Royal Society Member Adj. Prof. David George has penned a thoughtful account of NCCARF and its relevance after the disappointing 2024 Conference of the Parties on climate change. It advocates for a greater urgency for climate adaptation and includes an outline of a ‘how-to?’ approach.

Related Images:

Royal Society of Queensland Member Dr Shay Dougall has co-developed a ‘Psycho-social Climate’ Scorecard to highlight the damage that the energy industries are doing to the well-being of Queensland’s farmers and to farmland.

Under workplace health and safety legislation, farmers who are unwilling hosts to energy/resource projects have a right to a safe workplace protected from the risks created by co-location. It places on persons in control of energy undertakings clear obligations to address workplace psychosocial well-being within farming workplaces.

The absence of effective enforcement of Queensland workplace law severely minimises the visibility, voice and role of host farmers in both the resource and planning regulatory arrangements. Co-location creates an unmitigated shifting of hazards and risks from the energy project to the farming occupational group.

Click on the image above for a poster explaining the PSC Scorecard. For more information contact Dr Dougall.

Dr Dougall has also has a chapter “An Overview of Unconventional Gas Extraction in Australia: The First Decade”. By Geralyn McCarron and Shay Dougall in the following book:

Stolz, J., Bain, D., Griffin, M., & Stolz, J. (2022). Environmental Impacts from the Development of Unconventional Oil and Gas Reserves (First edition.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774178

Related Images:

Property owners Dave and Liza Balmain (“Glendon”, Nangwee Queensland) have supplied some documents which shed some considerable light on the failure of the Queensland Government to protect the public interest in its management of the coal seam gas industry.

Effect of free gas on water supply

First is a report by Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) supplied to the CSG Compliance Unit (CSGCU), Department of Natural Resources and Mines on the potential effects of free gas on bore water supply from CSG development in the Surat Basin. Dated 11 March 2016, the report concludes:

“The focus of this review is on the possibility that, if free gas from CSG development does migrate to a water bore than, how it can impact on a bore’s capacity to supply water. The two fundamental questions in this context are:
1. Could there be free gas when there is no decline in water level in that bore from CSG development; and
2. Could the presence of free gas affect the capacity of that bore to supply water?

An assessment of literature and application of scientific principles suggests that conceptually, simple answer to each of these questions is ‘yes’. Free gas from CSG development can occur in water bores that do not experience a water level decline from CSG development. Presence of free gas in a water bore also directly and indirectly affects its capacity to supply water, unless remedial actions are taken.”

Hydraulic connectivity

A fact sheet by Dr Bryce Kelly of the University of New South Wales titled: “Evaluating the extent of hydraulic connectivity focus on between the Condamine Alluvium, the Great Artesian Basin and the Walloon Coal Measures.”

Location of exploration boreholes

In answer to a question on notice in the Parliament, the Minister (for Resources and Critical Minerals) gave a most remarkable answer on 13 June 2024:

“The Department of Resources has identified at least 993 holes drilled within the vicinity of the Condamine Alluvium between 1960 and 1979. This figure is approximate given that the department does not hold a complete dataset containing legacy boreholes drilled, the geological units intercepted, or their precise location. …The department has identified the location of 18 of the 993 boreholes reported.” (Emphasis added).

Neglected exploration holes

On 15 September 2024 the Balmains wrote to the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation “regarding new information that has come to light which escalates concerns about the future integrity of the Condamine Alluvium in the face of expanding CSG development”:

“Dear DESI Underground Water,

In regards to the impacts from coal seam gas extraction on groundwater, which you oversee as per Chapter 3 of the Water Act 2000, could you please advise if the uncapped/unsealed coal exploration holes that were drilled in the 1960s and 1970s across the Condamine Alluvium, are included in the OGIA Condamine Alluvium Groundwater Model.

From a response to a Question on Notice (QON, attached) posed to the Minister for Resources and Critical Minerals by our local Member Pat Weir MP, it is apparent that there are an estimated 993 legacy coal exploration holes that have been drilled through the Condamine Alluvium extent, however the Department of Resources is only aware of the location of just 18 of these holes and is alarmingly clueless as to the condition of all 993 holes.

