Frackman facts

February 25th, 2015

UPDATE: Our first Frackman fact checks focussed on the promotion of the film, now we have seen the movie, we are adding new facts.

Land access issues

On several occasions the claim is made that land holders have no right to refuse access to their properties. This is simply incorrect, and has been phrased this way to mislead.

The facts are:

  • A licence to explore for, or develop underground resources does not give the holder a right to enter the land above the resource.
  • A land access agreement must be in place before any work can take place on private property.
  • To date, there have been more than 5000 land access agreements signed between farmers and gas companies in Queensland and NSW

Both Queensland and NSW have land access codes or agreed principles of land access.

In Queensland, there is a Land Access Code which is set up to outline the process for landholders and resource companies to negotiate a conduct and compensation agreement for land access.

Across Australia, states grant exploration licences to explore for underground energy and mineral resources. A licence to explore underground resources does not give the licence holder a right to enter the land that overlies that resource. A resource licence holder is required to have an access agreement in place they can lawfully enter the property.

Negotiated land-access agreements are the most common method of acquiring a right of entry. The agreement allows the resource licence holder to access the landholder’s property.

The agreement outlines compensation for any disruption caused by exploration or development activities. Land access agreements are highly individualised to take into account specific landholder requests and involve a series of negotiations.

Land access laws vary across different jurisdictions in Australia, however all frameworks are intended to improve relationships between the agriculture and the resources sector.

Queensland – Land access code

In 2010 the Queensland Government introduced a new Land Access Code, which helped to provide landholders and resource companies’ guidance on matters to be negotiated when a negotiating land access agreements as required under the Petroleum legislation.

Resource companies are obligated to:

  • Negotiate in good faith
  • Respect the Landholder and their home
  • Advise Landholder of proposed activities
  • Promptly rectify any damage caused to Landholder’s property
  • Abide by Land Access Code

 NSW Land Access Agreement

 On 28 March 2014 an agreement on land access for Coal Seam Gas (CSG) operations in NSW was signed.

The Agreed Principles of Land Access was signed by gas companies Santos and AGL and landholder representatives NSW Farmers, Cotton Australia and the NSW Irrigators Council.
The agreement includes:

  • Landholders are free to express their views on the type of drilling to occur without criticism, pressure, harassment or intimidation
  • Landholders can say “yes” or “no” to the conduct of operation on their land
  • Gas companies will respect the Landholder’s wishes
  • The parties condemn bullying, harassment and intimidation in relation to agreed drilling operations.

How the industry works with landholders

The natural gas industry works closely with landholders from the very beginning.

During the planning process, resource companies identify potential locations for wells, infrastructure and pipelines. Once the company identifies land they wish to access, preliminary discussions kick off with the relevant landholders. Resource companies take the opportunity to explain what they are seeking to do and look at ways to work together to maximise coexistence.

While each State and Territory has different regulations there are some things that all jurisdictions require. Mandatory requirements include:

  • Notification in writing to the landholder of wish to explore or develop on their land
  • Sufficient information provided to the landholder both at commencement and throughout the project lifecycle to ensure they can understand and consider the level of impact and disruption on their land.
  • Negotiation of access and compensation agreements
  • Minimum number of days for the landholder to consider the information prior to requesting the development of a draft land access agreement

Back to top

Health impacts of CSG activities

Allegations about health impacts of gas operations on local residents in Queensland’s Tara estate have been examined in detail by Queensland Health.

Their summary report, which is publicly available, found no clear link between emissions from CSG activities and health complaints from residents, stating:

The available evidence does not support the concern among some residents that excessive exposure to emissions from the CSG activities is the cause of the symptoms they have reported

Darling Downs Health Unit

Queensland Health carried out an analysis of adverse health claims and a health risk assessment

to determine the likelihood of a direct physical link between the symptoms experienced by residents of the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities

The final report concluded that

Given the nature of the health complaints, there are multiple potential causes and explanations. This investigation by itself is unable to determine whether any of the health effects reported by the community are linked to exposure to Coal Seam Gas.

Reference: Darling Downs Health Unit – Investigation into Health Complaints Related to Coal Seam Gas Activity from Residents residing within the Wieambilla Estates, Tara, Queensland – Final Report January 2013

Independent Medical Review

An independent medical practitioner was also engaged to carry out separate investigations including visiting the area and interviewing residents and carrying out medical examinations where required.

His report was released in February 2013.

