NSW starts unwinding mining rights

There are few people who can lay claim to radically changing the law of property as it has been defined in Australia over the past century and more. 

Alan Jones is one such.  The overwhelmingly sensible courses of actions he normally pushes have gone seriously astray on the issue of coal seam mining.  He incorrectly sees this activity as ruining good farmland and posing unacceptable risks to ground water. 

The evidence is overwhelming that neither poses problems.  Agriculture continues virtually unmolested from the activities of gas extractions and there is handsome restitution from any incidental harm farmers might incur.   

As far as damage is concerned the best endeavours of the US Environment Protection Agency has failed to find a single case of contamination.  And this is in the US where exploration and production is progressing at a rate that can only be dreamed of in Australia.   Over 45,000 wells were sunk in the US during 2012 alone.    The number of wells sunk amounts to under 10,000 in Queensland, less than 1,000 in NSW and zero in Victoria. 

Because the usual radical anti-business activists have been joined in opposing unconventional gas extraction by Alan Jones with his enormous radio following, the NSW and Victorian governments’ economic judgements have collapsed in a heap.   

Victoria has put an indefinite moratorium even on the search for the gas. 

NSW, having first welcomed it, then announced restricted areas (said to comprise around 4 per cent of the state).  It has now said it will “enforce” CSG license requirements and is cancelling Petroleum Exploration Licences awarded to those “without fiancial security or industry expertise” saying “under Labor Government, it was too easy for speculators and cowboys to be granted licences over large areas”.   All explorers are, of course, speculators and, Eddie Obeid notwithstanding, the raging against the small, underfinanced explorer who has been the leading discoverer of mineral deposits is misplaced.  Moreover, it is completely contrary to the fostering of small business that the Coalition says it favours. 

Oddly enough, the Liberal NSW Government has given the Aboriginal Land Council (ALC) pre-cursor “Petroleum Special Purpose Applications” covering over one third of the state, even though the ALC has no history or expertise in conducting exploration activities.  The government has even sunk an expensive exploration well (ostensibly looking for a site for carbon capture and storage) in one of the four exploration licence areas the ALC has been awarded. 

Property rights

For over a century, mineral rights have been vested in “the crown”.  That means they are transferred to whoever finds them, with some increasingly extortionate share of this seized by the government.  This is efficient since it gives maximum incentive to the party best placed to make a discovery to expend resources and energies in that activity.  If the one doing all the work were required to give a share to a passive landowner, less is available for search activity and fewer searches will take place.  Australia’s regime, until the depredations of Rudd et al had led to us obtaining some 16 per cent of global exploration spending.  The Mabo judgement paved the way to giving aboriginals forms of rights over a great deal of Australia and hence raised the cost of exploration in virgin areas. 

Now, in order to circumnavigate the perfidious activities of lock-the-gate and other miscreants NSW has given landowners a veto over coal seam gas mining. 

This will clearly be followed by vetos over mining generally and means the landowner will be able to extract a share of an income stream that they had no part in creating. 

Everyone loves farmers but giving them a share of the results of exploration must mean less exploration is undertaken and fewer new developments.  There is no free lunch.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to NSW starts unwinding mining rights

  1. Token

    This will clearly be followed by vetos over mining generally and means the landowner will be able to extract a share of an income stream that they had no part in creating.

    Everyone loves farmers but giving them a share of the results of exploration must mean less exploration is undertaken and fewer new developments. There is no free lunch.

    I am interested to see a digest of the issues AJ has raised and the responses:

    1. Addressing or dismissing the concern, and
    2. How the relevant groups in industry, government & the relevant political parties have addressed these concerns & communicated them

    One reality is AJ jumped onto this issue and has done damage.

    Another is there were real issues the farmers needed to have addressed, but the groups I mention in #2 chose to ignore with the result that the old lefty rule of power has taken hold.

    There is a political failure hear which AJ & the Green-filth have exploited. Can we discuss this as well as bagging the opportunistic radio host looking for easy ratings out?

  2. Token

    Now, in order to circumnavigate the perfidious activities of lock-the-gate and other miscreants NSW has given landowners a veto over coal seam gas mining.

    The NSW government would be in a stronger position if the Minister who stood up to AJ had not had to stand down to face questions from ICAC over donations, in the manner he did dragging the government into the Obeid mire:

    A former adviser to then NSW energy minister Chris Hartcher did research for Obeid family associate Nick Di Girolamo who was lobbying the O’Farrell government for a controversial mine on the central coast, a corruption inquiry has heard.

    Give credit to the O’Farrell government for trying to tough this out for as long as they did.

  3. Gab

    As far as damage is concerned the best endeavours of the US Environment Protection Agency has failed to find a single case of contamination.

    As the climate scam is in its death throes, another evidence-free unscientific scam emerges from the flat-earthers. Like the climate science scam, anti-coal seam gas will end up costing us billions in lost jobs, increasing power prices, and securing cheaper fuel for the future.

  4. stackja

    US Environment Protection Agency

    So Obama’s EPA is not being influenced? I am skeptical!

    Everyone loves farmers but giving them a share of the results of exploration must mean less exploration is undertaken and fewer new developments. There is no free lunch.

    Then why are the farmers expected to carry the whole result?
    I would not like CSG drilling or whatever in my backyard!

  5. wreckage

    Am I crazy… or shouldn’t the market sort this out? Farmers aren’t going to be able to extort mining companies, because mining companies are competitive and don’t have mountains of cash sitting around just begging for an open purse to fall into. In fact, if farmers have veto, surely we can then remove all the layers of State veto, warmly and comfortably assured that the farmers can stop the development if they want to…

    …this could lead to liberalization. After all, Victoria had zero wells under the previous vestment in “the crown”, ie, the Parliament, ie., the next election. If farmers in “high value areas” can veto, the respective department doesn’t need to. Meantime, farmers with larger areas, and less averse to exploration, will win. Fuck the silvertails and their four generations of farming, bring the drills west.

  6. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    I strongly feel that the chief task of the economic theorist or political philosopher should be to operate on public opinion to make politically possible what today may be politically impossible.
    — Friedrich von Hayek

    Stop the criticism and convince people.

  7. Johno

    Victoria has put an indefinite moratorium even on the search for the gas.

    That would bloody useless, Denis Napthine’s Socialist government of Victoria.

  8. William

    It was arrived at tortuously and perhaps unintentionally; but the NSW (Liberal!) government has just created a new class of rent seeker.