As per this article by a local, well-respected water driller who has decades of experience drilling in the Condamine Alluvium and Great Artesian Basin, these coal exploration holes are like dormant conduits, waiting to be awoken once the CSG depressurisation commences in the underlying Walloon Coal Measures. The response to the QON adds immense weight and substance to the momentous concerns of this expert water driller, who understands the immense value of the Condamine Alluvium to our region.

As we can see in this diagram from the Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) 2021, the reversal in hydraulic gradient between the Condamine Alluvium and the Walloon Coal Measures has already commenced in the western margins of the Condamine Alluvium (brown contours), in the vicinity of existing gasfield development.  Wherever these coal exploration holes exist, they are a potential conduit for water loss from the Condamine Alluvium to the depressurised WCMs.

A study by the University of NSW has actually quantified an estimated rate of annual water loss from the Condamine Alluvium to the WCMs via one of these legacy bore holes, once CSG depressurisation were to commence.

As per the attached article, Dr Bryce Kelly and his team concluded:

“If the post-development head in the WCM is 50 metres below the CA (a conservative estimate based on CSG production modelling), then a single leaky well is predicted to transfer 263 ML/a from the CA to the WCM. Our modelling highlights the need to: 1) Investigate the potential impact of partly penetrating wells; 2) locate and remediate leaky abandon wells to prevent the movement of fluids between strata in areas of CSG developments.”

As we can see from the Stratheden gasfield monitoring wells in the above diagram, the 50 metre head difference between the two formations has already been achieved due to CSG extraction.  If such legacy exploration holes exist in this location they could stand to lose over 250ML of good-quality water per year, per hole, from the Alluvium to the underlying Walloons.

These legacy exploration holes also wait to act as conduits to gas migration (free gas) from the depressurised Walloons, where methane risks entering overlying good-quality aquifers such as the Condamine Alluvium, as well as escaping to the surface as gas seeps, enhancing global warming greenhouse gas emissions.

As per the attached report Potential effects of free gas on bore water supply from CSG development by Klohn Clippen Berger (2016), written by none other than Sanjeev Pandey, the force of buoyancy will overtake the intended mobilisation of gas via the pressure gradient to the well head at a certain distance from the depressurisation zone (gas well) and travel to points of low pressure; whether that be legacy coal exploration holes, water bores, existing geological contact, faults/fractures, or gas wells with corrosion integrity issues (of which there are countless).

As explained in the KCB report:

It is clear from this report, that free gas (methane) has the high potential to migrate upwards, via the force of buoyancy, within a staggering 10-15km range from the depressurisation zone (gas well).

This risks affecting large swaths of the Condamine Alluvium, especially where pathways exist and particularly in a geological up-dip direction from the gas well/gasfield.

The town of Dalby comes to mind.  With a population of over 13,000 people which relies predominantly on the Condamine Alluvium for its town water supply, it stands to be at great risk from the impacts of expanding CSG development.

As clearly outlined in the KCB report, the ingress of methane in the Condamine Alluvium would be a devastating game-changer for so many regional residents who rely on this invaluable water resource, whether that be for residential use, water for stock purposes, or for the irrigation of food and fibre crops.

The impacts from methane in our ground water supplies would detrimentally affect our bores’ capacity to supply water, due to the following causes:

• Free gas hampers pumping operations and damages pumps and infrastructure, potentially resulting in costly operations and replacements. Damages occur through gas locks, cavitation, overheating and blow-outs. 
• Free gas in the formation around a water bore provides a resistance to flow of water (i.e. reduces the water permeability) to the bore and reduces bore’s designed capacity or bore yield.
• Free gas affects water quality in bores by creating turbid water and sediment movement resulting in coloured, slimy and smelly water.  It can also potentially lead to the conversion of dissolved sulfate into odoriferous, noxious and toxic sulfides.  Hydrogen sulfide can lead to problems of odour, toxicity and corrosion of casings and pipe.
• Free gas contains methane which can burn and can be explosive – posing a significant safety threat.  This can pose difficulties in running and maintenance of a bore where safety issues can limit access. This can lead to bore abandonment in certain situations.