He commented,

Given the apparent level of community concern, I was perhaps surprised that a relatively small number of people elected to come and see me.

In the report Dr Keith Adams states:

  • I was unable to find any objective evidence of the clinical conditions which were reported

  • Exposure to coal seam gas has now occurred for many years, first in coal miners and now in the coal seam gas drilling industry without evidence of unique or substantial harm to employees in those industries

  • I would expect that the circumstances of exposure described to me for the most part would lead to relatively low levels of exposure, given the distance between the homes of affected individuals and wells and the testing results made available to me would support that presumption.

Reference: Dr Keith Adams Medibank Health Solutions – “Health Effects of Coal Seam Gas – Tara, February 2013

Queensland Department of Health Report

A further report was carried out by the Queensland Department of Health considering the previous report by the Darling Downs Health Unit, Dr Adams report and considers environmental monitoring data including that of the Southern Cross University in respect of fugitive emissions.

It concluded that:

Based on the clinical and environmental monitoring data available for this summary risk assessment, a clear link cannot be drawn between the health complaints of some residents in the Tara region and impacts of the local CSG industry on air, water or soil within the community. The available evidence does not support the concern among some residents that excessive exposure to emissions from the CSG activities is the cause of the symptoms they have reported.

Reference: Queensland Department of Health – “Coal Seam Gas in the Tara Region: Summary risk assessment of health complaints and environmental monitoring date – March 2013

In the movie, claims are made about children suffering from nosebleeds. On that issue, Queensland Health says

Potential causes for the reported nose bleeds are multiple and may be more a reflection of the age group than any particular cause.

Queensland Health also found:

  • The household environment and other environmental exposures were considered as other potential causes of symptoms. The use of wood heaters or fireplaces for heating homes may be a potential source of irritation (particularly eyes and respiratory).
  • The use of unboiled/unfiltered rainwater for daily activities could potentially be a cause of gastrointestinal symptoms experienced as could be the handling of domestic animals.

A detailed discussion of the potential causes of the symptoms experienced by the Tara residents can be found in this document.

Back to top

Well integrity

The claim is made in the movie that all gas wells eventually fail – a refrain that is used widely, but has little basis in fact.

The Society of Petroleum Engineers found that:

..actual well integrity failures are very rare. Well integrity failure is where all barriers fail and a leak is possible. True well integrity failures are two to three orders of magnitude lower than single barrier failure rates.

So what does that mean?

To understand the statement, you need to understand how a well is designed and engineered.

Gas wells are designed to ensure that the gas stays contained within the wellbore, and that the surrounding subsurface layers, including aquifers, are protected.

As the graphic below shows, layers of steel and cement are used to construct a typical well.

Coal Seam Gas Well

In Australia, there are a number of safeguards and measures that are put in place when drilling and completing a well.

These guidelines are based on world best practice standards developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), and that have been used extensively by oil and gas producers around the world.

State Governments have set down the technical requirements for the design, construction and operation of wells, along with the procedures that need to be followed when wells are decommissioned, plugged and abandoned.

Read the NSW Government’s Code of Practice, the Queensland Code of Practice, and a fact sheet about Western Australia’s requirements.

So what protects the well?

Put simply, its multiple layers of steel and API certified cement, engineered and constructed to ensure the integrity of the well, and it’s the maintenance program that ensures the well is inspected and monitored regularly.

The issue of well integrity has been studied extensively.

In the United States, the Ground Water Protection Council, a group of state regulators whose mission is “to mutually work toward the protection of the nation’s ground water supplies”, found wells casing failure rates to be minuscule.

Their 2011 study looked at more than 34,000 wells in Ohio from 1983 to 2007 and more than 187,000 wells in Texas between 1993 and 2008.

The study found a well failure rate of 0.03 percent in Ohio and only about 0.01 percent in Texas.

And a 2014 report from Durham University, which examined 25 separate datasets from around the world on well integrity and well failure rates, found variable failure rates – some as low as 1.9% in developed countries.

That’s a long way from the claim of ‘all wells fail eventually’.

Back to top

Air quality and emissions from CSG activities

The movie makes several claims about air quality and emissions from CSG activities, including statements and assertions about leaking gas wells.

A report from Southern Cross University on emissions in the Queensland Darling Downs regions found:

From our data we cannot conclusively say that the elevated concentrations are due to CSG mining activities as we have no information about the area before the commencement of CSG mining

And:

(I)n the Darling Downs the methane and carbon dioxide can be coming from sources other than CSG such as wetlands, feedlots and vehicles.

