Coal Seam Gas in South West Queensland
Coal seam gas (CSG) development has expanded rapidly across inland Queensland over the past fifteen years, with profound and ongoing impacts on farmland, water, ecosystems, climate, and community wellbeing). South West Queensland — particularly the Darling Downs, Maranoa and Western Downs regions — sit at the centre of this expansion (Measham & Fleming, 2014).
The Darling Downs Environment Council (DDEC) works with landholders, communities and allied organisations to advocate for strong protections for land, water, health and climate, and to oppose the continued expansion of coal seam gas on prime agricultural land.
This advocacy is underpinned by extensive scientific research, community experience, and official reviews — including the Queensland Auditor-General’s 2020 report Managing coal seam gas activities. Despite existing regulatory frameworks, the report (2020) highlights persistent concerns regarding long-term environmental impacts and critical data gaps. Furthermore, questions surrounding enforcement rigor continue to undermine community confidence in coexistence models
Where CSG is occurring
As of 2020, there were approximately 8,600 coal seam gas wells drilled across inland Queensland (Roberts, n.d.). Around 84 per cent of Queensland’s CSG activities occurs in the Surat Basin, spanning the Western Downs and Maranoa, with additional development in the southern Bowen Basin (Coexistence Queensland, 2025).
Major projects in the region include the Surat Gas Project, operated by Arrow Energy (a joint venture between Shell and PetroChina). The project footprint covers approximately 8,600 square kilometres, from Wandoan to Dalby and south to Millmerran, with plans for up to 6,500 wells.
Despite being extracted from Queensland farmland and water systems, the majority of this gas is exported overseas, providing little long-term benefit to local communities while leaving behind enduring environmental risks.
The Auditor-General (2022-23) noted that the rapid expansion of the industry has required regulators to continually adapt to new regions, new impacts and an evolving body of science, and that this ongoing expansion necessitates continual evaluation and refinement of Queensland’s regulatory framework to manage emerging and unresolved risks.
Impacts on land and farming
Coal seam gas development is increasingly linked to serious and sometimes irreversible impacts on agricultural land.
Scientific research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland (2025) has warned that the more than 22,000 wells planned for southern Queensland could cause permanent damage. One major concern is land subsidence, where depressurisation of coal seams causes farmland to sink or collapse.
Farmers near Dalby and across the Darling Downs have reported (GasField Commission, 2023):
- Subsidence causing water to pool in paddocks
- Reduced crop yields and disrupted planting and harvesting
- Tens of thousands of dollars in repair costs
- Long-term productivity loss
In 2022, the Queensland Government publicly acknowledged subsidence impacts after years of landholder reports.
The Auditor-General’s report (2025) confirmed that concerns from landholders persist regarding the effectiveness of current frameworks in managing priority agricultural areas, off-site impacts, and long-term environmental effects. It found that while regulators have compliance processes in place, unresolved tensions remain between industry activity and agricultural coexistence, requiring ongoing and improved regulatory oversight and engagement.
Threats to groundwater and the Condamine Alluvium
Coal seam gas extraction poses a colossal risk to groundwater in South West Queensland.
The region relies heavily on high-quality aquifers, particularly the Condamine Alluvium, which supports irrigation, stock and domestic use across thousands of properties and supplies towns including Dalby, Pittsworth and Millmerran.
The Alluvium sits directly above, and is incised into, the Walloon Coal Measures — the coal seams targeted for gas extraction. Large volumes of water are pumped out of these coal measures to release gas, leading to:
- Drawdown of groundwater levels
- Pressure changes that allow gas to migrate into adjacent aquifers
- “Gassy” and unusable water bores
More than 700 water bores are already predicted to be impaired, with impacts expected to increase as gasfields expand.
Gas has also been detected in the Condamine River, with new bubbling incidents reported as recently as 2023, raising serious concerns about methane migration into surface waters.