  9. wreckage

    Frankly, I see this as a positive development in property rights. Now, if farmers could green-flavoured property grabs by the State as well, things would really be looking up.

    I dare to think that perhaps a positive precedent has been set.

    Let’s not forget that under the Carr government farmer’s land-ownership rights were effectively zero if there were trees involved, or, in fact, native grasses. Which meant farmers didn’t own anything above the dirt, the environmental agencies did, and they didn’t own anything UNDER the dirt, the holder of exploration rights did; nor did they own groundwater or run-off, the State did. At least now farmers own SOMETHING.

  10. wreckage

    …could VETO green-washed property grabs, rather.

  11. Rabz

    Hi Alans,

    Any chance of you two eminences getting together in person at a public forum for a full and frank exchange of views on this controversial topic?

    Yours,

    A concerned citizen

  12. Token

    Let’s not forget that under the Carr government farmer’s land-ownership rights were effectively zero if there were trees involved, or, in fact, native grasses.

    …or Eco-crucifixes.

    This whole CSG issue blew up out over the Windfarm issue and AJ often drift back to & links this with that topic.

  13. wreckage

    The less the crown owns the better. Don’t see how you can call that a hi-alan. I’ve been posting here for years and my conservatarian/libertarative credentials are beyond reproach. ‘Sides, I don’t own a farm anymore, so you can relax your sphincter.

  14. wreckage

    Token: exactly. The problem here is that there were very nearly literally no property rights left to farmers. Sure, they picked the fight they could win, but that’s a point that only matters to armchair generals – and not very good ones at that.

  15. .

    What if someone wanted to rexamine the Darling oil basin? Would we let it go ahead with heaps of exploration and perhaps extraction or would we tie down the economy for the benefit of a few wealthy shit stirrers like AJ and Kate Baillieu?

  16. Baldrick

    Everyone loves farmers but giving them a share of the results of exploration must mean less exploration is undertaken and fewer new developments. There is no free lunch.

    Make no mistake, the lock-the-gate greenfilth, in its efforts to harass, threaten and intimidate landowners and companies who engage in CSG, have already taken a toll on new exploration and developments. They’re enjoying their free lunch at the expense of State revenue and jobs and you’re worried if a farmer gets a share of the results? Your sentiments seem a bit misplaced.

  17. David

    Victoria has put an indefinite moratorium even on the search for the gas

    Napthine and Co have just about shut down the bloody State. Just finishing off what Bracks and Brumby started.

    We need another Henry Bolte or Jeff Kennett. The State is in a state of post-coital somnolence; i.e. we’re screwed well and truly.

  18. Infidel Tiger

    So when Labor are in power the ACTU run the country and when the Liberals are in 2GB takeover?

    What a toilet of a country.

  19. duncanm

    At what point do miners become landholders to get around this new law?

  20. wazsah

    stackja says – [Then why are the farmers expected to carry the whole result?
    I would not like CSG drilling or whatever in my backyard!]
    Farmers in no way carry “the whole result”
    Farmers never owned the mineral rights – check your titles.
    Farmers should be more than compensated for any exploration or oil n gas extraction activity.
    We are entering on a slippery slope here with the NSW Govt making ill considered revolutionary new resources policy on the fly.

  21. Rabz

    The less the crown owns the better. Don’t see how you can call that a hi-alan. I’ve been posting here for years and my conservatarian/libertarative credentials are beyond reproach. ‘Sides, I don’t own a farm anymore, so you can relax your sphincter.

    What the fuck are you on about?

    My comment was addressed to Messrs. Moran and Jones.

  22. Token

    Everyone loves farmers but giving them a share of the results of exploration must mean less exploration is undertaken and fewer new developments. There is no free lunch.

    Alan, I am sorry I did not acknowledge this is one of the few articles ANYWHERE that seeks to address the issues.

    I am interested to hear another of the claims around Water Rights. The statement is regularly made that where as farmers rights to water will be reduced according to all the Green-filth inspired controls inposed during the 2000s drought, miners kept to keep their entitlements.

    This may be true to ensure the by-products from the process get treated, but it needs to be addressed seriously. What about the controls to ensure a flood does not spread the un-treated wasted across the district and get into the water supply?

    Australia does not have the consistent water supplies of much of North America and in the country so much of the politics in rural Australia is directly related to supply of water.

  23. Mike

    AJ might have the “Cheshire Cat ” smile wiped off his face when the farmers he has been trying to protect suddenly see a quick quid and line up the miners for the best deal. There are some farmers out there who are very happy with the income derived by shaking hands with coal seam gas miners.

  24. Ripper

    I dare to think that perhaps a positive precedent has been set.

    I agree. There is no shortage of gas exploration in the states where the landholder owns what is underneath the surface.
    IIRC the States seized these property rights in the early 1900′s

  25. Ripper

    There are some farmers out there who are very happy with the income derived by shaking hands with coal seam gas miners.

    And this will give them more leverage.

  26. .

    Very droll, waszah…that is an “acceptable” form of mining.

  27. lotocoti

    Then why are the farmers expected to carry the whole result?

    They get paid for the lease.
    It’s pretty funny when you’ve got farmers who’ll happily laser level a couple of hundred hectares complaining about well head footprints and demanding sound levels below ambient, yet run heavy equipment from sunrise to sunset.

  28. .

    Anyway – if oil was found out west, no doubt various harridans and other enemies of civilisation would protest and demand what I outlined above. That is, the AJ and KB manifesto.

  29. Token

    …when the farmers he has been trying to protect suddenly see a quick quid and line up the miners for the best deal.

    He has that covered.

    He does not demonise them for “giving up and taking the cash, soon to discover the money received does not match the…”, but he does bleat about those “left behind”.

  30. Perfidious Albino

    Agree with your analysis, but at least farmers are more likely to take a more commercial / economic approach vs a vehemently ideological opposition to CSG.

  31. James B

    Uhhh, Alan, you really dun goofed with this article. What sort of statist are you? Land owners should ALWAYS be able to decide what occurs on their property and what doesn’t. If there is CSG on a person’s property, they’ll get rich. That’s a good thing. You want the state to continue to own everything and disregard land owners “for the greater good”?

    Disgusting statist. I used to respect you mate.

  32. Gab

    Then why are the farmers expected to carry the whole result?

    What does this sentence mean?

    I would not like CSG drilling or whatever in my backyard!

    One farmer in QLD is receiving $245,000 per annum so that the energy cmpy can develop 19 wells and 35 kilometres of pipelines on uncultivated parts of his property. Not a bad deal at all and in Qld, CSG accounts for 90% of the state’s gas supply. Maybe no one listens to Alan Jones in Qld.

