WikiLeaks exposes private intelligence company Stratfor: “Private lives, private lies, private spies”

WikiLeaks (WL) today started publishing what it has dubbed The Global Intelligence Files (GIFiles), which is “more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered ‘global intelligence’ company Stratfor.”

“The material shows how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients,” said WikiLeaks in a statement on Monday 27 February.

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and spokespeople from some of the international media partners that have been working for months on this release addressed media at a press conference held in London. The press conference was also live-streamed online to an audience of around 2700.

As far as the Australian perspective goes (so far), two items of note came up. First off, Peter Wilson from The Australian was present and put a question regarding possible involvement, or perceived involvement by WL, of Stratfor in Assange’s potential extradition. It is unclear whether other Australian media have had access to the GIFiles data or intend to cover this latest WL release. When I asked him earlier about involvement in this release, Philip Dorling from Fairfax responded to my inquiry saying “could be”, so wait and watch. So far it seems SMH has covered the story using Reuters copy, and The Australian used AFP.

Second Australian centric piece of information out of the press conference: Assange noted that Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull was, or is, subscribed to receive updates from Stratfor. It should be pointed out that anyone is able to sign up for Stratfor’s free weekly email updates. Assange mentioned Turnbull’s subscription as a way of demonstrating potential reach and influence of Stratfor’s analysis.

Here are my Twitter updates from the press conference:

For more information, see the full media release from WikiLeaks here, or look at Twitter #gifiles.

The Wilderness Society statement on chemicals in water at Pilliga CSG site

Last June there was a spill of 10,000L of untreated saline coal seam gas water at an exploration and pilot production site in the Pilliga forest in NSW’s north. Following reports of “tree kill” in the months after the spill, The Wilderness Society (TWS) collected soil and water samples from the site for testing. The samples were collected approximately seven months after the spill occurred and were given to an independent accredited laboratory (ALS group) for testing. The test results released yesterday showed high levels of chemicals including lead and arsenic.

Full story coming tomorrow, for now, here is the media statement from TWS:

Arsenic, lead found in toxic coal seam gas spill

Media Release 9 February 2012

A toxic and complex cocktail of heavy metals (arsenic, lead and chromium), salts and petrochemicals has leaked from a coal seam gas water (CSG) storage into the Pilliga forest, near Narrabri in NSW.

“The NSW Government should shut down the Santos operation in the Pilliga, the last great temperate woodland left in NSW, and implement an immediate moratorium on coal seam gas mining,” Naomi Hogan of The Wilderness Society said today.

Santos admitted in January that a spill occurred on June 22nd 2011, but samples collected recently by The Wilderness Society and the Northern Inland Council for the Environment raise concerns that the spill may be ongoing and show that dangerous substances are still present at high levels in the forest.

The water tests (conducted by leading NSW laboratory and NATA accredited ALS Laboratory) detected heavy metals up to 37 times higher than natural levels and five times drinking water standards. The tests showed 0.05 milligrams per litre of lead (25 times natural levels and 5 times the acceptable level for drinking water); 0.021mg/l of arsenic (21 times natural levels and 2.1 times drinking water standards); and 0.187mg/l of chromium (37 times natural levels and 3.74 times drinking water standards).

“Our tests of the Pilliga spill have revealed for the first time just how toxic this coal seam gas water is. It is a cocktail of heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic, plus salts and petrochemicals.

“The test results also raise concerns that it is not a one-off spill and that the coal seam gas water may still be leaking into the environment, given the high concentrations of semi-volatile petrochemicals recorded” she said.

“This water represents a grave threat to human health, to wildlife, and to the precious waterways of the Murray-Darling Basin and the groundwater of the Great Artesian Basin,” Carmel Flint of the Northern Inland Council for the Environment said.

“The results show that coal seam gas mining is a risky and polluting industry that will destroy bushland and farmlands. They confirm that coal seam gas mining is not safe and that regulation by the NSW Government has failed dramatically.

“It should not be left to the community to police and monitor coal seam gas operations, and it should not be left to environment groups to fund basic water testing from donations.