On top of all this, we have the recent CSIRO study, Potential microbial interactions with cements and steels (March 2024).

It outlines the horrendous unknowns and gaping knowledge gaps when it comes to microbiological activity in the aquifers of Southern Queensland and alludes to the fact that shallow, unconfined aquifers, like the Condamine Alluvium, are at higher risk to Microbial Influenced Corrosion and damage to infrastructure, due to the oxygen and nutrient density (e.g. phosphorous and nitrogen) in these aquifers compared with deeper formations.

As outlined by the CSIRO research team:

“One key concern is that, should corrosion occur, it could impact the integrity of the well, which would potentially damage important groundwater resources on which many communities reply.”

Let’s not forget that the Condamine Alluvium is the most productive alluvium throughout the whole of Queensland, supporting 118,000 hectares of irrigated crops, a billion dollar agricultural industry, as well as a critical water supply to so many regional communities.

With over 3800 water bores in the Alluvium and at a current value of $12,250/ML for permanent allocation water, this is not a trivial concern. The Condamine Alluvium is vital for the ongoing health and economy of this region. The risks to its ongoing integrity must be taken with utmost seriousness, with thorough and appropriate independent risk assessment applied.

Once the egg is scrambled, it cannot be unscrambled.

I recommend you read the entire Potential effects of free gas on bore water supply from CSG development report by KCB, commissioned by the CSG Compliance Unit of the then DNRM.  It’s frank and honest candidness is enlightening, especially when set amongst the more ‘controlled’ reports with their origins linked to gas industry funding which dominate the public domain of today.  It is to be noted that it is thanks to the Basin Sustainability Alliance and the availability of this report on their website, that it is even seeing the light of day, as otherwise it would not be publicly available. 

I look forward to receiving a response to the question raised above and your feedback on the substantial concerns raised as to the future integrity of the Condamine Alluvium and the subsequent longevity of this rich agricultural and closely settled region.

Kind regards

Liza Balmain

The website of CSIRO/GISERA offers access to a number of other reports on the subject, under the umbrella of a project entitled, “Review of cements, steels and microbial activity for Qld CSG wells”.

Note also a press release from Saltel Industries in 2019 and an article in Nature which validate their concerns.

Related Images:

The President has announced that Society member John Brisbin had won the David Marlow Prize for an essay entitled Planning for purpose: How Queenslanders might flourish in the challenging times ahead. Read this thought-provoking writing here. The author picks up a theme that in an earlier era would have been called ‘decentralisation’, a concept that has dropped off the public policy agenda in recent decades.

More details about the Society’s Research Fund can be found on https://www.royalsocietyqld.org/research/.

Related Images:

Crown of Thorns Starfish On the Great Barrier Reef: Evaluating Control Programs and Funding Opportunities in Australia

By Alicia Dunn, Down Deep Drones and Member, The Royal Society of Queensland 

The Crown of Thorns Starfish (COTS), Acanthaster planci, has posed a significant and increasing threat to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) since the 1960s [1, n.d.] These large starfish feed on coral polyps and cause extensive degradation of coral and also affect biodiversity generally. According to Australian Institute of Marine Studies (AIMS) the “Crown-of-thorns starfish are native to the Great Barrier Reef but can occur in plague proportions. Where numbers are high they consume vast amounts of living coral, dramatically reducing coral cover.”[2, n.d.] Over the past thirty years, control programs funded by government grants have aimed to mitigate these impacts. However, the efficacy of these programs and the management of funds has been open to frequent debate. Please view the table below. This article reviews the impact of COTS on the GBR, and evaluates the efficacy of funding and looks at the prospect of introducing new methods of control to supplement existing efforts.