  33. lotocoti

    At what point do miners become landholders to get around this new law?

    I don’t know, but I’ve been told more than one company in QLD has decided it’s easier to buy a property they really want access to.
    No doubt AJ will next decide that only horny handed sons of the soil should be allowed to own land.

  34. alan moran

    Wreckage Stackja
    Everyone should be free to buy and sell their own property. Undiscovered mineral resources are held in custody by the state and given to the discoverer less a (hopefully) modest and stable stream of royalty payments that go back to the government. The discoverer/miner must also provide restitution for any costs imposed on the landowner.

    If the undiscovered rights are vested to another party (the surface landowner) that person will demand some compensation for their exploitation and, as the mineral development industry is highly competitive, would expect to get a large chunk of the (economic) rents however they are defined. This means an additional cost at the exploration stage, a cost that adds no value and which must mean less exploration and then less production.

  35. wazsah

    James B – I think Alan has set out the situation very fair – the State owns the mineral rights – they licence technically competent and funded explorers to explore in defined areas. There never was anything to stop a group of farmers – or a group of pensioner ladies or gentlemen from funding / forming XYZ Oil & Gas Exploration – hiring expert petroleum consultants and getting on the gravy train. That is how the system of mineral rights that Australia adopted has worked for centuries.

  36. Myrddin Seren

    NSW state election in a year’s time.

    Absolutely nothing will be done to encourage resource sector development in NSW before then.

    In fact – every mine, smelter, refinery or drilling rig that shuts between now and then will be greeted with a huge sigh of relief by all sides in Macquarie Street.

    It will simply be fingers crossed by all the parties that NSW doesn’t run out of gas or suffer power blackouts before the election such as to shake the electorate out of its slumber that somehow the lights will stay on, the stove will keep burning and taxes, royalties, wages and export revenues will keep magically rolling in to pay for all the conveniences of modern life.

  37. stackja

    wazsah
    #1250885, posted on April 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    I know land title limits.
    Why not drill in capital city CBD?
    Or in suburban areas ?
    Why only on farm land?

  38. Pickles

    It is easier to but land and lease it back. Santos did this in the Cooper years back at Nockatunga and Keehi, then leased it back to the original owner (Packer, from memory). Might be a way to unlock farm capital tied up in land and apply it to production?

  39. Ed

    There is no evidence, no scientific evidence at all, for the crusade against CSG. It’s all just ignorant, anti-science, anti-progress fearmongering.
    The greenies have one this one. Thanks for playing.

  40. Ed

    from the link.

    Any Landholder must be allowed to freely express their views on the type of drilling operations that should or should not take place on their land without criticism, pressure, harassment or intimidation.

    “without criticism”.
    If a landholder rants against CSG, you’re not allowed to criticise the landholder’s views. That’s the law.

  41. lotocoti

    Or in suburban areas ?

    QGC is more than welcome in my back yard.
    However, unlike somewhere out in the boonies where land might be valued at a couple of hundred bucks per hectare, the Dept of Natural Resources and Mines has valued my land at a tad over $1200 per square metre.
    A long term lease would allow me to make a cash offer for Tasmania.

  42. Joe

    State ownership of mineral rights is a throw back to the days of the King owned everything by divine right.
    If property ownership is to be taken seriously, then the property owner should be the sole determinant of what does and does not happen on or to their property.

  43. The Pugilist

    Alan, if you talk to some of our lefty ‘mates’, all land and everything underneath it is owned by the crown and we are lucky that the crown only takes what they do.

  44. lotocoti

    Packer, from memory

    Yep.
    And he must have made a fortune selling grog from the Noccundra pub to the Jackson blokes.

  45. Ed

    Who is running around inside the Liberal party, agitating for these policies?
    Whoever it is, is very good at what they do.

  46. Ed

    That was a rhetorical question, not a request to name names. (that would be a very bad idea….)

  47. wazsah

    stackja –
    I am not against oil n gas drilling in and around urban areas if it comes to that. But that has been banned in NSW and the subject of Alan’s article is nothing to do with urban areas.
    I am sure that in the USA – there are chapter & verse cases of oil wells pumping away for decades near urban areas making people rich. I realise probably under a system where the landowner owns the mineral rights.

  48. wazsah

    Joe and The Pugilist – Our system of Crown owned mineral rights is nothing to do with “divine rights of kings” – it is all about the fact that mineral bodies occur in shapes and sizes nothing to do with land boundaries. So our system evolved to allow for the efficient exploiting of orebodies for the benefit of all society.
    Crown ownership of mineral rights is not a left-right issue – it is a workable solution to permit the orderly development of mineral products that the entire economy needs.

  49. .

    Waszah – allodial title works in the US. Let’s have that over medievalisms.

  50. The Pugilist

    Wazsah, my point was not a substantial one. But I kid you not, I had a heated discussion with a lefty scum lawyer (BIRM) where I was told that there’s no such thing as private property and I should be thankful I am ‘allowed’ to live in my house on what is crown land. The state could send in the jackboots at anytime and presumably throw me into a re-education camp. I really hate the left…

  51. Alex Davidson

    The libertarian position on property rights is that resources cannot be owned simply by decree, but remain un-owned until someone exercises control over them. From then on, ownership – i.e. the right to exercise exclusive control over the owned resource – is exchanged voluntarily and by agreement. The reason why this principle is necessary and ethical is that it avoids ‘might is right.’

    Applying those principles to this debate leads to the following conclusions:

    1. The government doesn’t own the minerals under my property, but neither do I, unless I am able to exercise control over them, e.g. by mining them or fencing them off somehow.

    2. Minerals mined from under the ground are owned by the first to exercise control over them, or by whoever that party transfers them to by contract. The idea that they are owned by the government is simply ownership by decree, i.e. might is right. It leads to the mantra so often repeated by the left that minerals in the ground are owned by all Australians and therefore all Australians are entitled to a free lunch.

    3. If my ability to exercise exclusive control over my own property is diminished by someone else, then I have the right to take action against them, proportionate to the resulting loss of control.

    Another point: there is a difference between landholder and landowner. A landholder could be a leaseholder, and clearly does not have the same rights as a landowner.

  52. Grigory M

    If property ownership is to be taken seriously, then the property owner should be the sole determinant of what does and does not happen on or to their property.