Toxic chemicals found in water and soil near CSG site in Pilliga state forest

Chemicals including heavy metals have been found in water and soil samples taken from a coal seam gas operation in the Pilliga forest in the state’s north, according to test results released today.

Samples for testing were collected by an environmental group six months after the discharge of 10,000L of saline water at the CSG exploration site which was operated by Eastern Star Gas at the time. The results show levels of chemicals much higher than is acceptable when compared with drinking water standards.

Seven News reports test results showing:

arsenic at 2.1 times
lead at 5 times
chrome at 3.7 times
nickel at 8.6 times
sodium at 4.4 times

…when compared with drinking water standards

The water samples were analysed by ALS Group whose services include delivering data for mining and mineral exploration and environmental monitoring.

The discharge of untreated CSG water which occurred in June last year went unreported until current site operator Santos (who acquired Eastern Star Gas in November) discovered it during a review of ESG’s operations. Santos said in a statement that the discharge of water should not have occurred and was preventable.

Seven News reports:

These latest results follow another recent report of water contamination at the same site. Water testing results released in December showed high levels of ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide, according to environment groups who commissioned the independent analysis.

Santos say they are reviewing all of Eastern Star Gas’ operations, including the Pilliga project, and that they will work with the NSW Government to “fully remediate” the area in the Pilliga impacted by the discharge of saline water last year.

Local resident and sheep farmer Tony Pickard has been raising concerns about CSG in the Pilliga for some time now. In a submission made in September 2011 to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into CSG, Pickard notes witnessing “tree kill” around CSG well pads and waste water ponds in the Pilliga. Like many opponents of CSG, Pickard is worried about rehabilitation of CSG sites and accountability of CSG companies. Read Pickard’s full submission which focuses on the Pilliga here.

Click here to view ABC’s report.

Pilliga forest CSG: in photos

Taken during a tour of the Pilliga forest on December 16, 2011:

View more from this trip here, or click here for photos taken during an earlier trip to the Pilliga in June.

Your government is watching you, CSG activists

The government has admitted that it is using both the Australian Federal Police and a private intelligence consultancy to monitor coal seam gas protesters, say the Greens.

Speaking in federal parliament on Tuesday 7 February ALP Senator Joe Ludwig, representing the Attorney-General, ”made it clear that the federal police were undertaking surveillance of coal seam gas protesters,” said Queensland Greens state spokesperson Libby Connors.

“So law abiding citizens from farmers and frustrated landholders to mothers living on the Tara estate who have participated in legitimate protest may now have a federal police file.”

Greens Senator Christine Milne explained in a statement: ”Minister Ludwig confirmed … in response to my question, that some surveillance of protesters is being outsourced to a private agency – the National Open Source Intelligence Centre (NOSIC).”

Established in 2001, NOSIC is a private company that provides state and federal agencies with services including monitoring of “current and emerging issues relating to global activism and related crime,” according to the company website.

An investigation published last month by Philip Dorling for The Age looking at ongoing (and increasing) government sanctioned surveillance of environmental activists revealed NOSIC has been “engaged on contract by the AFP and the Attorney-General’s Department since at least 2003.”

The NOSIC website says it provides intelligence on “the identity, capability and intentions of organisations or individuals that engage in radical activism…” as well as criminal or unlawful behaviour, and the potential “ impact on public order, business continuity or community values”. The organisation says “no information is collected unlawfully or obtained at its source by clandestine or covert means.”

Milne raised concerns about the costs involved in ongoing surveillance of people engaged in protest against the mining industry.

“What an extraordinary use of taxpayers’ money to spy on legitimate protesters in order to protect the commercial interests of polluting companies,” said Milne.

“Farmers in Queensland trying to protect their land from coal seam gas mining, and parents concerned about their children’s health, will be understandably outraged that they may be under surveillance by the Australian Federal Police.”

Drew Hutton, President of Lock the Gate Alliance which represents over 100 community groups concerned about the CSG industry, said that surveillance was a method of “intimidation” used against protesters by the government.