The CSIRO has examined the fugitive emissions issue.

In its report to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment on “Field Measurements of Fugitive Emissions from Equipment and Well Casings in Australian Coal Seam Gas Production Facilities”, CSIRO researchers found that of the 43 sites tested:

All were found to have some level of emissions, although in all cases these were very low compared to overall production.

The report concluded:

(Emissions) were very much lower than recent estimates of CH4 emissions from unconventional gas production in the United States.

The report also stated:

No evidence of leakage of methane around the outside of well casings was found at any of the wells sampled.

In addition to these two studies, gas developers are also conducting their own fugitive emissions studies in coal seam gas producing areas.

In the Pilliga, Santos has commenced air studies across the region, collecting background or baseline data on the levels of methane in the atmosphere prior to development, while at Camden, AGL undertook a twelve-week monitoring program to determine emissions levels from their existing coal seam gas project.

The results of that study are instructive – the average methane concentration was 2.1ppm (parts per million). This is in line with methane concentrations measured in urban areas commonly ranging between 1.8ppm and 3.0ppm, and are lower than readings measured inside a house in the local area.

One of the key criticisms levelled at fugitive emissions studies to date is that of a supposed lack of baseline studies against which to measure results from operating gas infrastructure.

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment commissioned engineering consultancy Pitt & Sherry to undertake a literature review on emissions monitoring methodologies for unconventional gasfields.

On baselines, the report says:

Baseline data could potentially still be collected within an active unconventional gas field extraction lease as long as it is collected away from any existing or historical extraction areas; however, monitoring across several areas would be required to understand the spatial variability in natural seepage levels to assess whether baseline data from other areas within a region could be assumed to be representative of background for an area that is already active and for which no local baseline data is available.

Where no baseline measurements have been made, and if it is shown that the spatial variability in natural emission levels is significant so that baseline data from other areas within the region may not be representative, then estimates of the contribution of CSG production activities on seepage fluxes could be calculated based on a nominal baseline level measured at the time of implementing the reporting protocol. (Page 16)

Back to top

Property values

A claim is made in the movie that CSG activities negatively impact property values, with terms like ‘valueless’ used.

The Queensland Valuer General’s latest report on property market movements, found:

Land values have generally continued to increase in the last twelve months within the urban areas of Western Downs Regional Council due to the continued expansion within the Surat Energy Basin and associated energy projects.

Residential land values have continued to increase in Western Downs with the exception of the town of Chinchilla. Chinchilla has seen some stabilisation in property values, with no change occurring in the newer estates but a small reduction in the balance. Multi-unit land values recorded moderate to large increases.

Large increases in value occurred within the town of Miles and small increases within Wandoan and the western side of Dalby. Wandoan median values increased from $195,000 to $215,000 and Miles,$147,000 to $185,000. The continued increases in Wandoan are a result of the resource activities in this locality and the shortage of available residential land.

There were continued large increases in commercial and industrial values within the town of Miles and small increases in the western industrial area of Chinchilla. Wandoan recorded a large reduction in industrial values due to the Xstrata coal mine not proceeding. No changes in value were recorded within these market sectors in Dalby.

Rural residential properties around Miles and Dalby also recorded small increases.

In 2014, the Valuer General of New South Wales commissioned a report examining the sale of properties in areas of NSW where the Coal Seam Gas industry is developing and operating.

What the report found may surprise those who claim CSG hurts land values.

The Valuer General found CSG development had “no impacts” on several recent real estate transactions.

A total of eight property transactions with CSG well activity located on the property were investigated through conventional valuation sales analysis. From the analysis the value of all of these properties did not appear to have been impacted by CSG activity.

Furthermore, areas ranging from 200 metres to 38 kilometres where CSG development is taking place also showed no adverse effects on land values.

A total of 53 comparable sales located at distances from 200 metres to 38 kilometres from CSG activity were analysed. There was no observable difference in the values of the comparable sales based on their distance from the CSG activity.

In addition to established home sales, subdivisions also seem to be immune to the claims that such development depreciates land values. Two separate subdivisions were analyzed in the study and the researched concluded,

The analysis of sale prices of single residential home sites at two subdivisions located in view of or in close proximity to CSG wells indicated no impact.

When the report authors interviewed the sales agents of the subdivisions, both agreed CSG development had no impact on the pricing of the lots.

The selling agents of the subdivisions advised that they did not engage in any discounting of properties because of their proximity to the CSG wells and that they did not consider values were impacted.

While the development of CSG is not having an impact on land values in NSW, it is important to note that public perception may have a bigger impact on land values in CSG areas than the actual development.

Some people dislike the industry and consider that it leads to the industrialisation of an area with the further potential for contamination and health risks. These perceptions can lead to a stigma developing in an area.

Back to top

Bubbling river, flaming water

This is a favourite of activist groups – claiming that Queensland’s Condamine River was found to be ‘bubbling like a spa bath’ because of gas development and hydraulic fracking.

The fact is, methane naturally occurs in groundwater. There is evidence of natural gas seeps in Queensland dating as far back as 1889, and a Queensland CSG Compliance Unit investigation found from a literature review that so-called ‘gassy bores’ had been reported on the Darling Downs for more than forty years – predating any gas activity.

In Queensland, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines said:

Methane seepage from water bores can and does occur naturally. Drilling records for some water bores drilled many years before CSG extraction started indicate the presence of methane when the bore was drilled.

Methane exists naturally in most groundwater systems in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). Methane can enter into water bores that intercept the GAB.

In the United States, the Railroad Commission of Texas (which has responsibility for unconventional gas activities in that state) released a report into claims that gas drilling had contaminated water bore.

The Commission’s finding was clear, and:

[D]etermined that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Barnet Shale production activities have caused or contributed to methane contamination in the aquifer beneath the neighborhood.

Gas is still naturally occurring in many bores today.

Its presence is particularly common in areas near the Condamine River, where underlying coals that contain natural gas are much closer to the surface than is normally the case.

A Queensland Government report released in early 2013 confirmed that the  bubbles in the Condamine River pose no risk to the environment or to human and animal health.

The gas industry supports ongoing research and analysis to monitor any changes or new developments.

Back to top

Frack fluid composition

One of the recurring themes of the film is a quest to find out what is in the fluid mix that is used in hydraulic fracturing.

This quest seems to be the impetus for many of the stunts that underpin the narrative – but the fact is that the details so keenly sought could have been found a lot more easily.

Fracking fluid contains mostly water and sand (around 99%), as well as small quantities of chemicals that are also found in common household products.

The chemicals used are not hazardous or specific to the oil and gas industry. They have many common uses such as in swimming pools, toothpaste, baked goods, ice cream, food additives, detergents and soap.

The overall concentration of additives within the fracking fluid is very small and heavily diluted in the

complete mixture.

A list of chemicals typically used can be viewed on the Queensland Government website at: www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/non-mining/fraccing-chemicals.

And what of the claim that no-one is told what is in the fluid mix? Again, let’s rely on facts.

Under Queensland legislation, companies are required to provide landholders with a notice of intention of hydraulic fracturing activities and a notice of completion.

The notice of completion requires details such as dates, location, activities undertaken such as equipment used and number of personnel, the names of operator of the drilling project and the contractor who carried out the activity, and the make-up of fluid including the small proportion of chemical components.

Back to top

Pilliga Forest spill

The film shows scenes of a black substance in the Pilliga forest in north western New South Wales, which a local land holder and an environmental consultant (who is also a prominent Lock the Gate campaigner, but that was not disclosed) claimed was caused by a spill from a CSG pond.

Like much of the footage in the film, there’s much more to the story than what meets the eye.

In 2011, Santos acquired all of Eastern Star Gas’s operations including the Bibblewindi Water Treatment Plant (BWTP). On inspection of the plant, Santos identified initial concerns with the reverse osmosis (RO) plant and closed the BWTP in December 2011, pending a full review of BWTP and its operations.

In January 2012, Santos located an internal ESG report that indicated that an uncontrolled discharge of produced water had occurred at the BWTP in June 2011. ESG had failed to report this leak to the government. Santos reported the incident in January 2012 to the regulator, the NSW Department of Trade & Investment’s Division of Resources Energy (DRE).

There was visible impact on vegetation near the water treatment plant and in low lying areas where the water had collected that diminished with distance from the pond. It is important that the spill, whilst unacceptable, is kept in context. It impacted approx. 1.5 hectares out of the 500,000ha that make up the Pilliga.

Independent testing found  that the impacted material, which was s dark in appearance, did not contain  petroleum hydrocarbons, as claimed by anti-CSG campaigners. The dark appearance of the impacted soil was likely attributable to dispersion of natural organic material.

They determined the following from the soil samples:

“…the most distinct soil quality difference within the release area is a concentration of salts, and particularly sodium, in the shallow soil profile. This may have been the major contributing factor to the observed vegetation stress within the release area”

“…the black substance is not consistent with a petroleum hydrocarbon source and are likely attributable to natural organic material including eucalypt trees and grasses.

The soil contained naturally occurring hydrocarbons which did not pose either an ecological or human health risk in their natural state.

A copy of the report detailing Santos’ investigation  is publicly available.

Santos also commissioned an independent ecological survey for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on the BWTP impacted area, which has been provided to the Commonwealth Government.  The investigation concluded that no MNES had been impacted.

Back to top

Gladstone Harbour

There’s a section of the film that makes a number of claims about the impact that the gas industry has supposedly had on Gladstone Harbour. Once again, its worth checking the facts.

After significant rainfall in the summer of 2010–2011, Gladstone Harbour experienced some abnormal occurrences associated with fish and health of the marine environment.

In response the Queensland Government investigated, working closely with key interest groups to understand the extent and nature of the issue. The investigation sought to identify any specific causes for the fish and marine environment health issues.

The program included extensive fish, water quality and sediment sampling and testing in and around Gladstone Harbour as well as interviews and testing of human health issues.

Two reports were released following the investigation:

In summary, the investigation found there is no evidence to indicate that dredging or industrial activities in Gladstone Harbour have changed the water and sediment quality sufficiently to cause or contribute to the ongoing fish health issues observed in Gladstone Harbour between September 2011 and September 2012.

Rather it was found that flooding, combined with a significant introduction of fish from Lake Awoonga into Gladstone Harbour and adjacent waterways, stressed the ecosystem.

Further, investigations indicated that fish health in Gladstone Harbour had returned to a more normal situation in 2012.

 To read the full report:

To read a summary report:

Back to top

 Related links:

 

 

 

16 Comments

Add Yours
  1. John Robertson on 3 March, 2015 Reply

    At last a comprehensive statement of facts.These are supported by reference to independent authorities .
    How Nsw and Vic could ignore this evidence and ban CSG is astounding.
    The environmentalist noise level completely ignores facts and the continued use of coal in electricity generation that results in higher pollution and costs.
    The environmental vandals are the opponents of CSG production not the producers.
    ( Note currently hold under $ 100,000 in Santos and Origin Energy shares )

    1
  2. Clive Edmead on 3 March, 2015 Reply

    Whilst I agree there has been a lot of scaremongering by people with an agenda and gas use is much more preferable to more polluting coal, the fact which is not being disclosed to the public is as follows.
    The recovered gas will be of little direct benefit to Australians apart from security of resource supply as the majority will be exported. The companies are working extremely hard to repel all calls for a domestic gas reservation policy that would ensure a cheap source of fuel for industry and domestic users. The heavily concealed result is gas will rise about 300% to world prices in the near future and further burden consumers and the economy.

    2
    • Ewan McDonald on 3 March, 2015 Reply

      I am unsure why it should be the responsibility of a very small number of public companies to provide cheap gas to the Australian market. On this basis all exporting companies including farmers would be required to provide a portion of their produce to the local market at a significant discount to the price they can get for export. I would have thought the direct benefit to Australia would be the thousands of jobs and large government revenue generated. Alternatively we can opt for further unemployment and government spending cuts. It would also seem more logical to me that if further gas exploration was conducted the gas price would drop, somewhat like the drop in oil prices when more production occurred. Reducing supply is unlikely to cause a drop in the gas price.

      3
      • Name (required) on 21 March, 2015 Reply

        Morgan
        Actually a note on oil prices dropping…companies across the globe limited production of oil refineries across the world because the cost benefit of continuing the process of refining oils for oil-based products including fuel did not warrant continuing production. Hence why fuel has risen quite suddenly to it’s previous prices.
        And just because energy companies would be required to provide cheaper energy does not mean other areas of production and export need do the same.

        4
  3. Guest on 16 March, 2015 Reply

    There is a vast difference between farming and mining. The products of mining – gas, coal, uranium etc are not renewable resource like farm products. Once removed they are gone for good. Therefor mining resources should be for the use of Australians, not to increase the profits of the shareholders of international companies. The resources of Australia are the property of Australians. It should be up to Australians whether they want those resources utilised or left where they are.

    5
  4. Dana Williams on 17 March, 2015 Reply

    What about renewable energy? The argument for Coal Seam Gas is like saying years ago “We need insulation for housing and asbestos is an efficient way to do this”. For years the Australian Public were told it was completely safe but guess what – it wasn’t!! We need to take a conservative approach when it comes to CSG, for the sake of the environment and communities living in these areas. Can’t we learn from previous environmental disasters and stop to think if we really want this for Australia’s farmland. I think I might move to Scotland.

    6
  5. FrankQuirk on 19 March, 2015 Reply

    This report is all well and good but the scaremongerers are winning. The average Joe is bombarded
    by the scaremongering done by the media, especially “talk-back “radio programs and how many
    people will get to read this report? When will Santos et Ali start advertising the facts and saturate the average Joe with the truth? Get more air-time and beat the propagander.
    (I only have a natural gas BarBQ.)

    7
  6. Hilton Conroy on 20 March, 2015 Reply

    Good to see some FACTS put out on this matter. Baseless hysteria by anyone is not the way to persuade me to oppose any kind of mining. The use of and mining of natural gas is FAR BETTER than coal.

    8
    • Name (required) on 30 April, 2015 Reply

      Ok, then buy a farm in Gloucester , move your family out there and roll out the welcome mat for AGL and the wells to start fracking near YOUR property.

      9
  7. Mitch Arquette on 23 March, 2015 Reply

    There is a need for a Royal Commission to account for the bias that it represented on both sides of the Coal Seam and Shale gas arguments. I have no qualified basis to speak on behalf of anyone on this thread. Nor do the majority who have commented here. However, there have been some serious halve truths and out right lies that have been propagated by AGL in the Gloucester Basin that have me wondering what need they might have to lie if this industry is so secure in how it goes about its business. Doing the simple math on how many wells, how much water, how much salt is enough to raise a brow and ask the simple question: “what are AGL doing with the tonnes of toxic salt and how are they dealing with the waste water?” Thus far, the responses to those questions have me worried, they do not have a long term answer to the question. The recent dumping of treated waste product that contained BTEX before and after treatment into the sewerage system is a testimony to the inability of treatment plants to deal with even the smallest of CSG toxic waste water. Other treatment plants have already closed their doors to such waste on the basis that such waste will destroy the careful balance that is maintained to treat everyday waste. ie. CSG waste can destroy treatment plants. There is a long, long way to go before this industry should be permitted to go ahead anywhere if it can not be done without the risks and impacts that it currently poses. No one in the industry can truthfully say otherwise – certainly not the corporate sponsored government representatives and authorities. Just an opinion.

    10
  8. Pip027 on 30 March, 2015 Reply

    Can this side of the story please be more widely circulated. I am sick of the scaremongers bombarding us about “Frackman”. There are two sides to this story but the media only pushes the hysteria button and the uneducated listen. Please educate us.

    11
  9. Dave on 31 March, 2015 Reply

    This is a fantastic initiative. I worked previously in this industry for a number of years and always found it difficult to defend. Mostly because it involves explaining lengthy technical concepts, for example different well completion techniques (of which fracking is only 1), to people who have no prior knowledge of the process and base their reasoning on solely on emotive arguments. Nothing wrong with that – CSG has certainly become the cause de rigour of our times and people have a right to feel passionately about it if they so choose. However, its is damn near impossible to debate the cost/benefits of the industry with an opposition who are flat out opposed to it on purely ideological grounds (as I believe the core of the LTG movement are). It’s great that (in QLD at least) we source the vast majority of our gas in our own backyard where it’s produced with best practice under tight regulation (certainly compared to what I have seen working overseas). The Gas industry should absolutely be held to high standards with everything possible done to mitigate potential impacts, especially to sensitive ecological areas or prime cropping land. However, stubborn opposition from anti-fossil fuel activists lessens the opportunity for mutually beneficial co-existence between gas and farming, exciting developments such as the Kogan co-generation power plant (admittedly fed with coal not gas) and obviously the large economic benefit to the Nation. I often wonder if these same people would also persuade locals to lock the gate to a corporation bringing large scale development of solar or wind farms to the same area?

    12

+ Leave a Comment

We encourage you to join the conversation. By commenting on this post, you agree to our comment guidelines.