    +10

  53. K D H Ainsworth

    Dear Alan,

    As one of the very early supporters of “Lock The Gate” i know the organization well. I supported the organization, saw who joined it, who was running it and who showed up at the rallies. From the outset, the idea of locking the gate was even stronger than the organization. The idea came from two people. One of the political centre and the other of the political right. I am of the latter and also of a libertarian bent. The people running Lock The Gate are certainly not predominantly of the left and many don’t vote for the traditional Greens. As the Greens political party very evidently don’t reflect the dominant views of many in LTG. This has not stopped the greens (and the nationals) from attempting to exercise their influence and co-opt ideas. Some of the people in LTG are the usual green suspects. But overall the group is politically diverse and not dominated by a political faction. United by the idea of protecting the land for its highest and best use. It was the National Party and Greens that attempted to politicize the group and return matters to tribal fidelities.

    If one goes back into history, the entire basis of private property was determined by a trade off for “the kings gold”. Gold being the most valuable commodity of the day. The monarch exchanged rights to private property for access to gold. This has been expanded to include all minerals in the modern era. It is absolutely and entirely reasonable for private landholders to seek to update this ancient arrangement as times change.

    Clean Food, Clean Water and Clean air are essentials for a modern society. These come before all else. Contrary to your assertions, where Coal Seam Gas extraction has occurred, there have been major problems with air and water contamination. There is a big difference between the Shale Fracking you use for your comparisons and coal bed fracking. Coal Seam Gas mining has all but been abandoned due to water contamination issues in the United States. There are far less problems with Shale Fracking. But that’s not what is occurring in Australia outside of the cooper basin. A location i have very little opposition to.

    The issue in this debate is the changing values of the constituents. Many people now hold what would be considered moderate right wing green views. They’re right wing greenies. A political class unknown to Australia but growing rapidly. For these people the Greens we know on the national stage now are the shoe that doesn’t fit the foot. Hence the political movement in the major parties on this issue.

    Lock The Gate did run a very successful strategy. It had people in it responsible for strategy who were graduates in advertising, commerce, engineering and miscellaneous other disciplines from the finest universities on the planet. Including Harvard, Oxford, Berkeley, Bond and others. It had determined people with common sense on the ground, who were fiercely committed to protecting their land for future generations. It had people in the media who believed in their hearts this was a story that needed to be told and fought for. A good idea tends to adverse itself and attract the highest calibre people.

    Greens of the right and i’d venture to say, society in general, understand the value of mining. They also understands that food and water come before TV’s and computers. The price for this trade-off is the price that will be paid. The electorate can be trusted in its judgement.

  54. johninoxley

    I have no problem mining in farmland. Come to an arrangement with the farmer. Why do miners have to come to an arrangement with aboriginal land ownwers. It is time to piss off governments that give money to the do nothing scumsuckers that inhabit this country. This country was built on doer’s, not the lazy layabout entitlement demanding scum. We work to support our families….. not the lazy shits that live in government accommodation that dont look after them. I’m surprised that people haven’t been shot going onto land that does’nt belong to them. But then again, I’m a finisher, not a starter.

  55. entropy

    James B
    #1250908, posted on April 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    Uhhh, Alan, you really dun goofed with this article. What sort of statist are you? Land owners should ALWAYS be able to decide what occurs on their property and what doesn’t. If there is CSG on a person’s property, they’ll get rich. That’s a good thing. You want the state to continue to own everything and disregard land owners “for the greater good”?

    if the landholder had paid a price for that land that reflects the value of the minerals, you might have a point. But they haven’t.

    All that will happen is the CSG company will find the weakest neighbour in a group, buy them out through a shell company to hide who they are, take the land put of agriculture, sink their wells then horizontal drill under the neighbours, who get nothing. Will increase costs to the CSG company, but still less than if they had to negotiate access with each one.

  56. AP

    Ainsworth, there are so many factual and logical errors in your argument, I find it hard to know where to begin.

    No one disputes that food, air and water are essential. But these are barely adequate pre requisites for stone age society, let alone “modern” society! Hydrocarbon fuels and electricity are essential for modern society. How else would we manufacture and power all those pokies?

    Your assertions regarding contamination are far from the truth. Little known to many people is that gas drainage has been a necessary precurser to underground coal mining for many decades. This has occured quietly and without environmental harm. I have been to visit one mine nigh on 15 years ago that had around 20 megawatts of installed gas generation capacity, fuelled by the gas extracted from the coal. The list of fraccing chemicals include names commonly found in your kitchen pantry. Indeed, by far the most extensively used ingredients are water and clean sand.

    You assert that there are “far less (sic) problems with Shale Fracking (sic)”. This is an interesting perspective, given the shockumentary that is played on endless rotation by your type (Gasland) is almost exclusively about shale gas, not coal seam gas.

    It is unfortunate that activists such as yourself have such a poor understanding of the industry. The least you could do before you destroy people’s livelihoods is to educate yourself. Your organisations are quite evidently echo chambers of misinformation, driven by fear or ignorance. You have unwittingly let yourselves become “polyezniy idiots”, useful tools of the causes of the communist left.

  57. jupes

    A good idea tends to adverse itself and attract the highest calibre people.

    And a bad idea tends to attract fuckwits.

  58. AP

    Now, will the NSW government please announce that coal seam gas is royalty-free.

  59. Gab

    U.S. Coalbed Methane Gas production 1989 – 2011 (aka CSG) has been steadily increasing in the US until 2011 where we start to see a slight drop as efficiencies in shale gas takes over. Still, today, CSG accounts for ~7% of gas production in the US and is forecasted to continue a;beit at slightly lower rates; it’s been around since the late 80s and I don’t ever recall the hysterics and carry-on about it that we are seeing now.

  60. nerblnob

    It had people in it responsible for strategy who were graduates in advertising, commerce, engineering and miscellaneous other disciplines from the finest universities on the planet.

    What kind of engineering? We live in a world where IT nerds are called “engineers”.

  61. Infidel Tiger

    That’s a note perfect “Hi Alanism” from Ainsworth above.

  62. twostix

    The people running Lock The Gate are certainly not predominantly of the left and many don’t vote for the traditional Greens.

    Liar.

    Lock The Gate is nothing but a meta front group for every hard green-left Activist group and the Greens Party.

    That is clear.

    No farmer who went to a Lock The Gate meeting would sit through two (two!) “Welcome To Country” ceremonies.