Hutton condemned the government for “…spying on ordinary farmers and rural Australians pursuing legitimate, non-violent protest.”

Given the sight of police officers with their handy-cams trained on activists at almost every recent protest (and the rising improper conflation of environmental civil disobedience and terrorism) the news of government monitoring, while concerning, will come as no surprise to many activists and their allies.

Local police record the day’s events: Narrabri police with a video camera on an activist during a protest in the Pilliga last year.

Eastern Star Gas/Santos workers keeping watch: Industry workers always ready hit record too.

Not thwarted by government intelligence: In a first for NSW, peaceful protesters stop activity at a coal seam gas exploration rig in the Pilliga Forest, south of Narrabri, on July 5, 2011. One protester in climbing gear is suspended high above the ground at the top of a 25 metre rig at an Eastern Star Gas operation, with a group of protesters on site.

A few closing words from Zane Alcorn, a friend and long-time environmental campaigner from Newcastle. Zane wrote this following Dorling’s story last month, he said, in part:

If the government insists on spying on people, how about you spy on those who are destroying aquifers with longwall mines and coal seam gas wells, causing serious health problems by pumping coal dust and smokestack emissions into the air in the Hunter Valley, and vastly expanding those fossil fuel industries which are pushing us ever closer to dangerous irreversible warming. How about you spy on those elected officials who throw the precautionary principle out the window every time they approve these mines and coal fired power stations and unconventional gas projects.

I believe history will record that those of us taking peaceful action to draw attention to the breathtaking insanity of expanding fossil fuel exports and use (which in some instances involved low-level lawbreaking such as trespassing) were entirely justified in taking these actions. Indeed, some may ask why the general population at this point in history did not take such action more often and in greater numbers.

Whether it is climate activists paddling in Newcastle Harbour, farmers campaigning against mining and gas extraction under or adjacent to their land, or Singleton residents campaigning for tighter controls on dust emissions – we are not criminals. We are defending the most basic public interest of current and future generations and do not deserve to be spied on for it.

Photo essay: introducing Wren

This is my sister, Wren.

All photographs were taken in December 2011 on the Fernleigh Track in Newcastle using a Canon 5D Mark II, zoom lens 24-105mm.

How much is the coal seam gas industry really worth to NSW?

In a few months time (on 3 May) the NSW parliamentary inquiry into coal seam gas is due to submit its final report. Its recommendations could help to shape the future of the industry and how it is regulated in NSW.

CSG is a finite resource and one that opponents claim has the capacity to be particularly intensive on local community infrastructure and land. As such, the amount of money the state government would earn in royalty payments from the industry was one of the issues raised during the inquiry.

The following discussion occurred during a public hearing in Sydney on 17 November 2011. In it, Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham raises concerns about the viability of Santos’ claim that it can provide around $3 billion over 20 years (thus around $150 million a year) from ‘several hundred wells’. Buckingham queries this on the basis that the only CSG producer to file a royalty return so far in the state, AGL, paid just $432,000 for its 89 producing wells in the last financial year. Based on these figures, AGL would not come close to delivering the sort of return that Santos has promised.

I spoke to Matthew Doman (Santos communications manager) about how Santos calculated the royalty projections that they included in their submission to the inquiry, but first, here is the exchange between Buckingham and Santos representatives from the inquiry hearing:

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (Greens MLC): Mr Baulderstone, in your submission Santos states that its principal area of operation will be the Gunnedah basin. There has certainly been a lot of discussion in the community about the number of wells that will end up being in the Gunnedah basin that has created some uncertainty and disquiet about the number of wells and where they will be. Your submission says that the royalties that the Government can expect from this industry are somewhere around $3 billion over 25 years and up to $150 million a year. Further in your submission, on page 27, it says, “The Gunnedah basin project will involve drilling several hundred wells”. How can the Government expect to receive $150 million a year in royalties from several hundred wells? Is it not the case that there will have to be thousands of wells, if not tens of thousands of wells for the Government to attract a royalty return of that magnitude?

