ABC’s Four Corners program aired an interview with environmental specialist Simone Marsh, who was part of the team that approved the draft EIS on the projects, with Marsh saying that large swathes of the report were incomplete.

She also said the Queensland department of planning and infrastructure was pressured to approve the EIS within an expedited timeframe, despite the lack of information available within the EIS.

“They wanted to come in and conduct that activity [CSG extraction],” she said.

“They didn’t want anyone to understand what the long-term impacts were going to be and the long-term costs associated with this activity.”

The program said that 900 pages of documents obtained under freedom of information legislation also outlined the coordinator-general’s apprehension at approving the EIS statements of the projects.

“As advised previously, not all the ‘usual’ information is available,” one such document read.

“This has been difficult and uncertain without the full suite of information normally available.”

However, the director-general approved the EIS statements on both projects.

Both Santos and QGC have denied unduly influencing the timing of both approvals, saying that the proposals were more than three years in the making before the EIS was lodged with the department.

QGC, in response to questions from the program, said information regarding potential fugitive emissions was not included in the EIS as it was not possible to gather this information without an EIS first being approved.

“Greenhouse gas emissions are an example of a matter that cannot be addressed entirely in an environmental impact statement because the volume of emissions depends on factors such as plant design and operational specifications which, in turn, can be resolved only after permits have been granted,” it said.

“These permits can be granted only after an environmental impact statement is completed.”

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association eastern chief executive Rick Wilkinson, who was also interviewed for the program, lashed the show’s producers for seemingly inferring that the draft EIS on the projects was the only approvals process required for the projects.

“To suggest that the EIS was the only environmental approvals process required is completely misleading.”

APPEA also expressed concern that the show relied on research from Southern Cross University into fugitive emissions to play up concerns on the issue.

“Well, it [the research] didn’t pass the peer review test. They can make the statement; it did not pass the peer review test,” Wilkinson told the program.

“In fact, I refer you to measurements made by the petroleum industry as far back as the 1980s, which noted variations in methane in that area well before any coal seam gas or any petroleum activity took place.

“In fact, what the petroleum industry does do is look for methane seeps to help it identify where the coal seam gas is and where there may be shallow coal. This is well before any activity of coal seam gas.”

You can find background documents from the program and a full transcript of the interview with Rick Wilkinson here.