So many excuses for Australian governments to pander to ill-informed opposition to gas

Unconventional gas from shale and coal seams now accounts for half of the gas produced in the US.  The gas bonanza has brought US gas prices to a level that is one-third of those prevailing five years ago and are about to transform the US from an energy importer to an exporter (BHP actually dodged a bullet when environmental opposition prevented it building a gas import facility in California).

gas prices

Environmental opposition to this unconventional gas is rife in the US even though the zealots in the Environmental Protection Agency have, despite exhaustive attempts, failed to find a case of mishap in upwards of 100,000 wells.  Obama too, pandering to this constituency, has prevented drilling on federal land and impeding new pipelines.  But the US is far less centralised than other nations and enough states are putting out the welcome map for this relatively new form of energy for the boom to be placed in full swing.

Not only has this meant cheaper household gas but it has provided a magnet of low energy prices for industry location – the US is the venue for a resurgence in vehicle manufacturing among other industries (not, of course in the unionized and over-regulated “rust” belt).

Unfortunately, government pandering to green mysticism and strident opposition to perceived threats to farmland by radio personality Alan Jones has politically suffocated the industry in most of Australia.  Only Queensland is moving ahead. Exploration is even banned in Victoria.  Labor in South Australia declared the state “open for business” on unconventional gas but we have yet to see this tested.  In NSW, the government has said it is banning exploration only in some sensitive areas, claimed to be about 4 per cent of the state, but the industry always considered this to be window dressing.

Now we have NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell finding the god-given excuse of Eddy Obeid corruption to gum up further activity.  Announcing a “six month” freeze, the Premier boasts, ” former Labor government granted 39 exploration licences while his government had yet to grant a single one”.  So we have impedence of development claimed as a political plus!

Australia has prospectivity for unconventional gas comparable to that of the US.  Unfortunately, we have governments that are proving themselves all too willing to sacrifice income levels and future development on the sacrifice of cautious populism.  Few people will vote for potential new wealth, while for small vociferous bodies who see no particular personal gain it can be crucial.

A perennial difficulty with the Australian federation is that political delinquency by an individual state carries less demerits than it should because of fiscal equalisation.  Some means is required to ensure that the states are better motivated to capitalise on opportunities than is presently the case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to So many excuses for Australian governments to pander to ill-informed opposition to gas

  1. Dorothy

    Alan Jones has a lot to answer for in the mis information about CSG, for what reason? Horses? I am puzzled Matt Ridley’s blog about ” the five myths about Fracking” is well worth a read.

  2. Gibbo

    Exactly right Dorothy. Jones is running a relentless campaign against CSG and sounds no different to the average greenie wing nut these days.

  3. nerblnob

    What can I say? I’m in drilling and just despair of the ignorance and hysteria surrounding shale gas and oil.

    Believe me, I’ve encountered plenty of ignorance and hysteria about what I do over the years but this is a whole new level of stupid.

  4. Dave Wane

    Alan Moran rightly uses the word “mysticism” to describe the Greens (and others including Alan Jones’) opposition to gas from shale and coal seams. Quite clearly, mysticism is the stock-in-trade of so many on the left – who believe in a whole range of weird and unproven nonsense. They do not even like Free Speech, no doubt also for some mystical reason. One wonders how far Australia, and indeed most Australian states will need to sink into the already unsustainable debt hole before they see the light and begin developing this wonderful resource? As we know the left sure know how spend (squander) our money on useless and totally unnecessary crap, but when it comes to making a dollar, have no clue other than more TAX! Of course more TAX will kill off the already severely wounded goose completely, but the left, having never produced a REAL dollar in their pathetic lives, would never understand that.

  5. wazsah

    Moomba gas volumes to NSW are in decline as AGL says in their 31/05/2013 -
    Merchant Energy Presentation
    http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=AGK&timeframe=Y&year=2013
    On page 60/66 they say – Cooper Basin gas expected to largely flow to Qld from 2015. Thats pretty soon.
    Then on p 63/66 are the amazing figures attached showing various sources for NSW. AQ (I think = Average Quantity) and Maximum Daily Quantity for now and 2017. Look how they are modelling Moomba supply to cease supplying NSW by 2017 – surely it will not happen so abrupt. Hoping NSW CSG will take up some slack in 2017 – some hope.

  6. nerblnob

    If the USA start exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, Australia’s window of opportunity will be closed. Luckily the greenies will do everything to stop West Coast USA building new LNG terminals but they’re going ahead in Louisiana.

    Guess what, the Russians are also building an LNG export terminal in their Arctic north as well, while cynically encouraging the anti fracking movements in Western Europe.

    CSG is another issue again, but arguably it’s better for the local environment to extract the gas now than leave it in the seams.

  7. johanna

    Fighting “unconventional” (I hate that word) new energy sources is the latest initiative of greenies who see their gains in suppressing CO2 emitting energy sources slipping away. It is just appalling that Alan Jones and populists in the rural sector have teamed up with the Greens on this issue, out of superstition and ignorance.

    Fracking has been practised since 1949 in the US, and is a whole lot more precise and safe these days thanks to many years of experience. Nevertheless, the ABC and other anti-energy media always precede it with the word “controversial,” having done their utmost to make it so.

    Interestingly, the EU,which has previously tried to regulate fracking out of existence, has suddenly decided to have a rethink due to recent events in Crimea, which threaten their gas supplies. It seems that perhaps its not such a potential environmental catastrophe after all, when they look at the possible alternatives (like freezing to death). Hypocrites.

  8. Pickles

    There’s loads in the Cooper. Get into it!

  9. Toiling Mass

    A friend of mine is something of a fan of Alan Jones. The one point that pursuades her of the evils of coal seam gas schemes is that prospectors are, supposedly, entitled to enter a property without the consent of the owner.

    I suspect this is a misrepresentation of some legal process which applies to all prospecting rather than pure fabrication.

    Oh, and there are rumours about some airstrip being secretly strengthened to allow aeroplanes to fly out with the gas – which would have to be the most inefficient means of transporting large volumes other than training ants to walk along highway to the city with a single molecule each pinned between their mandibles.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    Jones is a lefty who believes in law and order so he is labelled a right wing shock jock.

    He’s always been a plonker, but the biggest plonkers by far are the NSW Libs. They sicken me.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    It’s doubtful a nation has ever squandered its natural advantages as deliberately as Australia. At least the Russians can blame it on chronic alcoholism and their women being whores.

  12. Senile Old Guy

    If the USA start exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, Australia’s window of opportunity will be closed.

    Heard about the Ichthys project?

  13. davefromweewaa

    Allan Moran,
    I’d have gas wells on my farm in a heartbeat if the benefit outweighed the harm. Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment everyone else gets the benefits while the landholder gets the harm. While the gas producer gets a benefit, gas consumer gets a benefit, government gets a benefit the best the landholder can hope for is compensation. If it does wreck the aquifers we rely on, how can that be compensated?

  14. johanna

    Toiling Mass, prospectors for gas or anything else have to get an exploration permit. The landowner is notifiedof this. Then they are subject to a maze of environmental approval processes. If they are finally allowed onto private land, the landowner is compensated for any damage, can negotiate royalties, and the exploration company has to ensure that they don’t interfere with the landowner’s activities, plus make good when they leave.

    Your friend has been listening to Alan Jones and his greenie mates at Lock the Gate, no doubt.

  15. I’m generally pro-mining, and vociferously anti-green, but that does not mean that miners and mining companies never act badly in any instances. Personally, i think we should be getting away from the mining-is-bad vs mining-is-good and look at instances on their merits. Unfortunately Joe public is never provided the objective facts to be able to make an informed opinion.