Mr JAMES BAULDERSTONE (Vice President, Eastern Australia, Santos): We are at a very early stage of our exploration activity. At the moment we are working out how much gas is caught in those seams, how much water is there and how we will end up producing them. Our current modelling and our current work establish that there will be in the order of a couple of hundred wells to develop the basin in its entirety to produce the volume of gas that would substantiate those royalty payments. What we will do to justify that is that as we get more data and we go through the next level of approval processes for the development phase, we will bring that to the Government and that will be scrutinised in public. The data in there is the information as we understand it to date, subsurface, and those wells are all needed to produce the gas that is required for this business.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That was unclear, Mr Baulderstone. You are suggesting that the Government will attract $150 million a year of royalties from a few hundred wells?

Mr BAULDERSTONE: That is what I am saying. I will hand to Mr Kremor, who is in charge of operations, to give you more detail, if you would like, about our development plans.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The detail I would like is about how a couple of hundred wells can produce $150 million a year worth of royalties to the State of New South Wales.

Mr ANDREW KREMOR (General Manager Energy Business, Santos): The area has a unique geology; it is characterised by multiple coal seams throughout the sequence. In some areas they are very, very thick coal seams and the net coal package is many, many times thicker than in similar areas in Queensland, and also the geology lends itself to a lack of drilling technology, which is not always the case in Queensland as well. When we drill a well we can drill into multiple coal seams. So, in effect, one well is equivalent to several wells if you can imagine they are stacked vertically on the coal seams. That is why we think we will not need as many wells on the surface footprint.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Are you committing to less than a thousand wells in the Gunnedah basin?

Mr KREMOR: Our modelling at this stage indicates that it would be well less than a thousand. Clearly, we cannot be precise at this stage because, as James said, we have got three years of study to do. But our current modelling based on the information we have to date indicates that it is several hundred wells only. But the important fact is it is the geology that determines that.

There was further discussion about royalties between Buckingham and representatives from the NSW Government later during the same hearing:

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My final question relates to royalties. Obviously in New South Wales there is a five-year royalty holiday for coal seam gas mining. The submission from Santos this morning to the Inquiry was that they expected to be delivering to the Government $150 million per annum from their Gunnedah project. Has the Government done any modelling on what sort of royalties it expects to have delivered to it from coal seam gas and what sort of number of wells would they expect to be rolled out across New South Wales?

Mr BRAD MULLARD (Executive Director, Mineral Resources and Energy, Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructures and Services): We have not done the modelling. At this point in time, as Mr Paterson has said, the industry is actually still in an extremely early stage of development. The industry in New South Wales is in an exploration phase. The number of wells and how many might end up in terms of production fields we really will not know until a lot more exploration is done or the exploration that is currently under way is undertaken. At the moment there is really only one production field for coal seam methane, which is around the Camden area. There is a small amount of production occurring near Narrabri for local consumption generally at this point in time.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That Camden project delivered $400,000 in royalties in the last financial year based loosely on about 100 wells. According to Santos, if the geology is the same, for $150 million you would need something around 20,000 to 30,000 wells to deliver a comparable royalty rate, which is similar to the situation in Queensland where they are looking at 30,000 to 40,000 wells. Are those sorts of numbers of wells across the State something the Government is modelling?

Mr MULLARD: Your initial question about what royalty was paid, I do not know what royalty was paid and in fact I know that information is not available, so I am not sure where the royalty number you have for the Camden project came from.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It was in the Treasury figures, it was in the Budget— $432,000.

Mr MULLARD: I am not sure about that.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Well, I am sure.

Mr MULLARD: That’s fine but we have not done any modelling.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: You have not done modelling on how many wells may roll out across the State?

Mr MULLARD: We will not know that until the exploration is undertaken and the companies start to look at what are their projects and what their projects begin to look like.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Do you accept that, if Santos is making in their submission a claim for $150 million in royalties to the Government, that that may equate to upwards of 10, 20, even 30,000 wells across the State?

Mr MULLARD: No, I do not accept that because it will depend on how each well performs, whether or not they are horizontal wells, and the technology used. I do not even know at this point in time—and I am sure the companies also do not necessarily have an understanding of it—which areas will be productive or not. It is still at an early exploration stage.