On the Great Barrier Reef there are many industries dependent on healthy reefs including tourism and fishing. According to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the social, economic and icon value of the reef is $56 billion.[3] When there have been recurrent outbreaks of COTS, densities can exceed 30 starfish per hectare – double the number of COTS that can cause significant reef damage.[4] These outbreaks lead to a loss of coral and also biodiversity.[5]

There have been localised successes in reducing COTS populations; however the nature of the outbreaks and the frequent recurrence suggest inefficiencies in the control strategies currently used. Peaks in COTS populations in study areas are thought to coincide with either funding delays or variations in control measures (Status of Coral Reefs of the World, 2020). There are many limitations and challenges concerning COTS control.[6]

Some control methods that have been proposed and implemented include manual removal by divers, manually injecting the COTS by divers and biological control. Divers are funded by programs such as by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and the Reef Trust. Due to the rapid reproduction of COTS these methods also are ineffective (Pratchett et al., 2008).

Using divers to control COTS is very labour-intensive and comes with its own set of environmental stressors including the impact of multiple vessels and potential damage to the reef. Divers are prone to decompression sickness and are exposed to hazards including hostile marine life, poor visibility and strong currents, as well as the possibility of being spiked by a COTS. COTS are cryptic, more active at night whereas most control programs are conducted during the day. There is a large economic cost with employing divers and insuring them, and workplace health and safety regulations restrict the length of time that divers can remain on the bottom.

In an article published by The Guardian newspaper in 2023, Dr Roger Beeden from the GBRMPA said that using the $41 million spent on direct intervention of COTS, 320,000 starfish had been killed in 43,000 diver hours. This equates to 7 starfish being killed per hour at $953 per hour (a staggering $136 per starfish!)[7]

There are many control programs and some rely on short-term funding causing fragmented and inconsistent efforts. As there are so many stakeholders with their own control programs, there is the possibility of duplicated efforts and a lack of coordination, resulting in gaps in coverage or other inefficiencies, including the manner in which results are being reported and the accuracy of these results.

With so much funding there is the potential for diving companies or research institutions to depend on this income and this is at risk of creating a disincentive to finding solutions on a permanent basis.

COTSbot and Rangerbot

With the technological advancements of underwater drones, Queensland University of Technology developed an underwater drone “COTSbot”, designed to autonomously detect and inject bile salts and other lethal substances into COTS. Underwater drones can also be known as Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) and operate in deeper and less accessible waters than divers, they work longer hours, can be used continuously, can be operated at night, have a once-off cost and are less environmentally disruptive than using divers. Underwater drones could potentially be a game-changer in controlling COTS outbreaks, with the COTSbot primed for success. The QUT COTSbot was designed to “search the reef for up to eight hours at a time, delivering more than 200 lethal shots.”[8] However, the author has found no video evidence online of COTSbot or RangerBot actually injecting any COTS. “Widespread deployment of the RangerBot has not yet occurred”, (Queensland University of Technology, 2018). “RangerBot has achieved a 99.4% accuracy rate in detecting COTS and a 100% success rate in delivering coral larvae to damaged reefs during trials.[9] These high success rates demonstrate the robot’s capability in performing critical reef management tasks effectively (QUT Centre for Robotics, 2024),[10] but reference to the RangerBot online makes no mention of delivering injections to COTS after 2018.

Oakford Offshore

In 2016 Oakford Offshore Pty Ltd was issued a marine permit by GBRMPA to operate a field test of a modified remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with an injector arm to inject COTS. This was to ascertain if culling COTS with an underwater drone was possible. The permit stipulated that Environmental Site Supervision of the initial trial was necessary. Oakford Offshore could not select their own area and had an area selected for them. They worked alongside the divers responsible for injecting the COTS, in the vessel Venus II used for COTS control by Association Marine Parks Tourism Operators (AMPTO). The trial was conducted in February. It does not appear that this was a fair and impartial field study due to the following reasons:

• the area was selected for Oakford Offshore and had few COTS;
• the vessel was provided by AMPTO who were running COTS control programs – a conflict of interest;
• divers on the boat were contracted to AMPTO; the divers, crew and project manager may not have been impartial.[10A]

John Lawrie of Oakford Offshore has advised as follows:

The existing culling program seemed to be run competently and was giving an opportunity to the young people involved in the diving activities. What I was proposing was a stand alone culling program on our own vessel that can run 24/7 and also operate in deeper waters while conducting monitoring operations at the same time.

