the whole population. 

 

The conclusion is that new technology is the only alternative to one of two disasters: not feeding people—letting the Malthusian process work its magic on the population—or ecological catastrophe.

 

We don’t have 100 years to figure that out; at best, we have decades. In that time frame, I know of only two viable candidates: biotechnology and information technology. I’m treating them as though they’re separate, but biotechnology is really a subset of information technology because it is about DNA-encoded information.

 

How does biotechnology replace stuff with information in agriculture?

 

Shapiro: We can genetically code a plant, for example, to repel or destroy harmful insects. That means we don’t have to spray the plant with pesticides—with stuff. Up to 90% of what’s sprayed on crops today is wasted. Most of it ends up on the soil.

 

If we put the right information in the plant, we waste less stuff and increase productivity. With biotechnology, we can accomplish that. It’s not that chemicals are inherently bad. But they are less efficient than biology because you have to manufacture and distribute and apply them.

 

I offer a prediction: the early twenty-first century is going to see a struggle between information technology and biotechnology on the one hand and environmental degradation on the other. 

 

Information technology is going to be our most powerful tool. It will let us miniaturize things, avoid waste, and produce more value without producing and processing more stuff. The substitution of information for stuff is essential to sustainability. 

 

B.t. Cotton. In ordinary soil, microbes known as B.t. microbes occur naturally and produce a special protein that, although toxic to certain pests, are harmless to other insects, wildlife, and people. If the destructive cotton budworm, for example, eats B.t. bacteria, it will die.

 

With products like B.t. cotton, farmers avoid having to buy and apply insecticides. And the environment is spared chemicals that are persistent in the soil or that run off into the groundwater.

 

The Roundup molecule has smart features that contribute to sustainability. It is degraded by soil microbes into natural products such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. It is nontoxic to animals because its mode of action is specific to plants. Once sprayed, it sticks to soil particles; it doesn’t move into the ground-water. Like a smart tool, it seeks out its work.

How do you react to the prospect of the world population doubling over the next few decades? First you may say, Great, 5 billion more customers. That is what economic development is all about.

 

That’s part of it. Now, keep going. Think about all the physical implications of serving that many new customers. And ask yourself the hard question, How exactly are we going to do that and still live here? That’s what sustainability is about.

The Coal Seam Gas Industry

Quite the clearest, balanced description I have read-

World-first export LNG bonanza poised to set sail

Gas bonanza poised to set sail
Methane Rita Adrea enters Gladstone Harbour yesterday to take on the first shipment of LNG gas from Curtis Island. Picture: Murray Ware Source: Supplied
AUSTRALIA’S export liquefied natural gas industry on the east coast has begun with a large ship berthed in Gladstone Harbour filling up with the first batch of LNG made from coal-seam gas in western Queensland.
The British Gas-owned Methane Rita Andrea is bound for Asia when it leaves Gladstone in the next few days, its final destination depending on who is willing to pay top dollar for its liquid cargo.
Australia exports about 24 million tonnes of LNG worth about $14 billion from the North West Shelf off Western Australia, but what is happening in Queensland is a world first: converting coal-seam gas to LNG for export.
Combined, the two industries, one off the west coast and the other one the east coast, have the potential to make Australia the biggest exporter of LNG .
The federal government has forecast that LNG exports could rise to 80 million tonnes by 2018, valued at $60bn.
The new Queensland industry promises much. A 2013 study claimed it would deliver $22bn in revenue to the state government through royalties and payroll tax and $162bn in revenue to the federal government over the next 20 years.
The BG plant is the first of three $20bn plants being built at Curtis Island on the northern shore of Gladstone Harbour that will convert the coal-seam gas to liquid natural gas. The other two are set to come on stream in the next year.
While the output of the other two plants will largely be sent to specific destinations, BG is a large spot trader and already sends ships into Asia carrying liquid natural gas. The specific destination of the Methane Rita ­Andrea will be guided by which buyer needs the LNG next week.
The construction of the three giant plants has led to 40,000 people being employed; after the construction phase tapers off, the industry estimates it will employ up to 18,000 in long-term jobs.
The industry looms as Queensland’s economic saviour. At a time when coal prices are down and the coalmining industry is shedding jobs, the arrival of the coal-seam gas into liquid natural gas industry is forecast to lift the state’s economic growth from 2.5 per cent this year to 5.75 per cent in 2015-16, taking Queensland from one of the slower growth rates to the fastest.
It is also an industry that many see as putting groundwater in farming areas at risk and possibly contaminating much of Aus­tralia’s most productive farmland.
So far, about 5000 farmers have signed access agreements with coal-seam gas companies that will allow the companies to place wells, many only the size of a basketball court, on the farmer’s property. There are 6000 wells on Queensland’s western Darling Downs, but as the industry grows, more wells will be drilled as others dry up — in total, there could be up to 40,000 wells sunk in the gasfields around Chinchilla and Roma over the next 20 years.
The movement of Australian gas into the global market will also push up domestic gas prices. People overseas are prepared to pay more for gas than in Australia, so local prices will also rise.
Gas has been running through the specially-built pipeline from the gasfields to Gladstone for about a year, and once it reaches Gladstone, it is placed in what is effectively a giant freezer and converted to liquid form for transport. When it reaches the other end, the process is reversed and the liquid is heated until it turns into gas again.
A spokesman for BG Group, which came into the industry when it took over Queensland Gas in 2008, said the mechanical testing of the plant had finished and the storage tanks were yesterday being cooled, ready to produce and store sales LNG.
“This is done by cooling the gas to -162C. The process reduces the gas by about 600 times its original volume, making it easier to transport economically over vast distances. There remains work to do, but we are on schedule to start loading LNG into the first ship to carry a cargo from Curtis Island.”
It’s taken about 10 years to get the industry to this point, after coal-seam gas was seen as a far more environmentally friendly fuel source than coal as its greenhouse gas emissions are considerably less than coal.
The original proponents of an export coal-seam gas industry were all Australian companies, but all have partnered with large overseas energy giants to make the projects viable.
The opposition to the industry has come together under the banner of Lock the Gate, and its president, Drew Hutton, said there had been an unseemly haste to push the industry.
“In years to come, people will look at the decisions made now and the way we’ve sacrificed good farmland and water for an industry which has such a limited ­future,” he said.
“Coal-seam gas, like coal itself, will end up as a stranded asset as people realise that the future is in renewable energy … what we’ll see in the next 20 years is the ­impact on the underground water supply, which will put at risk some of our best farming land.”