The Auditor-General found that regulators were unable to verify the complete population of coal seam gas authorities and leases with confidence, limiting assurance that groundwater and environmental obligations are being comprehensively monitored and enforced. This lack of whole-of-system visibility undermines confidence in the long-term protection of critical water resources such as the Condamine Alluvium.
Coal seam gas wastewater and brine
CSG extraction produces vast quantities of contaminated wastewater. Across Queensland, the industry is expected to generate 5–6 million tonnes of toxic brine, heavily laden with salt and heavy metals (Bridle & Harris, 2010).
Despite the scale of this waste, the Queensland Government still lacks a robust, long-term disposal solution. The CSG Brine Management Action Plan, released in 2023, proposes storing brine in lined landfills (Australia’s National Science Agency, 2023).
Independent scientists and community advocates warn that this approach:
- Requires monitoring “in perpetuity”
- Is highly vulnerable to liner failure, particularly during flood events
- Risks long-term contamination of soil, groundwater and river systems, including the Murray–Darling Basin
The Auditor-General (2022-23) highlighted ongoing stakeholder concern about the long-term environmental effects of coal seam gas activities and emphasised the need for regulators to improve data collection, analysis and reporting to better understand cumulative and emerging risks, including waste management impacts.
Industry scandals and regulatory failures
Queensland’s coal seam gas industry has been repeatedly exposed for regulatory breaches and environmental harm.
Notable cases include:
- Arrow Energy fined $1 million in 2022 for illegally drilling deviated wells beneath landholders’ properties without consent
- Origin Energy fined $60,000 for releasing nearly one billion litres of contaminated CSG wastewater onto farmland and into waterways near Wandoan
These penalties are widely regarded as inadequate compared to the scale of damage and profits involved.
The Auditor-General (2022-2023)found that while regulators are now beginning to apply a broader suite of compliance and enforcement tools, current systems limit their ability to assess the collective effectiveness of regulatory action across the industry. Fragmented data systems and poor coordination between agencies reduce transparency and weaken public confidence in enforcement outcomes.
Health risks for regional communities
Gas infrastructure poses serious health risks for nearby residents.
Arrow Energy’s proposed Lynwood gas compressor station, less than 9 km from Cecil Plains, highlights these concerns. Compressor stations emit a complex mix of pollutants, including:
- Nitrogen oxides
- Volatile organic compounds
- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
- Diesel particulates
- Hydrogen sulfide
- Heavy metals and radioactive materials
These emissions contribute to secondary pollutants such as ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter, which can travel long distances and affect both health and agriculture(Brittingham et al., 2014).
Studies from gasfield regions internationally have linked proximity to gas infrastructure with(Brittingham et al., 2014):
- Increased asthma severity in children
- Higher rates of heart and respiratory disease
- Elevated cancer risks
- Adverse pregnancy outcomes and developmental impacts
Alarmingly, the Surat Basin’s air quality monitoring network was decommissioned in 2023, leaving no active air quality monitoring despite ongoing industry expansion (Brittingham et al., 2014).
The Auditor-General （2022-23）stressed that regulators must continue to adapt their monitoring and engagement approaches as new evidence emerges, particularly where unresolved health and environmental concerns persist and community trust is low.
Climate impacts
Coal seam gas is often marketed as a “cleaner” fossil fuel, yet methane — its primary component — is a highly potent greenhouse gas (Meadows, 2024).
Company documents indicate the Lynwood facility alone would add approximately 70,000 tonnes of scope 1 emissions per year, exceeding 1.25 million tonnes over its operational life. These figures are based on estimates, not comprehensive measurements (Meadows, 2024).
Australian scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that actual methane emissions may be double those officially reported, due to unmeasured fugitive emissions across gasfields (Meadows, 2024).
The Auditor-General recommended that regulators make better use of industry and regulatory data to identify emerging risks and trends, underscoring the need for accurate measurement and transparent reporting of emissions to inform climate and environmental decision-making (Meadows, 2024).