    I’m all for coal-seam gas mining as long as property rights are respected and any and all environmental damage is paid for by those who make it. The current Baird debacle stinks to high heaven and shows that mining companies should essentially be treated like any other interest group and presumed to be biased and subjective.

  16. johanna

    Dave from weewaa, they go thousands of feet below the aquifers and seal the drilling holes all the way down. There are no proven instances of groundwater contamination from any of the tens of thousands of gas fracking wells drilled in the US.

    Bloody Alan Jones and the greenies again!

  17. Julian mclaren

    Just wondering how many of the CSG support commentators actually live in a CSG area, or indeed have a farm in a CSG area? I suspect probably none. Water in Australia is a precious commodity. We can’t stuff this one up. Drop the ideologue my Cat friends and think harder.

  18. nerblnob

    If the USA start exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, Australia’s window of opportunity will be closed.

    Heard about the Ichthys project?

    Of course I’ve heard of Ichthys! It’s been in planning for well over ten years. Ten bloody long years for those of us in the industry. The gas is all pre-sold to Korea, Japan and maybe Taiwan if I remember rightly. That is a done deal which can only be screwed up by technical failure or cost blowouts.. The opportunities I’m talking about are not the last ten years but the next twenty.

  19. stackja

    I am skeptical of no-harm from fracking. Cities have dams but the country folk rely on aquifers. Cities do not have farming but city folk just assume they will always have produce to eat. Why not just convince people instead of labeling critics as just crazy.

  20. Infidel Tiger

    I think we can see why Australia is fucked royally. Even here on a supposedly centre-right site we have commenters who have fallen for all the lefty bullshit about fracking.

    This country is a toilet.

  21. politichix

    johanna
    #1240233, posted on March 26, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Dave from weewaa, they go thousands of feet below the aquifers and seal the drilling holes all the way down. There are no proven instances of groundwater contamination from any of the tens of thousands of gas fracking wells drilled in the US.

    Bloody Alan Jones and the greenies again!

    I have no beef in this discussion as it’s not something I have any knowledge on but I do remember a documentary some time back (ABC I’m pretty sure) where farmers were setting light to their bore water. What was that all about?

  22. Infidel Tiger

    I have no beef in this discussion as it’s not something I have any knowledge on but I do remember a documentary some time back (ABC I’m pretty sure) where farmers were setting light to their bore water. What was that all about?

    Oh Jesus. Another Gasland victim.

    Do yourself a lemon flavour:

    Google: “Gasland debunked”

  23. politichix

    and another thing, how can Alan Jones be so well researched in the climate change debate but off base on this issue?

  24. politichix

    Jeez I just put it out there!

  25. Senile Old Guy

    Water in Australia is a precious commodity. We can’t stuff this one up. Drop the ideologue my Cat friends and think harder.

    Reread what Johanna wrote, look in the mirror and see the real ideologue.

    And water is not a short resource all over Australia, we get an average of 1.7 m — metres, not mm — ever year.

  26. Senile Old Guy

    I have no beef in this discussion as it’s not something I have any knowledge on but I do remember a documentary some time back (ABC I’m pretty sure) where farmers were setting light to their bore water.

    There’s your first mistake, believing the ABC on an environmental issue.

  27. Dave from weewaa, they go thousands of feet below the aquifers and seal the drilling holes all the way down. There are no proven instances of groundwater contamination from any of the tens of thousands of gas fracking wells drilled in the US.

    I certainly wouldn’t rely on Hollywood, but was there no merit to Erin Brokovich? I accept that such technologies improve, but that was long enough ago to be plausible, especially if they didn’t seal the drill holes.

  28. Infidel Tiger

    , but was there no merit to Erin Brokovich?

    Fuck me drunk with a barnacle encrusted barge pole.

    Erin Brockovich??? She is one of the greatest shysters and standover merchants of our time.

  29. politichix

    Ok let me try again . . .

    The documentary I saw out of the corner of my eye was the 4 Corners program Gas Leak! (their exclamation point). Australian farmers were lighting their bore pipes and dams. Was interested in what the explanation was for that from the people here who are obviously far more across the subject.

    Gasland debunked – got it. Looks to be the Inconvenient Truth of the fracking world.

  30. Gab

    There are no proven instances of groundwater contamination from any of the tens of thousands of gas fracking wells drilled in the US

    Hasn’t fracking been around since the 1950s and improved along the way? You’d think by now they’d have proof of their fracking alarmist claims.

  31. Infidel Tiger

    If only “fracking” had been coined “Nurturing” we wouldn’t be having this debate.

  32. will

    especially if they didn’t seal the drill holes.

    If the drill holes are not sealed, you don’t get the gas. or oil, as the case may be.

  33. .

    Water in Australia is a precious commodity. We can’t stuff this one up. Drop the ideologue my Cat friends and think harder.

    Ergo, allow pricing, recognition of new deep bore finds and cheap energy.

  34. JC

    Erin Brockovich??? She is one of the greatest shysters and standover merchants of our time.

    She definitely looked good when she was younger. A crook? Sure.

  35. .

    “STO contaminates Pilliga groundwater up to 20 times safe limit of pollutants”

    Up to 20 times?

    Right. So when it is diluted and filtered through the system, what level of contamination occurs? Fuck all?

    Here’s another thing: you know what the Pilliga is? How many people/stock are going to get groundwater out of there before it is diluted and filtered?

  36. johanna

    politichix, just like the much-publicised cases in the US where people get gas coming out of their kitchen tap, some bores or water wells may be in places where there are pockets of naturally occurring gas that come up with the water. I don’t know if that was what the ABC program was about, but in any event it has nothing whatever to do with fracking.

  37. JC

    We have a serious property rights problem in Australia. The property owners are certainly compensated at market value, but they don’t share in the royalties.

  38. Rohan

    I certainly wouldn’t rely on Hollywood, but was there no merit to Erin Brokovich?

    The case that made Erin Brockovich famous had nothing to do with fracking but contamination of groundwater with hexavalent chromium. This originated from a compressor station on a gas pipeline where sodium dichromate was used as an anti corrosion agent for the cooling water lines. This is actually quite soluble so it dissolved into the cooling water and wound up in the groundwater via unlined discharge ponds for the cooling towers.

  39. john constantine

    given that fracking has saved obama,isn’t it racist to tell the greatest of all kenyans that he is wrong not to ban fracking when all he has to do is pick up his phone and pen and stop it?.

  40. johanna

    Oh, and Erin Brokovitch? Facepalm. She was a self-promoting fraud.

    Looks like the greenie Kool-Aid has seeped into the water some Cats are drinking.

  41. JC

    Lol… John,

    It’s funny that the Kenyan has turned into the greatest oil&gas president in history.

  42. Token

    Alan Jones has a lot to answer for in the mis information about CSG, for what reason? Horses? I am puzzled Matt Ridley’s blog about ” the five myths about Fracking” is well worth a read.

    Has the industry developed a full list of replies to the challenges posed by the US Green-filth which AJ peddles?

    No one is going to win a fight against the hard left / Jones big government conservative Axis of Darkness ?

  43. Token

    It’s funny that the Kenyan has turned into the greatest oil&gas president in history.

    He also assured there would be no cap & trade through his incompetence over Obamacare. He promptly lost the House and won’t get it back in November.

  44. nerblnob

    Has the industry developed a full list of replies to the challenges posed by the US Green-filth which AJ peddles?

    No, because there is no point. The engineering is constrained by facts whereas critics can just make up any old shit that they think will get airtime. You’d be answering fanciful accusations from here to eternity and they’d still keep coming. Meanwhile the demand for coal , oil and gas continues and keeping up with that’s a very demanding full-time job. Why waste time trying to win over obstructionists who will do what they do regardless?