Funding for our research study and the connections to GBRMPA came from Steven Miles who was Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection at the time and who was enthusiastic for my study. GBRMPA didn’t have the funding to give out, that’s all with the Reef Trust. GBRMPA just gives the necessary permits to operate on the reef.

A ROV-based culling operation will work very well, better than anything currently operating, it’s just a matter of getting funding to prove it. A standalone vessel with the right equipment and two weeks at sea will easily get all the data needed.

I was obliged to use the dive boat for the trial because the funding I received was only $30k so it wasn’t enough to charter my own vessel. 

During this experimental study, we saw only two COTS. We were told that there were hundreds the week before. It became obvious that AMPTO was regarding the voyage as a monitoring one, to check on the previous cull.[10B]

Down Deep Drones

Founder of Australian firm Down Deep Drones (ABN 92 411 458 189), robotics engineer John Griffiths, has developed a prototype for injecting COTS. This first prototype was made in 2017 and Down Deep Drones travelled to Cairns in 2018 with the underwater drone COTS injector, a prototype, for the purpose of testing it in field conditions and to gift  the underwater drone to an organisation involved in culling the Crown of Thorns Starfish. Griffiths constructed the underwater drone for just over $6,000. GBRMPA, the responsible department of James Cook University and the Reef and Rainforest Foundation did not respond to the offer. In 2018, the underwater drone was taken to Projects Global which advised that there was limited space onboard their vessel and working with the underwater drone on the vessel would interfere with the work of the divers controlling COTS. An approach to CSIRO also received no follow-up reply.

This year 2024, Down Deep Drones have a prototype COTS injector on an off-the-shelf underwater drone manufactured by QYSEA. QYSEA have been market leaders in underwater drones since their first release in 2018. With affordable underwater drones for hobbyist, researcher and environmental stewards, they have a sophisticated electronics system and user-friendly interface. One of the benefits of these underwater drones is their reliability, ease of use and adaptability. Down Deep Drones make custom tools for QYSEA underwater drones to combat a range of environmental issues, including attachments for culling rogue urchins, cutting ghost nets, spearing lion fish and injecting COTS, with spearguns mounted on the drone to reduce incidental bycatch. As the underwater drone with the COTS injector is not autonomous, it can be bought for less than $5000. These underwater drones are easy to operate and can be mastered after one or two hours of training. They are accessible to citizen scientists, school children and volunteers of all ages. By contrast, diving is a specialised vocation and executed after considerable training needing expensive equipment, something outside the capabilities of most people.

There has been substantial funding and challenges in controlling COTS outbreaks, but this new technology of using underwater drones has the potential to supplement current control methods. There is a higher efficiency rate with underwater drones and also lower operational cost than with divers. Divers are limited by how long they can spend underwater in ‘bottom time’ and historically this has been forty minutes, four times a day “for logistical and Occupational Health and Safety reasons”.[Cited in 11] Maximum operating time for an underwater drone is dependent on battery life, but an underwater drone with surface power is available from around $12,000 AUD. This can allow for continuous injections of COTS not limited by divers’ time at the bottom. Down Deep Drones aims at a rate of one injection every two minutes in areas of greatest density of the starfish, or ten every 20 minutes. According to GBRMPA, between 2023 and 2024, 50,227 COTS starfish were culled in 16,657 hours.[12] This equates to only one starfish culled every 20 minutes! These figures are different from those quoted by Dr. Beeden, but the figures could be still be accurate and may be from different time periods.

As stated by QUT “Currently human divers are equipping themselves and eradicating this starfish from targeted sites, however there aren’t sufficient divers to cover all the COTS hotspots across the Great Barrier Reef.”[13] Additionally “the scale of COTS outbreaks on reefs across the GBR far exceeds the resources that are available.”[11]

Areas of the GBR are surveyed for COTS using a ‘manta tow’. This is when a diver is towed behind a vessel for observational purposes, and then assesses the extent of impact from a COTS outbreak and records the data. An underwater drone could be towed by a vessel and complete the survey quicker, with greater accuracy, without potential injury and with 4K video evidence.