Community rights and consent
Landholders in Queensland cannot refuse gas access to their land — they can only negotiate the terms. This imbalance undermines property rights and places farmers and rural communities at ongoing risk.
Many communities report:
- Inadequate consultation
- Poor transparency
- Broken coexistence commitments
- Decisions made without local consent
The Auditor-General （2022-23） concluded that the long-term viability of the coal seam gas industry depends on its ability to genuinely coexist with landholders and regional communities. While some relationship-building has occurred, underlying tensions remain, particularly as new areas are opened to exploration. The report questioned whether existing institutions — including the GasFields Commission Queensland — are effectively fulfilling their legislated roles or maintaining independence and community confidence.
DDEC’s position
The Darling Downs Environment Council opposes the continued expansion of coal seam gas on prime agricultural land and advocates for:
- Protection of groundwater and the Condamine Alluvium
- Enforceable environmental and health safeguards
- Independent monitoring of air, water and methane emissions
- Genuine landholder consent
- A rapid transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy
DDEC supports the Auditor-General’s recommendations for improved data sharing, stronger coordination between regulators, transparent assessment processes, and a reassessment of the role and effectiveness of the GasFields Commission Queensland.
In a changing climate, food and water security are paramount. Expanding coal seam gas in South West Queensland represents a long-term social, environmental and economic risk that outweighs short-term profits.
Get involved
- Support community campaigns opposing CSG expansion like Save Our Darling Downs, Lock the Gate and the Knitting Nannas
- Stand with landholders declaring their land Gasfield Free
- Advocate for stronger laws and enforcement
- Join DDEC to help protect land, water and climate in our region
For more information or to get involved, contact the Darling Downs Environment Council.
AG Force Queensland Farmers. (2023). Proposed amendments to the Regional Planning Interests Act (RPI Act). https://www.agforceqld.org.au/knowledgebase/article/AGF-01915/
Alyami, M. M., Balharith, F. H., Ravi, S. K., & Reddy, R. S. (2025). Urban air pollution and chronic respiratory diseases in adults: Insights from a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, Article 1507882. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1507882
Australia’s National Science Agency (CSIRO). (2023). Ground and surface waters: Beneficial reuse and disposal options for brine in Queensland. https://gisera.csiro.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/24-00478_GISERA_FACTSHEET_W37-QldBrineReuse_WEB_241218.pdf
Brittingham, M. C., Maloney, K. O., Farag, A. M., Harper, D. D., & Bowen, Z. H. (2014). Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources, and their habitats. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(19), 11034–11047. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5020482
Bridle, A., & Harris, C. (2010). A risk to groundwater from coal seam gas extraction in the Surat Basin. In D. J. Eldridge & C. Waters (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Conference of the Australian Rangeland Society (pp. xx–xx). Australian Rangeland Society.
Coexistence Queensland. (2025, April 10). Infrastructure and activities – Shared landscapes: Industry trends. https://cqld.org.au/shared-landscapes/chapter/infrastructure-and-activities/
Queensland Parliament Committees. (2025). Consideration of Auditor-General Report 12: 2022–23 Growing ecotourism in Queensland (pp. 1–19). https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Tabled-Papers/docs/5825t1714/5825t1714.pdf
Dale, P., & Hynes, R. (Eds.). (2025). Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland (Vol. 133). Hassell Street Press. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-4149908207/view
Meadows, J. (2024). Australia dramatically underreporting gas and coal methane emissions. Australian Conservation Foundation. https://www.acf.org.au/news/australia-dramatically-underreporting-gas-and-coal-methane-emissions
Measham, T. G., & Fleming, D. A. (2014). Impacts of unconventional gas development on rural communities in decline. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.04.003
Queensland Audit Office. (2019). Managing coal seam gas activities. https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/reports-resources/reports-parliament/managing-coal-seam-gas-activities
Roberts, E. (n.d.). Queensland coal seam gas. Lock the Gate Alliance. https://www.lockthegate.org.au/queensland_csg