    Smart governments know how to denounce the industry while simultaneously demanding that it goes full bore so they can milk it dry with every tax, royalty and regulatory imposition of useless compliances and quotas requiring thousands of unproductive employees and contractors.

    Dumb governments do all that too but don’t know when to stop so they kill the goose that funds all their largesse. Look at Venezuela , Bolivia and Ecuador. Australia seems gripped by the same deathwish at times.

  45. cohenite

    There is no State based compensation scheme for private land-owners who have their land confiscated wholly or partially. Remember Unsworth and lately Peter Spencer. Only Federal tinkering with land ownership brings a government obligation to compensate.

    Failure to rectify this by the States is allowing the fucking greens a foot in the door with their Ludditism about gas and any viable fuel source.

  46. davefromweewaa

    Johanna,
    AFAIK coal seams are not fracked but de watered. When the water is taken out the gas can then flow up the pipe. De watering changes the pressure differentials between the layers and aquifers and that’s where the contamination risk comes in. All the sealing of the bore and the pipe counts for nought if it moves through natural faults and fissures.
    I’m willing to be convinced that it’s all OK but what you asserted does not convince me.

  47. Toiling Mass

    Thanks, Johanna.

    I was already pretty certain that prospectors for coal seam gas had to jump through as many hoops as anyone else – and were more likely to be told ‘no’ by uncomprehending bureaucrats particularly hostile to CSG.

    Government officials would have the authority simply because they don’t care about property rights, and any resources under a property, of course, belong to the state.

    I have tried to point out to this friend that Jones is siding with the Greens – that should ring alarm bells.

  48. JC

    Failure to rectify this by the States is allowing the fucking greens a foot in the door with their Ludditism about gas and any viable fuel source.

    Yep, 1000 times yep.

  49. nerblnob

    The SMH report on the Santos fine , regarding the “incident” seems reasonably accurate , despite the headline attempting to imply that the EPA is in the dock and needs to defend the low fine.

    My take on it is that there was no justification for a fine at all but they had to be seen to be “doing” something.

    Nobody was even aware of the so-called leak until Santos took over the pond, decommissioned it, then as per their usual practice, investigated, tested and reported to the EPA themselves when they found some uranium etc. So much for the environmental disaster.

  50. johanna

    dave from weewaa – what would be the source of contamination in coalseam gas extraction? All that they do is slowly pump the water out of the coal seam, which allows the gas (usually methane) to rise to the surface. It doesn’t involve adding any new substances to the equation.

  51. incoherent rambler

    A guarantee of royalties to the landowner and watch “concerned” landholders queue up to have exploration on their properties.

  52. nerblnob

    I’ve only been involved in one CSG operation, and there it was well-known locally that there was gas seeping out from the ground and probably in groundwater – long before any operations took place.

    In the Santos case referred to above, would anyone have previously done the exhaustive testing they did, for sake of comparison?

    Is there any overlap, I ask myself in wilder moments, between anti-CSG protestors and the people who flock to take the waters at sulphur springs?

  53. Antipodean

    Companies need land access agreements with the land holder before tgey can enter private land. IIRC that since Qld instigated some land reforms 3,000 land access agreements were put in plafe with one going to land court (in that instance a city lawyer purchased land in a planned pipe easement). Private landholders in Australia are not entitled to royalties for resources under their land. Fracking is required in approx 15% of coal seam gas wells and all shale gas wells. The production of shale/tight/csg utilise significantly differing production methodologies. fracfocus.org is a great starter for information. Shale oil production is the dark horse in all of this and is certainly under the radar in Australia at the moment. The US currently produces around 2 million barrels of oil per day of shale oil and will probably surpass Saudi Arabia by 2020 or so as the worlds top oil producer because of this. Nearly everything you hear from the ABC, the Greens Alan Jones etc is so factually incorrect as to be laughable.

  54. Blogstrop

    Great article, Alan, thanks.
    And for all those who thirst for more knowledge on the drilling process, I’ll post this link for about the fourth and maybe last time. Jones needs to wise up on this, as does O,Farrell & Friends.
    Peter Robinson, Uncommon Knowledge, Hoover Institute

  55. john constantine

    the cooper basin is where australias big time non conventional gas can pay off. decades of gas extraction,pipeline networks like the yanks have,no whinging neighbors. downside is that without scale of fracking logistics,look at the money beach energy has spent on the first genuine shale gas wells in the cooper. very big dollars,but the shale in the cooper could hold multiples of the gas that has been conventionaly extracted,and the deep coals of the cooper multiples again. australia is gas rich,rich,rich. and the cooper can drop the gas through existing infrastructure straight into the exploding populations of the eastern cities.[but the wells got to get cheaper and feel the love] how isn’t figuring out the complicated engineering needed to get access to tight reservoirs a human achievement to be proud of?.

  56. davefromweewaa

    The source of contamination Johanna, could be poor quality water from an adjacent aquifer invading the high quality aquifers we rely on. More likely tho’, would be losing high quality water from the aquifers we use to water our stock.
    How would that be compensated for?

  57. nerblnob

    The fact is, and always will be, that the general public is uninterested in the details of extractive technology and engineering until it’s presented as a scare story. You could probably say the same about any industry, certainly about farming. That goes for most of us – we can’t all be experts in everything, let alone one thing.

    That ignorance allows activists to cherry pick terms that are unknown to the wider public and take “ownership” of them through social media and other PR, and so dictate the way they are presented to the public. That’s exactly what happened with “fracking” .

    When the fuss first hit the headlines most drillers and completion engineers were scratching their heads and wondering why, of all the operations they could pick on, the anti-hydrocarbon activists selected fracking.

    Then they were laughing when the saw the sheer improbability of the claims and propaganda. Surely people would see through that! Now they’re just exasperated and many are very angry at the way they’ve been misrepresented . But still they are few …

  58. Anto

    I don’t have a problem with unconventional gas, per se. I believe that the aquifer and fracking “chemicals” arguments are overblown.

    However, I have a major problem with companies and governments being able to override landholder objections and come in without due regard for their rights. Hell, even traditional aboriginal claimants who don’t live anywhere near drilling tenements have more rights than freehold owners.

    My main objection here, however, is that I don’t think most people are aware of the economics (or lack thereof) regarding unconventional oil and gas economics. The reason why these tight reservoirs have not been developed in the past is only partly due to lower prices. The argument that we didn’t have the technology to drill horizontally and frack multiply is a load of rubbish. That tech has existed for decades.

    No, what was lacking in the past was a whole lot of gullible investors who didn’t understand the decline rates of these fields, versus the potential economics of drilling them. In some locations it can be either a breakeven or mildly profitable proposition. However, in the vast majority of cases, investors are being sold a pup here, along similar lines to the dodgy traffic projections used by promoters of tollroads.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?src=tptw&_r=0

  59. johanna

    dave, I don’t understand the mechanisms by which that would happen.

    You do understand that the coal stays there, which stabilises the geology, and that the water being extracted is not from the aquifer?

    I’m glad you’ve raised this, because it is important to understand what people’s concerns are and why they have them.

  60. Bruce of Newcastle

    Its hard to tell exactly the environmental merits of a particular CSG extraction without the specifics of the individual project. It might be a simple answer to say any water discharged must be drinking water standard, and leave it at that. That would require all effluent to be RO treated, or if low ionic concentration IX treated, before discharge. The plus with this approach is drinking water standard water would be better than any natural water. The farmers would love it.

    And there is the rub. Most natural waters are pretty dirty, particularly if flows a low. At a site I worked at in the eighties the local creek flowing on to site had to be treated before it could be allowed to flow off site. It was ‘way to full of manganese and iron for it to meet the EPA set limits we had to meet.