Conclusions: Advantages of citizen science using drones

Greater community engagement could be fostered with the use of the underwater drone for COTS control, providing a sense of ownership and responsibility towards reef conservation. The technique also allows for continuous monitoring and rapid response to outbreaks. The inclusion of 4K video capabilities and real-time streaming to YouTube allows unparalleled monitoring and data collection. This transparency and real-time data relay can engage and inform the public, increase accountability and provide valuable information for ongoing research and adaptive management strategies. By leveraging advanced technology, cost-effective production, and widespread community engagement, it offers a scalable and sustainable solution to a persistent environmental challenge.

This is a draft article currently undergoing peer review. Critical feedback is invited. For more information on underwater drones, read https://scienceqld.org/2024/07/26/underwater-drones/

References

[1] DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water). (n.d.). Crown-of-thorns starfish control program: Great Barrier Reef. Retrieved from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/great-barrier-reef/case-studies/crown-of-thorns/

[2] AIMS (Australian Institute of Marine Science). (n.d.). Causes of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks. Retrieved from https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/environmental-issues/crown-thorns-starfish/causes-crown-thorns-starfish-outbreaks

[3] Great Barrier Reef Foundation. (n.d.). The value of the Great Barrier Reef. Retrieved from https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/the-value

[4] The Nature Conservancy. (2003). Crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) management. Retrieved from https://www.reefresilience.org/pdf/COTS_Nov2003.pdf

[5] Grimm, V., & Berger, U. (2023). Analyzing and Modeling the Dynamic Response of Marine Ecosystems to Environmental Change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 166, 105429. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001746

[6] Pratchett, M. S., Caballes, C. F., Rivera-Posada, J. A., & Sweatman, H. P. A. (2014). Limits to understanding and managing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster spp.). Oceanography and Marine Biology, 52, 133-200. doi:10.1201/b17143-4

[7] Readfearn, G. (2022, February 13). Australia is spending billions on the Great Barrier Reef – will it do any good? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/13/australia-is-spending-billions-on-the-great-barrier-reef-will-it-do-any-good

[8] “RangerBot: An Autonomous Underwater Robot for COTS Control.” Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/qcr/Projects/cotsbot-eliminating-invasive-reef-species/ , accessed 23 July, 2024. QUT.

[9] Queensland University of Technology. (n.d.). RangerBot: Environmental monitoring using robot vision. Retrieved from https://research.qut.edu.au/qcr/Projects/rangerbot

[10] Queensland University of Technology. (n.d.). COTSbot: Eliminating invasive reef species. Retrieved from https://research.qut.edu.au/qcr/Projects/cotsbot-eliminating-invasive-reef-species/

[10A] COTS Culling ROV Field Test. (2014). Atlas of Living Australia. https://fieldcapture.ala.org.au/project/index/d9a27e47-9277-4609-8c11-ce95803373ed

[11] Fletcher C. S., Bonin M. C, Westcott D. A. (2020). An ecologically-based operational strategy for COTS Control. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited NESP Tropical Water Quality Hub. Retrieved from https://nesptropical.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NESP-TWQ-Project-3.1.1-Technical-Report-2.pdf

[12] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (n.d.). Crown-of-thorns starfish control program. Retrieved from https://www2.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/programs-and-projects/crown-thorns-starfish/Crown-of-thorns-starfish-control-program

[13] Biopixel. (n.d.). COTSbot: Robo reef protector to save the reef from the crown-of-thorns starfish. Retrieved from https://biopixel.tv/cotsbot-robo-reef-protector-to-save-the-reef-from-the-crown-of-thorns-starfish/

Table of Funding for Crown of Thorns Starfish Control: Total $255,050,000

 Disclaimer: The funding amounts presented in this table may not reflect the entire funding received for COTS control and also may contain inaccuracies (E. & O. excepted).

Related Images:

This report summarises knowledge as at 1998 of the potential threat posed by storm tides along the Queensland coast.