    Nor would they sit in a group with the following groups also being “represented”:

    CONOS (Conservation of North Ocean Shores), Northern Rivers Guardians,
    Keerong Concerned Citizens, Gold Coast,
    Barrington Gloucester Stratford Preservation Alliance,
    Rising Tide Newcastle,
    Tweed Climate Clime Action Now,
    Keerrong Gas Squad,
    Hunter Valley Protection Alliance,
    Raise Awareness Collective,
    Sydney Residents Against CSG,
    Nimbin, Friends of the Earth Brisbane,
    Rural & Regional Greens QLD,

  63. twostix

    Peter Firminger of Lock The Gate and about half a dozen of them flooded a thread about CSG, they came here and started crowing and accusing us of being paid shills.

    Peter Firminger of Lock The Gate and about half a dozen of them flooded a thread about CSG, they came here and started crowing and accusing us of being paid shills.

    Turned out he’s your typical ABC ex-employee, ex APS tree change wanker:

    Peter (Freddie) Firmfinger is not a a salt of the earth farmer type but a lunatic fascist Geeen activist posing as one.

    His resume reads like a an Inner City Greenie with lots of “chair positions” on various arts and “action groups” with a couple of decades in the ABC and APS:

    Vice-Chair
    Wollombi Valley Against Gas Extraction Inc
    Committee Member Valley Artists
    Public Officer Greater Wollombi Communities Alliance Inc
    Public Officer and Treasurer Web Industry Proffessionals Association Incorporated
    Committee Member Wollombi Valley Arts Council Inc
    Co-Chair Web Standards Group
    Director Web Essentials Pty Ltd
    Web Manager Australian Museum
    Production Director ABC Radio (2BL 702)

    Everytime CSG comes up Lock the Gate clowns come marching into this place pretending to not be luvvie greenie lunatics. Your lies might work with the farmers out the the sticks fella but they won’t work here.

  64. Free Advice

    Err am I missing something? Aren’t the property rights the owner of the land, i.e. the Farmer?
    Just like waking up one day and everyone wants your land because suddenly it’s desirable because of ots location then surely this extend to any minerals beneath it.
    Whilst I normally love you guys, trying to argue that property
    Rights extend to the coal miner trying to jump the gate and not the farmer is like arguing that black is white.
    What next? Round is square? Come on guys, Lift your game!

  65. twostix

    Oh and Barry O’farrell is the worst NSW premier since Jack Lang and I think I might vote NSW Labor next election just to spite the stupid dimwitted clown.

  66. twostix

    trying to argue that property
    Rights extend to the coal miner trying to jump the gate and not the farmer is like arguing that black is white.

    If farmers want to argue that the minerals under their feet belong to them I’ll back them all the way.

    Instead they jump into bed with the communist green-left. Now there’s a good strategy.

  67. Grigory M

    Err am I missing something?

    Free Advice – it seems that way. Mineral rights have vested in the Crown forever and a day in Australia. The Landowner essentially owns only the surface area.

  68. Gab

    Mineral rights have vested in the Crown forever and a day in Australia.

    Since 1851.

  69. JC

    Stix

    The farmers have a reasonable point. The State government takes the royalty and merely compensates the farmer at market value for land use. No wonder they’re siding with the evil bastards. And it even gets more appalling, as the state governments are closing down the extraction potential because they’re worried about a backlash, so no one ends up with the royalty and we won’t consume cheap gas.
    It’s a fucking miserable state of affairs.

    Perhaps things would quickly change if the state governments agreed to share the royalty instead of glomming it .

  70. Free Advice

    Don’t confuse property rights with mineral rights.
    Whilst the landowner might not own the gold beneath his feet, he sure has the right to decide who if any comes on to his or her property to dig for the gold, and what rent they pay.
    Just because I have a lovely rare rosewood tree on my property doesn’t mean anyone can come and chop it down to use for a guitar!

  71. twostix

    The farmers have a reasonable point. The State government takes the royalty and merely compensates the farmer at market value for land use. No wonder they’re siding with the evil bastards. And it even gets more appalling, as the state governments are closing down the extraction potential because they’re worried about a backlash, so no one ends up with the royalty and we won’t consume cheap gas.
    It’s a fucking miserable state of affairs.

    That’s all fine but their strategy of jumping into bed with the very people who spent twenty years destroying their property rights is nearly as stupid as when they sent Tony Windsor to Canberra on their behalf.

  72. Tintarella di Luna

    glomming

    What a beautiful onomatopoeic word – new American too — I love it! Thanks JC — this is indeed a place of wisdom and learning.

  73. Gab

    I doubt the lock the gate greeneis are interested in farmers and who goes on their property. Their only interest lies in ensuring the cessation of all mining in this country.

  74. nerblnob

    Just because I have a lovely rare rosewood tree on my property doesn’t mean anyone can come and chop it down to use for a guitar!

    But they do, or at least did – after negotiating with the property owner. No other parties needed to get involved. How do you think Maton get their blackwood?

  75. Free Advice

    Exactly!
    “After negotiating with the property owner”.
    That is the essence of Property Rights.

  76. twostix

    I doubt the lock the gate greeneis are interested in farmers and who goes on their property.

    Someone should ask the LtG greenies what they think of mulesing and factory farming and whether the farmers property rights extend to building a new shed to house caged chickens.

  77. and means the landowner will be able to extract a share of an income stream that they had no part in creating.

    It’s their land, and they deserve the right to extract rent from all and sundry who want to set up shop there.

    Didn’t we spend ages thrashing out the right of Aboriginal tribes to sort out their own deals with mining companies to set up shop on traditional lands? Didn’t we approve all of this as an example of sensible self-determination? (Only to see the whole thing fall apart at the 11th hour due to the influence of the Greenfilth, but that’s another matter.)

    If we’re going to give three cheers for the right of Aboriginal tribes to do this, so must we also for the farmers. If it has the additional advantage of slamming the door in the face of the Greenfilth, I should think any sensible mining or exploration company would be happy to pay a share of dividends to the landowner for the privilege of drilling on land from which Nimbin Numpties can be barred or expelled without fear or favour.

  78. twostix

    Do these greenies condemn animal rights activists trespassing on farmers land?
    Do they condemn government agencies giving themselves the right to walk onto farmers land for any reason?

  79. Gab

    Just ask Peter Graham if these lock the gate greenies are interested in the farmer’s property rights.

  80. nerblnob

    Exactly!
    “After negotiating with the property owner”.
    That is the essence of Property Rights.

    You missed the next bit. No other parties needed

  81. nerblnob

    By the way, guitar makers are typically only interested in the bole. The long part of the trunk is of interest to furniture makers, who the farmer will make more money out of.