    And at another site it was even worse. The local state government decided to tighten effluent discharge specs. We were required to meet a spec of 5 ppb copper in our discharge…which was fine, we could do that, and did. But the licence required us to meet the spec after diluting with seawater 10:1. Seawater has a natural copper content of 6 ppb, which meant that after diluting our effluent it was impossible to ever meet the licence conditions. Stupid. And this was twenty years ago.

    This problem of clueless regulators may be an issue now. The state EPA’s are so influenced by green pressure and an ignorant public they have a hard time not imposing ridiculous effluent licences. They tend in such circumstances to default to a ‘zero discharge’ rule. But if the water produced is drinking water standard the farmers would actually benefit. I don’t know enough about the details, but such a standard would be at least a qualified win-win. It would possibly add a prohibitive capital cost to the well economics, but at least the decision would be on practical economics not ideology or emotion.

  61. johanna

    Really, Anto, the NY Times as a source? Why not go the whole hog and cite Green Left Weekly?

    Look, if investors think it is worth a go, and it doesn’t work out, it is their loss. Why is it anyone else’s concern?

    And thanks, Bruce, for your post. It just highlights what a fog of disinformation there is floating around in the rural community. In a rational world, they’d be jumping for joy at the prospect of someone else providing free water for their properties.

  62. nerblnob

    It might be a simple answer to say any water discharged must be drinking water standard

    Then what if the local water was brackish and there was some adapted species that relied on that? Uproar!

  63. nerblnob

    Look, if investors think it is worth a go, and it doesn’t work out, it is their loss. Why is it anyone else’s concern?

    That seems to be the latest tactic of the obstructionists – financial scaremongering. When oil was $50/bbl, tight oil shales were considered uneconomical at anything less than $85/bbl. That takes into account the life of the field and all that stuff. Now that oil has stayed over $85, the sheer volume of tight shale work in North America has spurred development and driven down costs so they can probably break even at $70-ish.

    Sure, some people will bet wrong and lose. Just like is happening to renewables investors in Europe now that the subsidy floor under wind and solar is being lowered, if not exactly whipped away. Oil & gas has always been high risk, high reward and when it succeeds, still delivers in spades to tax collectors as well as investors.

  64. davefromweewaa
    #1240222, posted on March 26, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    Allan Moran,
    I’d have gas wells on my farm in a heartbeat if the benefit outweighed the harm. Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment everyone else gets the benefits while the landholder gets the harm. While the gas producer gets a benefit, gas consumer gets a benefit, government gets a benefit the best the landholder can hope for is compensation.

    +100
    I could take all day & list some of the downside (for the landholder) to having exploration/drilling occur, I can’t think of a positive.
    If actual resource extraction or transport happens, the landholder really gets the royal order of the shaft.

    Why would landholders do anything but bitterly oppose something that has downside aplenty, and no upside?

  65. entropy

    johanna
    #1240294, posted on March 26, 2014 at 7:55 pm
    politichix, just like the much-publicised cases in the US where people get gas coming out of their kitchen tap, some bores or water wells may be in places where there are pockets of naturally occurring gas that come up with the water. I don’t know if that was what the ABC program was about, but in any event it has nothing whatever to do with fracking.

    I remember visiting this chap in the maranoa in the eighties and we had great fun setting alight the air above a bore. The point is, ground methane emissions is naturally occurring in a lot of cases, and some stock and domestic bores can actually be in coal seams where the water isn’t too brackish. Pull water out and hey presto, you get gas.

    I am bemused at the latest MLA plan to investigate contaminants in stock water in CSG areas. Point is, bore water residuals in meat carcasses hasn’t been extensively tested before (and importer countries haven’t looked for it) and a lot of stock and domestic bores could easily be in or closely associated with coal seams, even if a CSG operation is nowhere near it. But as it is drinkable, they have never been properly tested for contaminants at minor levels that some shyster might want to implement as a non tariff trade barrier. This may just open up a can of worms that may have been better left unexamined.

  66. entropy

    I’d have gas wells on my farm in a heartbeat if the benefit outweighed the harm. Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment everyone else gets the benefits while the landholder gets the harm. While the gas producer gets a benefit, gas consumer gets a benefit, government gets a benefit the best the landholder can hope for is compensation.

    NSW needs to adopt the Qld system. Yes it is compensation, but it is generous compensation. And that revenue stream yeps reduce risk for the rest of your business.
    Get 30 wells on your place? 30*$3k = $90,000 clear pa (More if your are a cropper and even more if an irrigator), with no input costs on your part. The CSG company even puts roads down, maintains them and compensates you for the road. You lose 30 ha for the wells plus roads, but that annual revenue means that you get income during drought. Think about that. Best drought proofing I have ever heard of.

  67. johanna

    Steve, the Queensland government has just introduced a fast-track approval process for projects where the landowner and the company agree a deal within 40 days. This, in effect, means that the landowner gets a cash payment or a royalty in return for not holding up the process.

    Seems to me like a very sensible move.

  68. davefromweewaa

    Johanna,
    The geology may be stable but changing the relative pressures between aquifers is likely to cause water to move from one to another. Aquifers are not necessarily totally discrete from each other.

  69. entropy

    Don’t know much about the Surat basin in NSW, but in the Qld part of the Surat basin there is usually considerable stone layers between coal seams and the aquifers used for stock water. There isn’t a lot of connectivity, but they would have to be some, even the minimal amount is enough to cause a pressure differential. And that is towards the coal seam of course. So the most likely negative outcome is a drop in the water levels in sub artesian bores, rather than contamination. Easy enough to make good by putting the pump in deeper, or getting a bigger pump. In Qld the CSG company has to pay for that.

  70. Looks like the greenie Kool-Aid has seeped into the water some Cats are drinking.

    It was an open question, Johanna. We’re talking about Holloywood after all, a movie about a lawyer, played by an actress with a reputation for being anything other than the everywoman presented in the movie.

  71. Anto

    johanna,

    I’m no big fan of the NY Times, myself. However in this instance they are merely the messenger. The sources are many, many individuals involved in the industry itself talking about it in emails. Read them.

    I saw this a couple of years ago and started looking into it. It’s no fantasy – the economics of these tight formation gas and oil projects are appalling. Many remind me of dotcom economics.

  72. cohenite

    Frack Nation have a nice little primer about the myths of fracking.

  73. johanna

    Dave,

    Johanna,
    The geology may be stable but changing the relative pressures between aquifers is likely to cause water to move from one to another. Aquifers are not necessarily totally discrete from each other.

    Well (and I am not a geologist) I still don’t understand the issue. A minor earth tremor might have far worse effects. And I don’t see how extracting water from a coal seam (which is not an aquifer) has anything to do with it. What “relative pressures between aquifers” are you discussing here?

  74. davefromweewaa

    Entropy, Johanna,
    The trouble is if it does wreck the aquifers this country is not very useful or valuable.
    If we had Jed Clampett, Beverley Hillbilly style freehold title I’d probably view it differently. We wouldn’t be talking about $50,ooo to host a gas well then, more like 50%. We could compensate ourselves at that rate!

  75. cohenite

    I’m afraid dave is just parroting the green mantra of pristine nature and the corrupting influence of man; say after me: nature good, human bad.

    Corporate governance and land-owner rights are one thing; this fucking lock the gate is another. The US EPA tried for a decade with the bitch Jackson in charge to find a water contamination charge against the frackers which would stick: nothing, which is why the bastards are now flat out trying to criminalise CO2; with that done any fossil fuel will be attackable.

  76. davefromweewaa

    Johanna,
    If a coal seam has water in it (as they do) it is an aquifer.