Mr MARK PATERSON (Director General, Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructures and Services): And nor would we accept, as a matter of course, an extrapolation of a proposition that Camden produces X dollars on the basis of X number of wells, so if somebody else speculated on a payment figure that you would have an automatic line of sight between the two, we do not accept that proposition.

So to the explanation. In a phone conversation last month, Santos spokesperson Matthew Doman explained how the figures Santos used in their submission to the hearing were reached:

The drilling technology that we’ll use, which is the latest, allows you to drill multiple wells from a single well pad. This minimises the surface impact, and I think communities and landholders are looking for us to do this. We can minimise the number of well pads and the surface footprint by drilling  multi-stacked lateral wells. Instead of drilling one well straight down we can now drill wells that go straight down but also go off at an angle so you access the coal seam in various places from a single well pad, they offer a lot more access to the coal seam. So drilling 300 of these well pads could be equivalent to drilling 900 single wells.

I should note here that Doman used the figures of 300 and 900 by way of example, he also said that Santos currently expected to drill up to 500 wells (across the Gunnedah Basin). He continued:

The other difference is the richness of the resource in the Gunnedah Basin … From initial work, seismic and otherwise, we believe the area will be a very productive source of natural gas. [...] Another thing to look at is price. We believe the gas price will rise from around $3 to $4 per gigajoule (GJ) to between $6 and $9 per GJ … Currently producers could be selling for as low as $2. We believe that when we come to produce it will be sold at prices considerably above what its sold at now.

In summary, Santos expects higher rates of gas flow due to newer well technology and more productive coal seams as well as a rise in the price of gas. These aspects combine to allow for a greater projected royalty return than AGL is able to deliver from it’s current gas production in Sydney’s south-west. Santos told the public inquiry that they have “three years’ research to do before any significant development can commence” so it may be some time before we can see if these figures stack up.

Further information about NSW gas reserves and royalty schemes for all Australian states and territories.

Read the full transcript of the 17 November 2011 coal seam gas inquiry public hearing (pdf).

Something a little different…

I don’t often write like this. It is the start of a story I heard once and couldn’t forget… a work in progress, perhaps.

“They sliced me open with a blade, and rubbed chili powder into the cut.”

He looks right through me as he details what happened before he came here. Running his fingers over the scars on his thigh.

“This is from where they tried to shoot me. They were close, see,” he touches a scar on his cheek, about an inch from his right eye.

I open my mouth to ask why. That is what we ask. The who tells us the what, and then we ask why, we ask how, we ask when. But I already know the rest. His story is not dissimilar to that of the others I’ve heard this morning. I instead ask him if he is tired.

His eyes flicker before focusing on mine. He purses his lips, and frowns, saying nothing as he waits for me to qualify my inquiry.

“Are you tired? Every person that you meet here must ask you. They must ask what happened to you, what did you do, why are you here. They must? Are you tired?”

“No.”

I wonder too if he is sad. He tells me he is not. Perhaps he is telling the truth. He has no tears in his eyes, and he does not look sad. I suppose after having been chased, shot at, thrown in prison and tortured by your own government, it doesn’t much hurt to tell a stranger your story, for what is probably the hundredth time. But I’ll bet he is angry.

“Does it get easier?” I wonder out loud. Does it get easier, to keep talking, to keep breathing.

“No.”

And that was that.

If I had a pen, I could start taking notes. If I had a camera, I could shoot, or in the least, I could fiddle with the lens. I don’t have any of that. A pen can be a weapon, and a camera even more so, these items are prohibited. It’s for their sake, the guards explain as you empty your pockets and walk through the airport style metal detectors.

But you don’t need a pen and camera to tell these stories. Words spoken in this compound have a way of ingraining themselves in your memory, vivid and brutal anecdotes of faraway lands, barely believable but for the anguish in their eyes and the scars on their skin. And so I listen.

I can’t tell you his name. I’m not meant to tell his story. But I’m not sure what else to do.