As single catastrophic events, extreme storm tides generated by tropical cyclones have been responsible for the largest known loss of human life from natural disasters. The report provides an overview of the issues associated with storm tides, an introduction to the physical mechanisms at work, an historical perspective and a summary of results from some of the numerous technical studies done up to the date of publication, 1998. Aspects explored include coastal zone planning, infrastructure design and community forecasting including shelter and evacuation issues. Data from existing studies is examined in terms of its currency, accuracy and applicability and recommendations for ongoing or updated analyses and research are presented.

The report is by Dr Brian Harper, then of the Coastal Management Branch, Department of Environment and Heritage. Copyright is held by the Queensland Government. QSN has been unable to locate a digital copy on any official website.

Storm Tide Threat in Queensland: History, Prediction and Relative Risks.

Related Images:

This post is based upon a presentation by robotics engineer John Griffiths and Alicia Dunn at the Norfolk Island Knowledge and Learning Centre, Norfolk Island, on 5 July 2024. It is re-published here because of the potential of this technology for cost-competitive environmental management, the control of Crown of Thorns Starfish in Queensland being just one example. For an article on COTS, see https://scienceqld.org/2024/08/20/cots/

History
Underwater drones or ROVs, short for “remotely operated vehicles”, first saw commercial use in the oil and gas industry for inspecting oil rig structures. They were giant machines the size of a large vehicle that took multiple people to deploy and control. By the 1980s, they were well recognised as being safer, more cost-effective and – with tools mounted on them – more capable than sending down divers, particularly to the depths at which most of the work required of them was conducted. However, the cost of such machines was so great that only very few industries or institutes could afford one. A few companies realised the potential of building smaller and smaller units. The cost of research and development and the low production numbers meant that they were very expensive so the uptake and awareness of their availability was very low.

The development of aerial drones saw miniaturisation of the electronic systems needed to fly them. It quickly became apparent that with changes to the software, much of those electronics could control underwater motors and could stream video to a screen through a tether, usually consisting of twisted pairs of copper inside protective casing. While these units were limited to just being able to send video with tethers less than 100 metres, and were often subject to failure-prone electronics or leaky housings, it put the price within the range of the average consumer and sparked the interest of hobbyists all over the world.

Our personal journey
Our personal journey into the world of underwater drones started on Norfolk Island at about that time – in 2015. The Island had been through a particularly bad patch of weather with very few fresh fish being caught. Frustrated with the fish options being Nile Perch or Bass freighted from the other side of the world, John Griffiths had the idea he could make a remotely controlled submarine of some sort with a spear gun on it that he could use off the rocks on the sheltered sides of the Island. He could see that the concept had considerable merit if it could be implemented. It would mean selective targeting of only the fish the user wanted, with no bycatch, providing a dependable source of high-grade protein that was environmentally sustainable and had a far lower carbon footprint than anything shipped in from overseas. It was obvious that a spear gun on an underwater drone could also be used for tagging sharks or collecting DNA for research. The problem was that nothing remotely capable of firing a spear was on the market so he set about trying to make one.

After more than a year of frying numerous electronics components in leaking PVC tubes from Bunnings and trying to find motors that would work, a guy in a backyard garage in California put some waterproof motors he had designed on Kickstarter and in the months later started making waterproof tubes, an improved motor and various components including a robotic claw. Suddenly, everything needed to make a functional underwater drone capable of firing a spear gun was available. Lots of trial and error followed with various types of spear guns and actuators. It very soon became apparent that the system that could fire a spear gun also could control any number of mechanical tools. John took the approach that his underwater drones and tools should be designed to allow for tools to be changed in matter of minutes like a tractor changing from having a post hole borer to a rotary hoe or even carrying multiple tools for various functions at the same time. What followed was year after year of constant research and development where tools as varied as pneumatic drills, golf ball collectors and crown-of-thorns starfish injectors to name a few were developed. Fast forward to now, as well as being the only makers in the world of a spear gun attachment for underwater drones, our firm designs and builds underwater drones for any purpose that has an environmental benefit. One of our designs won a NSW design award and is the most hydrodynamic industrial grade underwater drone in the world and features artificial intelligence for anomaly detection on ship hulls.