  77. Anto

    But as it is drinkable, they have never been properly tested for contaminants at minor levels that some shyster might want to implement as a non tariff trade barrier. This may just open up a can of worms that may have been better left unexamined.

    Now, now, entropy. You’ve just given the vegan watermelons ideas!

    Anyone who thinks that bore water is in some magical way pristine is ignorant. Just as ignorant as anyone who thinking the fracking compounds (mainly sand, BTW) are in any way more “toxic” than the oil and gas which is being pumped. That stuff’s down there anyway, otherwise they wouldn’t be drilling for it.

    Ignorant, as well, of the reasons why this fracturing is required in the first place – viz. the structures are tight and don’t flow readily. So any fracturing only releases fluids and gases in the immediate vicinity of the hole. Beyond a few tens of metres away from the hole itself, there is virtually no seekage, because…(drumroll)….the formation is TIGHT!

    Think about it for a second – oil and gas require airtight “traps” underground, which survive for millions of years intact, in order to become reservoirs. Any area which water has been able to penetrate is not, by definition, an oil or gas trap. If it’s permeable enough to admit water, there won’t be any oil or gas there (at least, not enough worth producing from).

    I wish that people would use their heads from time to time.

  78. johanna

    This is typical of how the spineless and stupid NSW government is treating CSG proposals>:

    Leichhardt, which has held three petroleum exploration licences near Moree since April 2009, is being given 21 days to respond to a “show cause” notice, which asks it to justify why the licences shouldn’t be cancelled.

    Under NSW legislation, a licence may be cancelled on a number of grounds, including contravention of conditions, failure to use title areas in good faith or for the purpose the titles were granted.

    On its website, Leichhardt, which also holds onshore licences in Victoria, says it is “owned and managed by technical and commercial staff with over 50 years of combined industry experience.”

    Mr Roberts said in the statement it was “too easy for speculators and cowboys to be granted” licences over large areas of land with little regulation and oversight.

    The government didn’t explain its reservations around Leichhardt Resources.

    So, the NSW government is crowing that it is enforcing the rules that have applied to all licences since forever, with the claim that it is cracking down on ” CSG cowboys.” All this to appease Alan Jones, the Greens and people in rural areas that they ought to be providing with the kind of information that is available with a few minutes of googling.

    Why don’t they just hang up a sign at the border that says CLOSED.

  79. davefromweewaa

    Not at all Cohenite.
    I can’t live without stuff that is mined or drilled so I wouldn’t want anyone else to go without either.
    I just haven’t been convinced that my interests won’t be harmed to a much greater level than it is possible to be “compensated” for.

  80. johanna

    Dave said:

    If a coal seam has water in it (as they do) it is an aquifer.

    Dave, while I’m no geologist, your arguments are starting to sound a bit suspicious to this experienced troll-sniffer. The gas is trapped in the coal seam because it is sealed. How would taking water out of it contaminate other aquifers?

  81. entropy

    The coal seams are aquifers, Johanna. In fact some coal seam water is OK for stock water and is used without treatment. Other places there might be contaminants in sufficient quantity like flourines and other nasties, or bicarbonate enough to make it too brackish to drink. The risk of contamination from the seam itself is low. The risk comes from the water brought to the surface*, or poor well construction. But we know a lot about bores and well construction. Been doing it for generations.

    * the recent piliga contamination of a surface lens aquifer was a leak from a pond, not the seam or a well.

    Oh, nice to know your concerns can be satisfied at a price, Dave.

  82. nerblnob

    But we know a lot about bores and well construction. Been doing it for generations.

    No, you’ll never know as much as an obstructionist who’s seen a website. They just “know”.

  83. Anto

    johanna,

    You need to distinguish between the various gas sources. CSG is different from shale gas, which is different from conventional (but tight formation) gas.

    Some of the techniques used to extract them (such as horizontal drilling) are similar, however CSG drilling doesn’t require fracking. Intead, CSG production normally requires dewatering, whereas shale and tight formation horizontal drilling requires fracking and the injection of water into “dry” reservoirs. The desired end product is largely the same, but the formation you are extracting it from is different.

    Coal seam gas is usually extracted from seams of coal which are either too deep or not rich enough to be extracted for their coal content. However, coal absorbs water readily and is relatively close to the surface. If coal is too far below the surface, pressures compress it into shales. Much tighter molecular structure, under higher pressures, which allow little water in (for desireable formations). Then, there are rocks at depth (mainly sandstones and similar) which are traditional conventional oil and gas-bearing structures. They need to be surrounded by harder, non-permeable rocks to create traps. If the sandstones are lose enough, drilling into these traps will flow conventional oil or gas. However, if they are too tight, they will require fracking to flow (and even then, there is no guarantee you will end up with decent flowrates).

  84. Anto

    I would argue that CSG is far more environmentally concerning than fracking for shale or tight oil/gas formations, because you end up pumping millions of litres of saline and minerally water (you know – the stuff the greenies love, because it’s from the water table) from below the surface, up to the surface. It’s “dirty” water and there’s heaps of it. It can easily contaminate the land once it’s up here, rather than down there.

  85. nerblnob

    CSG drilling doesn’t require fracking

    Sometimes it does. Do you actually know anything or are you just repeating hearsay and propaganda?

  86. johanna

    Thanks for the gratutious lesson, Anto. As a mere wymminses, how could I be expected to know these things, you condescending turd. If you had bothered to read my comments properly, you might have noticed that I did indeed understand and make those distinctions.

    Entropy, read my comment. I never said that they weren’t aquifers (I mentioned “other aquifers”). See above for your editorial bias.

    The question of what to do with water extracted from coalseams has been admirably discussed by Bruce of Newcastle above.

    Getting back to the topic, the bottom line is that communities and politicians are utterly ignorant about the various means of gas and coal extraction, and very vulnerable to greenie propaganda. The industry needs to get onto the front foot, and cowardly governments like that in NSW need to stop pandering to baseless fears. They need to send a positive message, with an opportunity for landowners to make a quid (as Queensland has) instead.

  87. entropy

    Sorry Johanna, I was going on the chap from wee wa’s interpretation of your comment. Should have known better.

  88. Bruce of Newcastle

    A guy called Scot MacDonald, who is a MLC and a country Liberal, has an opinion comment on CSG in the Tele this morning:

    Scaremongering is weapon of choice to promote division

    He makes some very good points:

    Over 35 years working and living in regional NSW, I have seen what looked like insurmountable threats confronted and dealt with rationally. In the 1980s, cotton farmers’ water and chemical practices had serious environmental impacts, but with goodwill and communication they now have world’s best practice natural resource credentials.

    The Murray Darling Basin reforms caused enormous tensions, but have largely been resolved with effective dialogue among stakeholders, even as farmers lost 2750 gigalitres from productive agriculture.

    Every time these sorts of issues have cropped up, the Greens fly in, put out a media release, do a few interviews and stir up the community. Their sum contribution has usually been to delay adjustment and put communities under greater strain.

    The townspeople and farmers I know want a balanced, fair, safe outcome from resource development. That balance has been achieved many times before. We understand the regions can benefit from mining jobs when jobs are hard to find.

    Where there is a will there’s a practical way, but the Greens stand in the way for religious reasons. They should be dealt with firmly for their mendacity.

  89. Andrew of Randwick

    nerblnob #1240188, posted on March 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    If the USA start exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, Australia’s window of opportunity will be closed. Luckily the greenies will do everything to stop West Coast USA building new LNG terminals but they’re going ahead in Louisiana.
    Guess what, the Russians are also building an LNG export terminal in their Arctic north as well, while cynically encouraging the anti fracking movements in Western Europe.