  82. entropy

    Don’t confuse property rights with mineral rights.
    Whilst the landowner might not own the gold beneath his feet, he sure has the right to decide who if any comes on to his or her property to dig for the gold, and what rent they pay.
    Just because I have a lovely rare rosewood tree on my property doesn’t mean anyone can come and chop it down to use for a guitar!

    Actually I disagree with the concept that the landholder has a right to prevent access. The crown has granted the mineral rights to the CSG company. The landholder thus has no right to prevent access as that would be like a landholder whose property does not front a public road being prevented form driving through one property to get to theirs. The law is quite clear on this.

    I have no problem whatsoever for the mining company to pay a decent rate for the land (even above market rate) if the land must be alienated , say for a coal mine. On the other hand a less intrusive activity like CSG extraction can just be adequately compensated for. The landholders can accept the revenue stream as a form of drought proofing of their farm business.

    If a landholder wants more than compensation, say a royalty perhaps, they should have paid for the mineral rights as well. Which, of course, they haven’t.

  83. entropy

    Ainsworth has trouble differentiating between the useful idiotsscared of change landholders that signed up with lock the gate and the commie filth that set it up and run it. The landholders need to keep a close eye on their membership fees to make sure they aren’t bled off to some protest at a coal terminal, sponsoring a mung bean festival or similar.

  84. entropy

    I earlier said:

    The landholder thus has no right to prevent access as that would be like a landholder whose property does not front a public road being prevented form driving through one property to get to theirs. The law is quite clear on this.

    I can give you an example in the opposite way. Up at Georgetown recently a mining company tried to close off the road on its land that happened to be the only way to access the neighbouring pastoral property. The Qld government when to town on its arse and the company now provides access. I think it actually built a new road.

  85. JC

    That’s all fine but their strategy of jumping into bed with the very people who spent twenty years destroying their property rights is nearly as stupid as when they sent Tony Windsor to Canberra on their behalf.

    Who’s using whom here. I reckon it’s the farmers. They are quite happy to be left alone after this protest succeeds.

  86. Infidel tiger

    They are quite happy to be left alone after this protest succeeds.

    Bwahahahahaha! Yes, well most people are happy to be left alone after they’ve paid the first instalment of protection money… Come on, you know ow the mafia works.

    The ultimate goal is to close down all primary industries. They’re getting there.

  87. Free Advice

    The right to access a property through another’s property is only based on historical access, ie an implied or actual easement.

    You cannot create a landlocked parcel of land and then suddenly demand the right to access that land through another property.

    In fact the government will not allow the subdivision to proceed without establishing an existing or new right to access or demonstrate a historical implied easement.

    Fortunately in most cases with land, old rules trump new rules.

  88. Infidel tiger

    The right to access a property through another’s property is only based on historical access, ie an implied or actual easement.

    Historical access you say? Like the historical right to access minerals on private property.

  89. JC

    The ultimate goal is to close down all primary industries. They’re getting there.

    And they see the gas producers as their enemy too as they simply want the land at market prices. They’re just applying the enemy of my enemy is my friend routine. May not work in the long run, but they aren’t exactly thinking 10 years down the track.

    And yea the Greens are human garbage not that I need to remind you.

  90. Free Advice

    Yes, this is precisely the problem. Not only do mineral rights trump property rights as the the author champions, but now so do planning regulations, vegetation overlays, heritage overlays, green tape, cultural significance overlays, flood (or inundation as it is now called) overlays, bushfire overlays, skyline overlays, zoning restrictions, dry zones and so on.

    We need to smash the current planning and environment act now to restore property rights.

  91. A H

    What nonsense is this! Mineral rights belong to the landowner, not the crown.

    If a miner wishes to mine, he simply needs the permission of the landowner.

    It is wholly the landowners decision as to whether the mining goes ahead or not, government should not be intervening and granting mining rights to other people’s land.

    This is the best way, as, if a miner does damages the property of the landowner, the landowner has legal recourse to defend himself and recover costs. Alternatively, the miner can buy the land, rape it, and leave it barren… but this, no doubt, lowers the resale value of the land.

    Let he who can make the best use of the land derive the higher profit from it, and thereby afford to bid the highest for it. But compel no one who owns land to sell it or grant anyone access to it.

  92. Infidel tiger

    An interesting idea A H. Unfortunately it over rides two centuries of Australian property law.

  93. nerblnob

    I wonder where all the Greenies would be if the government suddenly decided to build HIGH SPEED RAIL (green swoon) Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne or such like. Would they be all for Locking The Gates then? Or is their objection just because CSG is hydrocarbon aka Fossil Fuel?

  94. gabrianga

    Sorry perturbed but the “greenies” have locked up even Aboriginal Land using World Heritage listings.

    Not only that but in the N.T even if the nominated land owners agree to exploration and mining their decision can be vetoed by the Land Council which was set up to “represent” their interests.

    There is also another huge anomaly whereby Aborigines who have vetoed mining on their own land benefit from the royalties paid to those who agree. to mining.

    The whole box and dice ,designed by Whitlam and Coombes and promulgated by Fraser and Co., needs to be amended to protect Aborigines and mining companies entering agreements to mine.

  95. gabrianga

    I have to switch off Alan Jones as soon as he starts his “fracking rant”. Like a man possessed he rants and rages as he did when Aborigines were granted control over mineral development on 50% of the Northern Territory.

    Even the ever caring ??? “Greens’” sound more controlled, even more convincing, than Jones dribbling on the microphone about doomsday predictions for fracking.

    Perhaps his mates with the stables and small vineyards give him the wind up at weekends?

  96. nerblnob

    I have to switch off Alan Jones as soon as he starts his “fracking rant”.

    Is he conflating CSG with fracking? The two seldom go together, although they’re not mutually exclusive.

  97. Mater

    I wonder where all the Greenies would be if the government suddenly decided to build HIGH SPEED RAIL (green swoon) Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne or such like. Would they be all for Locking The Gates then? Or is their objection just because CSG is hydrocarbon aka Fossil Fuel?

    Nerblnob, wonder no more. When it comes to Wind Turbines, organisations such as ‘Friends of the Earth’ couldn’t give a proverbial about landowners and communities. The greater good trumps all when so called renewables are involved, let me assure you.

  98. entropy

    What nonsense is this! Mineral rights belong to the landowner, not the crown.

    if the farmers want the mineral rights they should have paid for them. They have not.

