Climate Change- CSIRO

[MangoMadness]

I am concerned about water table and ground water quality but this is only because I do not know enough about it to put this issue to bed in my own mind. I suspect though the government when granting leases would consider such risks?

Do you really trust the government to do this? really?

I dont know alot about the issue and maybe some of thing I have seen have been sensationalist but I have seen parts of the movie the guy in the US made about 'fracking' and the movie shows water coming out of house taps that can be lit (set on fire) due to the gas entering the water table. It also shows towns being made effectively uninhabitable due to the process.

As someone else said, this resource isnt going anywhere, why not wait another 30 years to see how badly the miners have stuffed up other countried with it before they stuff up ours

Oh and on the point of veto, If a miner came to my house and wanted to plug in an oil well in my back yard, I would want the right to tell them to get stuffed too and I believe the owners of that land should have that same right.

 

[tom32]

Oh and on the point of veto, If a miner came to my house and wanted to plug in an oil well in my back yard, I would want the right to tell them to get stuffed too and I believe the owners of that land should have that same right.

I guess that is a valid gut feel reaction but there are practical reasons why you do not own the mineral rights on your property.

You will have a right to compensation but as it states on your title you do not own the minerals.

The compensation will allow you to have all that you enjoyed somewhere else but it will not allow you to say, well you could have my $2.5million dollar value farm but only when you give me $100million for the $3billion dollar resource under it.

Who would bother doing mineral exploration if you did not already own the land? You risk after that investment having an unrealistic landowner. It looks to me all too much like development and we know how that has gone in the states with more beuracracy...

As an explorer you would be forced to purchase land first, explore and then apply for the lease. This is way too cumbersome to be realistic but with Australian governments and the ineptness of the Australian public to understanding good policy from bad, I fear it is still possible.

It would be the end of mining exploration and by extension mining as we know it.

 

[Sunfish]

Don't Canadian land holders have a right to royalties to gas found on their land?

 

[tom32]

Don't Canadian land holders have a right to royalties to gas found on their land?

Australain land owners don't, collectively the people of that state do.

I would agree though this would be better than a right to veto.

A right to veto is as good as ownership. You can hold the miner who understands the mineral wealth on the property to ransom and extract whatever can be extracted based on the feasability of the mine. You would have the owner evaluating that the miner would make x million over 10 years and then put it up for sale at that number. Then just like development parcels it would sit there for decades with a seller holdinng out hope for 100million and miners thinking they are dreaming. Another inneficiency into the Australian economy.

At least a royalty system would allow efficiency in the system.

I am not saying royalties are a good idea and the farmers concerned would lose their political clout if they started pushing for this as suddenly it woudl turn from food security and the environment to appearing like they just wanted to profit out of the minerals on their land.

 

[Sunfish]

Australain land owners don't, collectively the people of that state do.

I know that. The point is that Canada has a thriving mining industry in spite of land owners having some rights. I don't know how many though.

 

[MangoMadness]

The compensation will allow you to have all that you enjoyed somewhere else

But that isnt what is happening

The miners arnt purchasing the whole block of land, they are setting up the spouts (or whatever they are called) all around the property to induce the frak and withdraw the gas.

So its like they come along to my house give me $50k and chuck an ugly unsightly and possibly dangerous 'spout' in my back yard.

So now I have $50k (yay) but am now living with this abomination on my property that trucks need to pull up and service every day, week, month (i dont know the frequency of extraction)

I do not belive this is fair and equitable treatment of the land owners/title holders or whatever term suits best

 

[lizzie]

No amount of money can compensate for a) being forced off your land or having to live with the wellhead nearby, and b) destroying the rare water tables we have available.

 

[tom32]

No amount of money can compensate for a) being forced off your land or having to live with the wellhead nearby, and b) destroying the rare water tables we have available.

Agree about the water table. This is definitely cause for concern, I just do not know enough to comment either way. I guess being cynical about government approval processes is reasonable in this day and age.

I never had any reason to read about the process but maybe I will so I can form an informed decision around it.

I think the first view on the other hand is not predominant in western culture. Local Indigenous culture maybe?

People will move for a price. If I rocked up to all the places around Australia and offered 100% more than the current market price I reckon I would successfully purchase most of them.

 

[tom32]

I know that. The point is that Canada has a thriving mining industry in spite of land owners having some rights. I don't know how many though.

I don't know what rights they have in Canada, but as I said a right to a royalty is far more efficient than a right to veto.

I would have less issue that this than around vito rights.

The miner can do his exploration and just has to factor in the gov royalty and owners royalty. There is no black box number that will only be discovered based on the value of the resource. i.e. the owner is suddenly a partner in the exercise.

There is a massive difference between the two ideas.

 

[tom32]

But that isnt what is happening

The miners arnt purchasing the whole block of land, they are setting up the spouts (or whatever they are called) all around the property to induce the frak and withdraw the gas.

So its like they come along to my house give me $50k and chuck an ugly unsightly and possibly dangerous 'spout' in my back yard.

So now I have $50k (yay) but am now living with this abomination on my property that trucks need to pull up and service every day, week, month (i dont know the frequency of extraction)

I do not belive this is fair and equitable treatment of the land owners/title holders or whatever term suits best

These are issues around the compensation and perhaps this has to be looked at.

People should be justly compensated especially when their own property is affected whether it be by a mining lease or government compulsory acquisition.

Both systems are vital to the efficiency of our economy and society more generally.

Edit: My issue is not that they should be dudded. They should be compensated fairly maybe even more than fairly. Further if the wheels fall off the miners should be held to account to rectify any environmental damage? Maybe a bank bond? Some surety so that the government can make things right even if the miner becomes unable to through liquidation etc.

 

[Aaron Sice]

if you buy farmland, budget to purchase the underlying tenement.

 

[lizzie]

Agree about the water table. This is definitely cause for concern, I just do not know enough to comment either way. I guess being cynical about government approval processes is reasonable in this day and age.

You have every reason to be cynical about this government. Almost all - not make that "all" - policies they have pushed thru have been severley flawed and ended up in a mess ... pink batts, school buildings, illegal immigration, mining tax, now carbon tax and I am sure there are more.

Fracking and potential downsides. Asides from the earthquakes produced when the fracking liquid is forced in under high pressure - this article is probably the best example of why we shouldn't frack:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

who the F called it Fracking anyhow?

 

[josko]

Australain land owners don't, collectively the people of that state do.

I would agree though this would be better than a right to veto.

A right to veto is as good as ownership. You can hold the miner who understands the mineral wealth on the property to ransom and extract whatever can be extracted based on the feasability of the mine. You would have the owner evaluating that the miner would make x million over 10 years and then put it up for sale at that number. Then just like development parcels it would sit there for decades with a seller holdinng out hope for 100million and miners thinking they are dreaming. Another inneficiency into the Australian economy.

At least a royalty system would allow efficiency in the system.

I am not saying royalties are a good idea and the farmers concerned would lose their political clout if they started pushing for this as suddenly it woudl turn from food security and the environment to appearing like they just wanted to profit out of the minerals on their land.

Perhaps lilke this scenario:

RIO Tinto has agreed to pay Aboriginal groups billions of dollars to expand its iron ore operations on indigenous land in Western Australia.

The agreement with five native title groups gives the mining giant the go-ahead on all new developments on Aborigine land, including support for expansions in the state’s Pilbara region.

These are essential to Rio Tinto’s target for increasing production by 50 per cent to 333 million tonnes a year by 2015.

In exchange, Aboriginal communities will receive royalty payments estimated to be worth more than $2 billion over 40 years, Fairfax newspapers report.The financial agreement is confidential, but is understood to take a proportion of Rio Tinto’s iron ore sales.

and lizzie

No amount of money can compensate for a) being forced off your land or having to live with the wellhead nearby, and b) destroying the rare water tables we have available.

Yes, I was trying to draw attention to this fact and the harm the extraction of this gas can do. As Mango M says", why not wait another 30 years to see how badly the miners have stuffed up other countried with it before they stuff up ours."

30 years will be too long if the rest of the world is moving towards gas..,. as Tom says, we need to remain competative (going back to my original argument abt money), ...as long as we don't pollute our rich soil in the process. And no I do NOT think our Government has done enough research or worried about due dilligence when the Chinese government can pay the NSW government $300 million for an exploration licence covering 19,500 hectares in Gunnedah.

People will move for a price and receive $10,000 year to have a wind turbine on their land but I would say most of them have not looked into the long term ramifications other than the balance in their bank.

I'm not trying to imply farmers are greedy, anything but...only that we have a group of people farming land or otherwise, in a recession....who would normally get $365,000 for their land.....and pocketing a nice tidy sum of $5mil would sound good to anyone.

The problem is in the mining versus the cultivation versus progress (money!) It's a fine balance and one can blind the other.

Food and water...the good ole basics. We won't be producing our own, we'll be importing off the Chinese...and all because we are worried about .0001% CO2 that we contribute to our environment.

Regards JO

 

[lizzie]

and probably the best example of why we shouldn't frack:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

wow - just read the article in full. Fracking is one scary "mother fracker". Give me coal burning power stations any day!

"drilling companies have still not come out and fully disclosed what fracking fluid is made of. But activists and researchers have been able to identify some of the chemicals used. They include such substances as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, boric acid, monoethanolamine, xylene, diesel-range organics, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, ammonium bisulfite, 2-butoxyethanol, and 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazotin-3-one. " (this equates to only 1/3rd of the total chemicals used)


"Chemical emissions from natural-gas processing in and around Fort Worth now match the city’s total emissions from cars and trucks, leading to alarming levels of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants in the air."

"Kendall Gerdes, a physician in Colorado Springs, tells me of how he and other doctors in the area saw a striking number of patients come to them with chronic dizziness, headaches, and neurological problems after drilling began near their homes. One of Dr. Gerdes’s patients, 62-year-old Chris Mobaldi, developed idiopathic hemorrhaging, or spontaneous bleeding, as well as neuropathy, a pituitary gland tumor, and a rare neurological speech impediment after alleged frequent exposure to noxious fumes from drilling. "

"Some of his livestock mysteriously dropped dead after having motor-skill breakdowns; a veterinarian said the deaths could be attributed to arsenic, high levels of which were found in water on Smith’s property. (Smith also worries about health problems he has developed, such as frequent headaches, abscessed teeth, and other mouth problems.) In Avella, Pennsylvania, a wastewater impoundment caught fire and exploded on George Zimmermann’s 480-acre property, producing a 200-foot-high conflagration that burned for six hours and produced a cloud of thick, black smoke visible 10 miles away. An E.P.A.-accredited environmental-testing company sampled the soil around the well sites on Zimmerman’s property and found arsenic at 6,430 times permissible levels and tetrachloroethene, a carcinogen and central-nervous-system suppressant, at 1,417 times permissible levels."

Not sure why I highlighted in blue - slimey green would've been more suitable

 

[josko]

wow - just read the article in full. Fracking is one scary "mother fracker". Give me coal burning power stations any day!

Thank-you lizzie.....just the sort of fracking info I am looking for...

Sounds like a case for Erin Brokovich (?) If it all wasn't so fracking serious we'd be rolling on the ground in laughter.

(Now that's getting fracking ridiculous...sorry it's Friday and I always go a bit silly abt now.)

Regards JO

 

[tom32]

Not sure why I highlighted in blue - slimey green would've been more suitable

I was off reading the link too.

Seems like the sort of process you would be better off carrying out on mars according to that! *


* if they had, had carbon based life forms in the past of course...

 

[Sunfish]

There is a lucrative market in making docos which scare the frack outta people. Where there's a market there will be a supply.

I haven't followed this the way I have the CO2 fraud but I have put Gasland in the same bin as An Inconvenient Truth. Without confirmation it is a science fiction novel. IMHO.

I have the same problem envisioning a "perfect" word where no animals are harmed, no tree is chopped and everything that is "virgin" remains so, as I do "heaven". If it really is Heaven I don't want it to be anything like Earth, at least not for Eternity.

 

[kremakarisma]

Per Capita Spin

The use of per capita in relation to Australia's carbon dioxide output is a con. It is obvious that the result of taking any number and dividing it by any particular number will be greater than that same number divided by a much larger number. Basic maths. Not rocket science.

For example IF you take the output of the non pollutant carbon dioxide in Australia and divided it by the number of people in Australia you would achieve a per capita result. If you took the same output and divided it by the number of people living in China the per capita result would be significantly less. So Per Capita Australia produces more than China which pumps out more pollution, as does India, than most countries!!

Imagine if you had a massive power station on an island with only 1 person living there as security or whatever. That island's per capita output would be higher than the per capita carbon dioxide pollution of China if that same power station was the only source of carbon dioxide pollution in China.

So let's forget this Per Capita spin and concentrate on total output of a particular country if we must be concerned at all.

And to top it off we close our so-called "polluting" power stations with the steam (NOT POLLUTING SMOKE as seen on TV) billowing out of the cooling towers and then ship our coal to China for basically zilch to catch up on the pollution that we are supposed to be reducing. By doing this the climate in Australia will be saved?

 

[Macca]

Well for all of yous deniers out there ya better reed dis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

see, us greenees have ben tellin ya

 

[topcropper]

After reading that I went back to the top to check the date. Thought it might have been put out April 1st.


See ya's.