    .
    It is not the Arctic North we should worry about – that will supply Europe.
    The ‘window of opportunity’ for Australia to export to Asia is closing faster than ET getting into bed. Russia’s new pipeline and liquefaction plant will be up in Vladivostok before 2019.

    Gas reserves in fields in Yakutia and Irkutsk region allow to create a center for export to the Asia -Pacific region….According to Miller , the LNG plant in Vladivostok will be built by 2018. “In terms of volume is not less than 10 million tons , the timing – 2018″, he told reporters on Monday …Preference is given to liquefaction because “markets in the Asia -Pacific region are primarily markets for LNG”… In particular , Japan is the largest LNG market, “One hundred percent of the Japanese market for gas – is LNG”, said the head of Gazprom.
    He also reported on the progress in the negotiation of a contract for the supply of Russian gas to China, “I can tell , there is a new dynamic in the negotiations” said Miller reporters on Monday
    Implementation of the Eastern program will supply gas to the Asia-Pacific market and may even exceed the exports were made in Europe, Miller said …He stressed that the Asia-Pacific market is far-reaching and dynamic. “In the very next time we will be able to create capacity to export gas , which would be comparable to gas supplies to Europe , and perhaps even surpass it” he said.

  90. nerblnob

    Thanks Andrew, I hadn’t been noticing about the Vladivostok plant because I’m chasing work in Yamal and it was from a big operator there that I heard about the planned LNG plant in the north. But it doesn’t surprise me.

  91. rickw

    “My main objection here, however, is that I don’t think most people are aware of the economics (or lack thereof) regarding unconventional oil and gas economics. The reason why these tight reservoirs have not been developed in the past is only partly due to lower prices. The argument that we didn’t have the technology to drill horizontally and frack multiply is a load of rubbish. That tech has existed for decades.”

    Why don’t you do some research on the technological breakthrough of fracking? A number of people made a huge amount of money by purchasing rights to tight reserviors and keeping their fracking technology breakthrough under wraps.

  92. Combine Dave

    6) Fracking uses a lot of dangerous chemicals
    Fracking fluid is 98.5% water, 1% sand, and 0.5% chemical additives. Some of these additives are also used in making ice cream! Colorado’s Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, drank fracking fluid to prove its safety to his local residents.
    But these are still chemicals and we should be scared of them – that is the cry of the fracktivists. But water is a chemical. Coffee has a whole bunch of chemicals in it. Everything is a chemical. Don’t be duped by bad science (like the people these American comedians convinced to ban the scary sounding ‘dihydrogen monoxide’).

    10) Fracking destroys the landscape and disturbs bucolic rural America
    The process of fracking (which is separate from drilling) is noisy and looks messy – for a few days. Then the land is reclaimed and the industry moves on to the next area. All the scary photos of huge machinery and big trucks are taken during this initial process. Which is a bit like photographing the building site of a half-built house and saying all house-building should be banned. As a filmmaker, my biggest problem was trying to film working gas wells in a way that would look interesting. They are tiny and often hidden behind hills or behind bushes and trees.
    Oh, and fracking does create traffic. That claim is true. Locals call this ‘jobs’. They generally like it. They may complain sometimes but they know that the only thing worse than traffic in rural America is no traffic.

    From the link provided earlier – http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/ten_big_fat_lies_about_fracking/13944#.UzNRO_RkD3n

    So why should we ban (regulate is a different thing) CSG if there are no proven cases that it causes problems, it doesn’t disfigure the environment and it’s likely to provide plenty of jobs and enrich the Australian people?

  93. nerblnob

    Dave, they might use fracking occasionally in CSG but apart from that it doesn’t have much in common with tight shale extraction except both come under the industry heading of “unconventional gas” .

    It does give obstructionists new terms to pick over and frighten the public with.

    It’s a kind of grab bag heading – a couple of years ago I attended a forum on “unconventional drilling” and the technical presentations ranged from deepwater to geothermal to shale oil & gas. Each of these is a big enough topic to have its own specialist meetings, and they do.

  94. Joe Goodacre

    It appears that this debate regarding the environment credentials of fracking is a symptom of our current system of property rights.

    If landowners owned everything below the ground, they would be able to assess whether the rewards justified the environmental risks. It would be no one elses business.

    I can see Dave’s perspective – the risk is not being properly compensated. Environmental agencies are unable to do what the market does automatically – compare the relative benefits and risks.

    It’s easy for people on here to say there is no problem when it’s not their land or livelihood at risk.

  95. .

    Best drought proofing I have ever heard of.

    A better system is to recognise drilling new bore water sources and to expand the total pool of entitlements accordingly.

    People could actually make a living looking for water.

  96. Joe Goodacre

    To be clear – I have no opinion on the relative safety vs benefits of fracking and acknowledge that I probably lack the background, time or experience to have an informed opinion.

    What stands out to me about the current debate is that third parties who are not directly affected are telling landowners not to worry about technology or processes which affect their property. Something is wrong about the system of property rights which puts that power in the hands of ignorant third parties, whether they be Alan Jones or people who are for fracking.

  97. Combine Dave

    I can see Dave’s perspective – the risk is not being properly compensated. Environmental agencies are unable to do what the market does automatically – compare the relative benefits and risks.

    It’s easy for people on here to say there is no problem when it’s not their land or livelihood at risk.

    Fair point. Interesting side note; if it ever occurs (and it hasn’t here nor in America) that land is devastated and unfit for producing livestock/crop etc.. wouldn’t the farmer be able to recoup their costs from the company extracting CSG? Or sue the state for approving extraction and failing to monitor a company’s operations that didn’t comply with existing and stringent regulation?

  98. nerblnob

    It’s easy for people on here to say there is no problem when it’s not their land or livelihood at risk

    .
    Conversely, if anti-CSG activism was only done by people whose land is “at risk” then where would all the publicity come from?

    I would never tell anyone there is no risk ever in any activity, be it fracking or farming. But I don’t need to be in, or saying I’m in, Wee Waa or Wyong to point out misconceptions and mistruths.

    if it ever occurs (and it hasn’t here nor in America) that land is devastated and unfit for producing livestock/crop etc.. wouldn’t the farmer be able to recoup their costs from the company extracting CSG?

    The game isn’t to wait for that to happen, because the chances somewhere between low and nonexistent. The game is to raise such a stink about how it might happen until you get substantial payoffs. I’ve done enough drilling in farming areas in other countries to see how it works.

  99. Joe Goodacre

    Combine Dave,

    Interesting side note; if it ever occurs (and it hasn’t here nor in America) that land is devastated and unfit for producing livestock/crop etc.. wouldn’t the farmer be able to recoup their costs from the company extracting CSG? Or sue the state for approving extraction and failing to monitor a company’s operations that didn’t comply with existing and stringent regulation?

    I don’t know. I would suspect that if it were possible, the process would be drawn out and a causative link may be difficult to susbstantiate.

  100. Joe Goodacre

    nerblnob,

    Conversely, if anti-CSG activism was only done by people whose land is “at risk” then where would all the publicity come from?

    I suspect that there would be less activism on behalf of landowners if the property rights were appropriately defined. If the landowners owners owned the CSG and were a fully consenting party to the development, they’d probably be the ones telling the activists to take a hike.

    The game isn’t to wait for that to happen, because the chances somewhere between low and nonexistent. The game is to raise such a stink about how it might happen until you get substantial payoffs. I’ve done enough drilling in farming areas in other countries to see how it works.

    We shouldn’t be surprised that they are raising a stink and looking for substantial payoffs – this is their only alternative since private property rights and competition are unable to draw out the market price for CSG risk.

    As to their being low risks of these things developing – Firstly – most people aren’t experts on this issue. Even if they are experts, to profess knowledge of the geography and unique characteristics of each aquifer, the effect of those risks on the market value of each property and to have confidence that our current science can separate different causative variables is in my view, missplaced. Hayek has said many times that simply because we can’t prove something, has no bearing on the whether it’s correct or not. A system of compensation has at its premise the onus on the victim to establish causation and related damages. That puts all the risk on the current science and understanding being incomplete, on the farmers.

    If you work in the industry, the current situation may allow you to profit from a poor distribution of benefits vs the risk of costs. By all means advocate for the property rights to be appropriately defined. If farmers are currently obtaining payoffs that overstate the risk, competition will draw this out and you’ll get more work. I don’t think it’s appropriate to go out correcting ‘misconceptions’ which presumably would lead to more fracking when others bear the costs if you’re wrong regarding the risks and potential harm.

  101. wreckage

    I know guys who can’t wait for their land to be explored for fracking, because it’ll generate some really good data on what water is where down there.

  102. wreckage

    I don’t think it’s appropriate to go out correcting ‘misconceptions’ which presumably would lead to more fracking when others bear the costs if you’re wrong regarding the risks and potential harm.

    It’s perfectly appropriate to correct ignorance and outright lies!

    Others are already bearing the cost of spiraling energy prices, which are ruining entire industries, driving up the cost of living for every household in Australia, and ironically enough, perpetuating our total economic dependence on mining. You’re asserting that the possibly-maybe, scientifically disproven risks are worse than the actual problems we are experiencing right now. There is zero basis for that.

    I was perfectly happy to accommodate any and all exploration on the family farm up until the drought pushed us off the land around 2011. A gas well would have gone a long way to providing us with the alternative income we needed to survive that.

  103. Suggest you take a drive along the Cecil Plains – Dalby road some time.
    Every property has a “Shut the gate” sign posted.
    Either these farmers are all stupid, or they have real concerns about the future of their enterprises.

  104. Joe Goodacre

    wreckage,

    My point is that ignorance is justified (it should be no one elses business) and calling current assertions of potential harm ‘outright lies’ assumes that the future won’t illustrate any gaps in the current science. There is a chance that the current science isn’t the full story, and people are not being compensated for that risk eventuating.

    I don’t want higher energy prices either, however I think it’s wrong for people to profit in the form of lower gas prices while others bear the costs of those risks.

    Your personal experience with the family farm would demonstrate my point that some farmers would determine the risks worth the guaranteed income. Other famers may either have more productive or dorught resistant farm land where a higher risk premium is attached to aquifers they rely on. Farms in high rainfall areas may put a lower premium on these risks. Conservative farmers who are more worried about the health of their family or livestock than the average farmer may put a higher premium on again. An appropriately defined, market based system draws out the true preferences of the people affected, as opposed to the current stance where farmers who don’t want to undertake the risks, are being forced to expend time and effort to avoid those risks.

  105. .

    1735099
    #1241072, posted on March 27, 2014 at 11:56 am
    Suggest you take a drive along the Cecil Plains – Dalby road some time.
    Every property has a “Shut the gate” sign posted.

    Lies. There is already extraction in the area.

  106. Lies. There is already extraction in the area.

    Really?
    When were you there last?
    I drove that road on the way back from a job in St George in November last year.
    It’s not the usual route I take, but I diverted to avoid road works on the Warrego between Dalby and Toowoomba.
    Only two property gates of thirty three lacked one of the triangular signs.
    I counted them very carefully.

  107. Andrew

    At least the Russians can blame it on chronic alcoholism and their women being whores.

    Au contraire, Russian whores are the best in the world and a major contributor to their GDP. Ranking 3rd after Gazprom and their absurdly overpriced hotels.

  108. johanna

    Good thread – I learned a few things.

    Keep them coming, as ignorance reigns supreme on energy extraction topics.

  109. .

    1735099
    #1241121, posted on March 27, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    Lies. There is already extraction in the area.

    Really?
    When were you there last?

    Stop lying. Maybe you want to explain why gas is extracted from the area, with no wells.

    You perfidious dickhead.

  110. They’re not extracting on the flood plains east of Cecil Plains, the area I’m referring to.
    There is strong local resistance, and has been for years.

  111. .

    Every property has a “Shut the gate” sign posted.

    You drove past every property?

    Tipton is south of Dalby, and the field is east of the road.

  112. .

    Note

    http://queenslandeconomywatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/csg.png

    From Surat Basin Population Report, 2012

    There are a few wells east of the Dalby-Cecil plains road (other than Tipton).

    They’re not extracting on the flood plains east of Cecil Plains

    Yes, they are.

  113. johanna

    Gosh, dot, you caught Numbers out in a lie?

    Go straight to the Catallaxy Board of Excellence. Mind you, there are one or two on the Board who have done the same. :)

  114. You drove past every property?

    I drove past every property on the Dalby – Cecil Plains road. Tipton is accessed by a road to the right as you head north, and the majority of the signs are between the Tipton turnoff and the intersection with the Gore Highway.
    Tipton is a relatively old field (exploited in 2007) and it’s because of negative experience with this project that the farmers have their backs up.
    Based on the way they’ve been treated by Arrow, they’ve become militant – something unusual in this neck of the woods.

  115. .

    Tipton is accessed by a road to the right as you head north

    Which would be to the east.

    They’re not extracting on the flood plains east of Cecil Plains, the area I’m referring to.

    LOL

  116. You call anything that causes you discomfort a lie.
    Fact is, CSQ mining is strongly resisted on this prime farming country, so strongly that it has the LNP government worried, and there is a great deal of double talk and arse covering going on, particularly by Geoff Seeney.
    Better go back and have a look at your map. It clearly shows the bulk of the wells are to the west. Activity around Tipton, and the contempt shown by the Arrow personnel to them has the local farmers’ backs up.

    This map is much more useful.

  117. .

    It clearly shows the bulk of the wells are to the west.

    As is the gas and outline of the tenement.

    You were wrong, Numbers. Give it up, please.

  118. As is the gas and outline of the tenement.

    That’s precisely what I pointed out above. Thank you.

  119. .

    Most of the gas and wells. No one disputed this.

    You said there were NO wells east of the Dalby-Cecil Plains Road. You said EVERY farmer there opposed CSG.

    You were wrong.

  120. You said EVERY farmer there opposed CSG.

    No – you’re verballing.
    I reported a fact – that almost every farm gate displayed a “shut the gate” sign.
    That knocks a hole in your sunny view of the world, so you start throwing out ad hom abuse.
    There is one well, and on the basis of the hassle that has caused, there will be a helluva stoush if Arrow try to sink any more.
    That’s the state of play – I couldn’t care less whether you accept it or not.

  121. .

    There is one well, and on the basis of the hassle that has caused, there will be a helluva stoush if Arrow try to sink any more.

    There is more than one. Can’t you read a map, dummy?

    1735099
    #1241072, posted on March 27, 2014 at 11:56 am
    Suggest you take a drive along the Cecil Plains – Dalby road some time.
    Every property has a “Shut the gate” sign posted.

    (But you also counted ["very carefully"] 31/33 with the signs – maybe you aren’t capable of teaching children?)

  122. .

    No – you’re verballing.

    LOL!

  123. I’m capable of believing what I see.
    I don’t indulge in denial.
    Suggest you visit a farm or two out that way and tell them what wonderful people Arrow energy are.
    These are generally polite and generous folk, but you’d pretty swiftly get a size ten up your rear.

  124. .

    Why don’t you suggest to them that 31/33 = 100%, you dolt? Maybe you want to suggest a new GIS system where “to the right facing ‘North’” would see you turning ‘West’?

    I’m guessing I’d be helping them kicking your arse back to “remote” Toowoobma with my white size 11 shoes.

    This perfidy is up there with your absurd claims about fast food workers being on 457 Visas.

    You really have no clue numbers.

  125. “remote” Toowoobma (sic)

    Calm down – you’re losing it…..

  126. .

    Whilst I am not familiar with local indigenous place names, I am aware of left and right, where east is on a map and that 31/33 is not equal to 100%.

    Utterly pathetic. You’re full of shit numbers. No one cares pal.

    Arrow energy (sic)

    Dickhead.

  127. .

    Note at 12:35 pm numbers made the same unfortunate gaffe as I did at 6:10 pm, misspelling, according to him, an indigenous place name. (Not that I really care).

    However, he concluded that I was “losing it”…whatever that means.

    Ergo he flipped out early. It must be hard to be so full of shit and front up bright eyed and bushy tailed all of the time.

  128. (Not that I really care).

    So why are you going on about it?

  129. lotocoti

    You know how this will go, Dot.
    Every becomes almost every becomes a lot becomes some becomes two.
    Of course our friend only drives past, he doesn’t have the opportunity to discover if that sign is there because of the unlicenced bore(s) or there is coincidently a surprising amount of smokable herbage thriving just outside the boundary fence and just inside the state forest.

  130. Gab

    I reported a fact – that almost every farm gate displayed a “shut the gate” sign.

    Let’s rewind the tape:

    #1241072, posted on March 27, 2014 at 11:56 am
    Suggest you take a drive along the Cecil Plains – Dalby road some time.
    Every property has a “Shut the gate” sign posted.

    Why do you bother, Dot? We all know he lies but what did you get out of the exchange? Did you learn anything new from him? Did he change your mind about anything?

  131. .

    1735099
    #1241648, posted on March 27, 2014 at 6:20 pm
    Bless you my son…..

    No, bless you, dear.

    You lied about CSG extraction east of Dalby. You were confused about where east lay on a map. You lied about the level of opposition to the CSG technology. You purported to support mathematical nonsense to support your lies.

    You have previously lied about the economy of rural QLD to support the radically unpopular ideas you want to foist upon everyone else (the prime example being 457 visas being issued for fast food workers).

    You are a vacuous idiot and reasonable people will not be dictated to by you. We will have CSG if you like it or not, and if you dislike the market economy which pays for your sorry arse or not. No one cares about your perfidious tales and slapped up, bullshit anecdotes. You then resort to the “I’m an unlikeable dickhead teacher resorting to spellchecking” and lose that one as well, after you demonstrate an inability to count, perform arithmetic or know left from right.

    Bye.

  132. what did you get out of the exchange?

    Good question – probably meant the poor old cat got kicked again….

  133. John Mc

    Ole’ mate also forgets to mention there is quite a large pro-CSG community here as well. No matter how much some people want to romanticise about the future of farming – and our farmers are important although most of them aren’t making much of a living from farming alone – the main driver of growth and living standards on the Darling Downs will remain the energy industry.

  134. Bruce of Newcastle

    If anyone wants to drill in my backyard for CSG they are welcome. My access fees are quite reasonable. And yes you could probably extract CSG from some of the remaining seams under my house, even though the main ones have been mined out.

    Which serves to illustrate one thing not addressed so far. The state owns the resource but the farmer controls the surface access. So it is entirely within the right of the landholder to rent access to, and the footprint of, a CSG wellhead. So they can monetise the deal.

    If there are any enterprising lawyers out there you now have a brief for a quite juicy business. I suspect many farmers may find excellent reasons to welcome CSG drilling if the terms are suitable.

  135. Pete

    Dave from weewaa says “If a coal seam has water in it (as they do) it is an aquifer”

    categorically wrong and illustrative of how the greens have been able to manipulate the debate. An aquifer has a language definition (permeable material (rock) from which groundwater can be extracted).

    any capable reservoir engineer calculates pressure of rock depth according to a hydrostatic gradient of 0.4331 ps/ift

    why would that be that if you are in the middle of the yilgarn craton and you wanted to determine the rock pressure at 1000m that you would multiple the depth by the hydrostatic pressure ?

    Its because every single open pore or crack or fracture of anywhere on the surface of the earth down to at least 5000m is filled with…….yup you guessed it water

    Just because it is a coal seam filled with water DOES NOT MEAN its an aquifer and even if it is…..does that matter ?

    1) The water present is often connate water ie it effectively formed from exsolving from the water present in the peat after the effects of pressure and temperature following burial. It was there when the rock/shale/coal was laid down
    3) Even if you can pump the water it doesn’t mean its an aquifer – drill a hole 2 km down the road and its dry as buggery – the permeability has changed and it is not continuous
    4) Even if you can pump the water it might be non potable -ie > 500ppm TDS. so long as you treat it its fine – no different to a coastal desalination plant (except they are much saltier min 80,000ppm TDS vs the worst CSG at 10,000 ppm TDS)
    5) Any conventional oil/gas field in the cooper was trapped by aquifer action but you dont want to drink the water. Instead you put it to good use by you reinjecting it to maintain reservoir pressure
    6) And all that water pumped out of the Cadna Owie formation in the great artesian basin in the last 60 years or more – what effect has that had on different deeper or shallower acquifer formations such as the Hutton or Hooray ?

    Nothing. Nada , Zip

    The primary influence is from recharge zones at outcrop. No rains or floods less ingress at recharge zones. More rains and floods more ingress at recharge zones. The separating less permeable acquicludes prevent cross migration quite effectively

    So just how much water are the CSG guys taking ? About the equivalent of the water consumption 80,000 Ha of cotton

    and how much cotton is grown in aust ? about 535400 Ha

    quick ban it too

    oh I forgot. Greenies are the farmers besty new friends

  136. johanna

    For the sake of argument, I am prepared to concede that the water in a coalseam is an “aquifer.” But, so what?

  137. johanna

    Oh, and I note that as soon as my trollsniffer nose was applied to Dave of Wee Waa, he vanished.

  138. nerblnob

    So just how much water are the CSG guys taking ? About the equivalent of the water consumption 80,000 Ha of cotton

    and how much cotton is grown in aust ? about 535400 Ha

    Much of it around Wee Waa, no?

    Au contraire, Russian whores are the best in the world and a major contributor to their GDP. Ranking 3rd after Gazprom and their absurdly overpriced hotels.

    You might be just a bit out of date. I was just in Moscow and I’d say it’s absurd for anyone from Australia to accuse Russia of overpriced hotels. Plenty of good hotels at reasonable prices. The hookers don’t pursue you any more unless you go to the few remaining hotel’s that are known for hookers pursuing you. “Pursue” as in blow smoke rings in your general direction.

    We shouldn’t be surprised that they are raising a stink and looking for substantial payoffs – this is their only alternative

    Rubbish – it’s a new alternative that arrived on their doorstep and some are incredibly cynical about milking it. Most farmers are not that bad, and still do OK out of it.

    If you work in the industry, the current situation may allow you to profit from a poor distribution of benefits vs the risk of costs.

    It doesn’t. I have nothing to do with CSG at the moment, and am unlikely to in future. The drilling is not particularly challenging. Although of course I know drilling people worldwide and some who are involved in CSG. If you are a recipient of public funding in the shape of wages, benefits or facilities in Australia, then you are getting more out of CSG than I ever will.

  139. wazsah

    Bruce of Newcastle says -
    [The state owns the resource but the farmer controls the surface access.]
    Not quite Bruce – the resource explorer has to agree with the farmer over access – but within reasonable guidelines set by the various State Act / regulations / precedent etc. There is always court where the explorer can go as a last resort to get the access he requires to comply with conditions on his exploration licence.

Comments are closed.