  99. adrian

    good to see people waking up to the idiotic and factually incorrect arguments being made by agrarian socialists like alan jones about CSG.

  100. Tel

    Err am I missing something? Aren’t the property rights the owner of the land, i.e. the Farmer?
    Just like waking up one day and everyone wants your land because suddenly it’s desirable because of ots location then surely this extend to any minerals beneath it.

    Property rights can be a lot of things, in the USA they work the way you describe, but in Australia farmers were declared to only own the first few feet of soil, while the Crown reserved ownership of everything below that. Thus the farmer can’t dig minerals out of her own land without a separate lease, and mineral royaltys are charged by the state.

    Personally, I think the USA has a better system, but our system is what it is, changing it would be difficult.

    Mind you, there’s no way to drill deep without also drilling the first few feet, which belong to the farmer, and the rigs and other equipment also sits on top, so a veto would be fully compatible with existing property rights.

  101. nerblnob

    What’s agrarian about a sydneysider with a hobby farm?

  102. CatAttack

    Saw the school girl yesterday on Our ABC who pulled the April Fools Day fake CSG company letter stunt. Her Dad is apparently prominent in the anti-CSG group but had absolutely nothing to do with it. All her own work she said. I don’t doubt it. She was suspended from school because she used the schools email account.

    Point being it was all treated as a bit of a joke. Yeh, I know it was April Fools Day but it never ceases to amaze me how much the “what ever it takes” attitude permeates so much of the greens campaigns. And how the ABC and assorted luvvies applaud this attitude. Essentially the law only applies to their enemies.

    Imagine the uproar if a fake campaign was started involving Greenpeace or GetUp? They’d be crying like babies calling for the Guvment to do something about it.

    Besides where is the solid evidence for all this CSG hysteria? They’ve drilled hundreds of thousands of wells in the States. How many have leaked into the aquifer? 1? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

  103. CatAttack

    KDH I don’t doubt that Lock the Gate started out as you describe but it every advocate I have seen on TV since have been your standard issue rent a crowd tree hugging hemp wearing John Butler Trio loving Greenie.

  104. cohenite

    Ainsworth says:

    Clean Food, Clean Water and Clean air are essentials for a modern society. These come before all else. Contrary to your assertions, where Coal Seam Gas extraction has occurred, there have been major problems with air and water contamination. There is a big difference between the Shale Fracking you use for your comparisons and coal bed fracking. Coal Seam Gas mining has all but been abandoned due to water contamination issues in the United States. There are far less problems with Shale Fracking. But that’s not what is occurring in Australia outside of the cooper basin. A location i have very little opposition to.

    As I read your mishmash in the Hunter Valley at nearly every underground mine, which have varying levels of ‘gassiness’, vast amounts of CSG are bled from the coal seams and burnt; it is burnt for a number of reasons predominantly due to the influence of Green propaganda and coal company financial strategy. What a waste! Criminal!

    And this:

    Many people now hold what would be considered moderate right wing green views.

    That is a double oxymoron.

    Still as has been observed with farmers now having the deciding consent watch CSG exploration expand as “true” farmers line up to obtain their 10%.

  105. .

    Grigory M
    #1251197, posted on April 3, 2014 at 10:01 pm
    Err am I missing something?

    Free Advice – it seems that way. Mineral rights have vested in the Crown forever and a day in Australia. The Landowner essentially owns only the surface area.

    Citation please.

  106. egg_

    As I read your mishmash in the Hunter Valley at nearly every underground mine, which have varying levels of ‘gassiness’, vast amounts of CSG are bled from the coal seams and burnt; it is burnt for a number of reasons predominantly due to the influence of Green propaganda and coal company financial strategy. What a waste! Criminal!

    As Global mining OEMs put in their operating manuals, Greenoid ‘Environmental’ regulations are locale dependent – IIRC CSG in Qld is vented directly to atmosphere – what say the Qld Greens?

  107. wazsah

    Thanks A H for explaining your wished for parallel resources – land use universe.
    Where you say – [ if a miner does damages the property of the landowner, the landowner has legal recourse to defend himself and recover costs.]
    As matters stand now – all exploration damage such as drill sites is routinely rehabilitated anyway.
    Also all resource explorers lodge large cash bonds with the Govt at the time they are granted their licences.
    In your last paragraph you mentioned [ derive the higher profit from] land. Not sure you are on your strongest ground there.
    The NSW resources sector dwarfs the agri sector in terms of exports or however you cut it. And only uses a miniscule area of NSW land to do so compared to the agri sector.
    And all of that mining land will be rehabilitated back to agri uses after mining ceases.
    What a prosperity machine the resources industry is – yet so poorly understood in Australia.

  108. entropy

    I thought underground mines bled off and burnt the gas to prevent explosions. Oh, you mean an income source gone to waste because of green tape.

  109. cohenite

    I thought underground mines bled off and burnt the gas to prevent explosions. Oh, you mean an income source gone to waste because of green tape.

    There is that; gas and water underground are the problems.

    But when all that has to be done is to drill a tapping shaft to the gas body and then let its specific gravity bring it to the top and to then burn it off at such huge rates is fucking mind-numbing: at one mine there are 3 shafts which bring the gas up to the surface where it is then ignited; they call the shafts candles and they burn 60000 litres per second; enough to power Sydney up in smoke.

    Jesus wept, could you think of something more stupid then that?

  110. Myrddin Seren

    Some operations do capture the methane and use it run run onsite generators

    http://www.envirogen.net.au/default.htm

    Obviously there are variables which will impact whether this is viable on all circumstances

  111. Myrddin Seren

    use it run to run

    ( Not a speed typist )

  112. nerblnob

    What a prosperity machine the resources industry is – yet so poorly understood in Australia.

    Exactly. Such wealth makes luxuries such as environmental posturing possible.

  113. cohenite

    Myrrdin, that is correct; but the electricity produced is only used on site. Green regs prevent them building larger power plants and as coal producers they don’t gives a rats arse if they destroy a competitor energy source. Also by burning the CH4 they satisfy their CO2 tax obligations; burning the CH4 is actually a tax deduction. Your link is also incorrect about flaring; flaring destroys the CH4 completely and any heat produced is entirely local

  114. egg_

    Qld BHP Red Hill EIS: (PDF)
    “A conservative methodology has been adopted assuming all IMG is vented directly to the atmosphere. ”
    Seems at higher volumes in some mines they flare it, but not sure if they’re legislatively forced to do so.

  115. cohenite

    Seems at higher volumes in some mines they flare it, but not sure if they’re legislatively forced to do so.

    Mines have different levels of gassiness so how much they vent or flare will depend on that. Legislative compulsion to flare is not a factor but legislative obstruction to setting up Gas power plants above a certain size is; as well the CO2 tax which can be offset by sequestration or other methods of ‘carbon capture’ or disposal such as flaring is also a motivator to burning the Ch4.

    And as I said the coal companies are burning a competitor energy.

    This is straight from the horses’ mouth, engineers working at a couple of mines up near Singleton.

    Obviously blame for this deplorable waste is spread over the Greens, companies and government.

  116. egg_

    Mines have different levels of gassiness so how much they vent or flare will depend on that. Legislative compulsion to flare is not a factor but legislative obstruction to setting up Gas power plants above a certain size is; as well the CO2 tax which can be offset by sequestration or other methods of ‘carbon capture’ or disposal such as flaring is also a motivator to burning the Ch4.

    I can only speak as an OEM Nationally supporting the industry but I think you’ll find that the legislation differs markedly between States and there is zero legal compulsion in Qld not to vent 100% to atmosphere if they so wish.

  117. motherhubbard'sdog

    I wonder where all the Greenies would be if the government suddenly decided to build HIGH SPEED RAIL (green swoon) Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne or such like.

    They would, of course, be insisting that it be solar powered.

  118. cohenite

    egg_; let me understand you; your point is the flaring is not legislatively compelled? If so I agree; but the other factors I list, CO2 tax offset benefit, legislative bar to building large power plants and indifference to getting rid of a competitor energy all mean that flaring is the obvious choice for coal miners to get rid of the CH4.

    Is that a fair comment?

  119. gabrianga

    “The Longest Days” The time taken by a solar train to go from Sydney to Canberra?

  120. gabrianga

    Sorry nerblnob I was using Lock the Gate propaganda about fracking and coal seam gas knowing they would be accurate (sarc) which Alan also seems to use.

  121. Pickles

    Lock The Gate “President” features here.

  122. Ian MacCulloch

    Some interesting comments. Having dealt with 100% private ownership as in the case of the USA and 100% public ownership as in the case of Australia and China to name but a few let me say that private arrangements in the USA are far more compelling. It has many benefits but the main one is that from the outset the landowner (large and small) enjoy right of entry fees and compensation at various stages. They also enjoy an overriding royalty of about 12.5% as a benchmark. This amount is market priced and can reach as high as 50%. In the states which I have worked none have a royalty regime though their tax gathering is very sophisticated. Negotiations are not compulsory either way but the effectiveness of the professional landman cannot be under estimated in completing transactions. The landmen assemble parcels of privately owned minerals leases and that is no mean feat. This also mdeans that the landowner is dealt with finacially at an early stage. Except of a few most landholders are only too happy to accept the funds from the sale of the minerals rights. Under this regime the largesse, if any, is distributed more at the grass roots level as fragmentary land ownership is a feature over most of the USA. This approach certainly weeds out the underfunded at the very basic level. No cash no entry. While the USA landholder (both private and public) has the power of veto this is offset by the fact that they all know what their parcel of land is worth and act according to market pressures. A much more honourable system with a well developed mature court system to police chicanery.

  123. Paridell

    Jones is wrong! No, he’s right! Farms are private property! No, the gas is private property! No it’s not!

    Is a puzzlement.

  124. stackja

    alan moran
    #1250918, posted on April 3, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    Wreckage Stackja
    Everyone should be free to buy and sell their own property. Undiscovered mineral resources are held in custody by the state and given to the discoverer less a (hopefully) modest and stable stream of royalty payments that go back to the government. The discoverer/miner must also provide restitution for any costs imposed on the landowner.
    If the undiscovered rights are vested to another party (the surface landowner) that person will demand some compensation for their exploitation and, as the mineral development industry is highly competitive, would expect to get a large chunk of the (economic) rents however they are defined. This means an additional cost at the exploration stage, a cost that adds no value and which must mean less exploration and then less production.

    Why does the landowner not get more? I understand value comment but landowner loses while state gains.
    The discoverer/miner must also provide restitution for any costs imposed on the landowner. Do they?

  125. wazsah

    stackja IMHO there are two broad scenarios where a resource company might decide to buy a property.
    [1] Lets imagine an oil & gas explorer who is sufficiently impressed with a prospect from researching historic exploration data that they might offer to buy a property before drilling. In that case they would just haggle until an agreement on price was reached. It would be certain the landowner would get above farm market value in that sale. So I am unsure under what circumstances you can say – “but landowner loses”
    [2] Now imagine a metal explorer who has got to the stage of doing some serious drilling and to protect their position negotiates an option to buy the farm in the rare event the drilling really came good and proved an orebody.
    In those sort of cases it is usual that the negotiated sale price would be 1.5 or more times farm market value. A considerable cash windfall to Mr & Mrs Farmer. Once again I am unsure under what circumstances you can say – “but landowner loses”

    Finally you ask – [The discoverer/miner must also provide restitution for any costs imposed on the landowner. Do they?]
    Short answer is – of course they do and the State Resources Dept holds a huge cash bond from the explorer that could be used in the rare event of a company failing in its obligations for some reason.

  126. Ed

    Jones is wrong! No, he’s right! Farms are private property! No, the gas is private property! No it’s not!

    Is a puzzlement.

    It’s only a puzzlement because you’re pretending that a disagreement among individuals is an inconsistent position of one person. Once you figure out that some people agree with Jones and others don’t the light will dawn.

  127. Paridell

    Ed, the outbursts I summarised represented those people you mention, the ones who agree or disagree with Jones and each other. Perhaps I should have used dialogue marks, as the French do:

    — Jones is wrong!

    — No, he’s right!

    — Farms are private property!

    — No, the gas is private property!

    — No it’s not!

    Remains a puzzlement.

  128. The discoverer/miner must also provide restitution for any costs imposed on the landowner. Do they?

    In reality, never. It is always much better to never have exploration/extraction on your property.
    The landowner loses.
    I’ve never fired at exploration crews, but I understand why some would be tempted.

  129. Tel

    — Farms are private property!

    — No, the gas is private property!

    They both are, which is why a veto situation makes sense. Either side gets to veto mineral exploitation, when both sides agree they both profit.

  130. Tel

    What a prosperity machine the resources industry is – yet so poorly understood in Australia.

    For the common good you say? Where have I heard that before?

Comments are closed.