Now we are finishing the world’s first marine debris-collecting underwater drone complete with twin disc cutters and deployable grappling hook designed to remove abandoned fishing nets and lobster pots, sunken vessels, tyres or anything else damaging marine environments. All over the world, businesses that previously relied on divers to do their work, now realise that an underwater drone with the right tool is a far cheaper and more effective way to perform multiple functions at the same time.

While we focus primarily on design and building specific use underwater drones, a number of other companies have developed sophisticated electronics for these small drones so that now plug and play sonar, position holding, location tracking, temperature and depth gauges are just off-the-shelf upgrades many underwater drones are equipped with. The potential uses of underwater drones are expanding by the day and the market is increasing at a rapid rate.

Just some of things an ROV can do
1. Data collection such by high resolution video, sonar and lidar images, laser measurements, temperature and depth gauges, are now standard capabilities.
2. Food harvesting such as spearfishing, sea cucumber, sea urchin, crayfish, scallops, hook and line fishing can all be done with an ROV.
3. Also with a spear gun mounted on an ROV, shark tagging and DNA collection could be done with far less trauma and physical damage to the shark than current methods allow.
4. Invasive marine species control. An ROV equipped with our Crown of Thorns Starfish injector or the tool we have developed for rogue urchin eradication would go a long way to solving the problems that devastate large sections of the Great Barrier Reef and the kelp beds of much of NSW, Victoria, Tasmania. These are just two of the problems caused by invasive marine species world-wide. There are many other ROV-mountable tools that could be developed to address these problems.
5. Marine debris collection. Marine debris comes in many shapes and forms but we know that the breakdown of the debris is filling the ocean with tiny particles that are ending up in the entire food chain, including the seafood that we eat. A suitably equipped ROV can cut cables, wires, rope, retrieve large items with a trapping hook and airbag.
6. Infrastructure inspection for cracks from dam walls to oil rigs pylons to jetties.
7. Fish-farm net repair and removal of dead fish.
8. Search and rescue. An ROV with an air tank can power pneumatic tools such as hammers to smash into submerged vehicles or boats, while robotic arms can extricate a person. The quick deployability of an ROV makes them far better suited for the role, particularly where depth and water temperature are factors.
9. Subsea mining for the very high value minerals found concentrated on parts of the ocean floor.
10. Ship hull inspection for anomalies like cracks or even contraband and also biofouling detection.

Reducing bycatch when fishing
Fish are a great source of healthy protein and societies all over the world that have high levels of sea food in their diet tend to be in better health and live longer. Here is where an ROV equipped with either a spear gun or a hook and line can be of great assistance. A spear gun allows you to select the fish you want and if your aim is right, you almost certainly have secured dinner. A rod mounted onto the ROV with the bait dangled in front of particular fish that you see is quite effective as well. This is a tool that we have just developed.

Potential for misuse
Like any technology the potential for misuse is high and we have at times destroyed prototypes of tools developed for one purpose when we realised they could be used in a very different and destructive way in unregulated fisheries around the world. It doesn’t take much imagination to see a future where 10,000 small AI-enhanced underwater drones, with just a few extra lines of code in the software, can be thrown over the side of a vessel in international waters, with that extra code telling them all to surface next Wednesday having grabbed everything they see of a certain size and colour.

They also can be armed relatively easily and something programmed for patrolling a submarine pen could easily be directed to sink a vessel. We are watching the emergence of this type of utilisation in the Ukraine/ Russia war and no doubt it will be part of any military arsenal of the future just as aerial drones are now.

Subsea mining is another area where great harm through misuse of this technology in fragile environments could occur.

This means that our firm is very careful about what we develop, what we show and what we make available. We are very cautious about who our buyers are and what is the intended usage of that underwater drone or tool design. Like the internet or nuclear arms, in the wrong hands, the world becomes a worse place. We design and build only things that we think can make the world a better place.

Down Deep Drones

info@downdeepdrones.com
www.downdeepdrones.com
26 July 2024

Related Images: