I am a land owner that has been directly effected by the CSG boom. In fact, they are out there right now preparing the site.

So what do you know about it and, where did you get your info from?

Of cause I have only delt with one company, so my position will be bias to some degree.

rehctub,
Tell us what is your view and why you hold such.

I think better places exist to get informed opinion than here.
And that while we should be aware of some very disturbing out comes, in America.
It will be inflated by both sides and biases will come in to it.
Given our failure to get any agreement on Climate change/ tax/ costs my view is we will do no better here.
I am finding in my trips to market days people from every side of politics, are trying to recruit me, to protest.
I am not yet prepared to do that.
Some of the claims against it are fantasy's.

Fracking and earth tremmor are linked , known sinse 1966. The US has confirmed it. Normally oklohoma would get 50 tremmors a year, last 12 months 1050 tremmors. Blamed on fracking.

Philo, I will get to your point, but first, 579 fraking in not used by all miners.

Now, back to my views.

I think we are caught between a rock and a hard place, whereby our governmentS, rather than pile money away for a rainy day, have gone out and wasted countless billions on failed projects, cost blow outs etc, knowing full well they had the mining boom to replenish thier slush funds should this idea also go pear shaped, much like many of those before hand.

So her we are now reliant on the income this industry produces, while knowing full well science is not ther to either prove, or disprove it's effect, or potential effec on the environment.

That said, it is my view that this industry is one of the most regulated and monitored industries whereas having the environment in mind.

As for where they can extract gas, well it is also my view that prime farm land, and any land of significant interest should be complete no go zones an, if the miners wish to extract the gas, by all means do so, but not by drilling from above.

Put simply, find another method or leave it alone.

Water table
In my area, western downs region, the water table, aquafa is about 60 to 200 feet below, whereas the gas water is more like 850 to 1200 feet below and between them is sold rock.

While some say our water may be contaminated and we can no longer farm, they must remember" they don't own the water, yet they hav had free rein over it for years.

Land owners rights.
As a LO you buy land, pay rates and maintain your land with no assistance from governments, yet, they can steal your assetts from under you without question.

I don't think we ha heard the last of this.

For the record, our share of the royalties, as LO is ZERO!

I hope I have not bored you belly!

the important difference is when you first bought
or got your land..seems that pre 1913..you owned all the land
plus what is under it..that right still stands..

for the others govt 'own's'..it
or rather holds custodial feasance over it
but heck...the thing is govt calls installing pipelines and ports
infastructure spending..[its actually building the pipelines and ports..and all the scum does is polute the water..and drill a hole]

the govt cost isnt even recoverd by royalties

take a hint...search for alan jones at the press club..[last weeek?]
he said the berst brief on the topic i ever heard on anything

there should be some link to that at his web site

anyhow best of luck
did you watch mondays 4 corners

OUG, while I agree in principle with your argument When the land was acquired, if this is a just case, why then were the land holders of the day not compensated for the assetts that were taken from them.

Where are the land rights in this case?

Then there is a case to argue that we, the land owners ar in fact guardians of that state owned asett and, we should be compensated for at the very least, being protectors of that asett, don't you think?

After all, we at our one expense, errect fences around the land, for purposes including, protecting the assets from potential trespasses.

I know it's a long shot, but there may well be more to come on this issue.

I reckon even if they can extract the resources underneath the land(which you don't really own), you should at least be able to charge them rent for any space taken up by any plant on top of it (which you do).

I mean, someone can't just come along and build something in your back yard and use it for free, regardless of what they are doing underneath it. They should have to pay for the space.

of course they should pay rent
present them with bills..via bill collecters
sue them for every 'billing event'...[that causes you unease,..or injures your luife styl;e..[get serious]..

put a lien on their assets
and the assets of the directers and all workers
get hard ball on it..[dont just use words]

""Where are the land rights in this case?""

to them we are less represented than the first people
thus more easy game...[mate they couldnt casreless.they own polititions...think who is paying for this

where does the buck stop?
lien their assets too

"we should be compensated for at the very least,
being protectors of that asett, don't you think?"'

if your protecting..send them a bill
[but knowing your business mind...are you protecting?}
i had to ask by what actions]

""After all, we at our one expense,
errect fences around the land,""

oh so john howards free fencing scam..you mised out on?

fencing..""for purposes including,
protecting the assets from potential trespasses.""

oh like a private beach
i would advise you to say
fence?..to protect the native wildlife

""I know it's a long shot,
but there may well be more to come on this issue""

no doudt there will be
but by then you will only have land collapse..and dry wells
and a pipekline link to gladstone..then you find out it was a limited liability shelf company..with only outstanding debts..and no assets

then you will wish you had liened them
for not paying costs as the destroyed looted and plunderd
your mineral wealth..[in aussie were all equal..no special rights for anyone..what was law in 1913..remains law now]..

only proving it costs heaps
and those we sue..are hiding behind corperate limited lie-abilities and 'the money changers'

Buggsy, this is the tricky bit.

They don't pay the LO rent, rather, they pay compensation, big differnce in the eyes of the tax office.

Now rent is income and taxed accordingly.

Compensation however is treated like capital gain and that's the tricky bit.

You see if the take up say 30 Ha of you land, you are seen to have created an instant assett, then sold it for a profit

Now depending on your structure, you may pay half of this compensation in tax and, given it is a capital gain, one can only right that off against a capital loss.

The bit I don't understand is that the gas company is gone within three years and hands the land back to you, minus the trees etc.

I think the tax office simply rights the rules to best suit them.

Can I offer some information on fracking Rehctub.

http://ntn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NTN-Fracking-Briefing-Paper-2011.pdf

This issue of compensation and land rights, is far outweighed by the risks associated with this simply stupid idea. There is some experience with this technology in the U.S. , all of it bad I'm afraid Rehctub.

Exactly the same questions about the safety of the chemicals used in the process and the environmental damage caused by fracking, are being asked by some in the U.S Congress although it's too late for that, the damage is already done.

One little understood thing about fracking is that they frack the well over and over again, pumping extremely hazardous cumulative substances into the substrata and water table over and over again. These chemicals will be transported to their site presumably through the area surrounding their well, over and over again, through your property I assume Rechtub.

As you read into the link I provided you'll find the fracking process explained in great detail.

cheers T2

As a member of The Greens, our party is strongly opposed to the rampant exploration of NSW, and indeed much of Sydney by the CSG mob. We do not oppose proper exploitation when it is fully researched and developed correctly with the full environmental impact known. The CSG mob will have us believe CSG is all win win, its far from that. Before the State election The ALP government was exposed as being complicit in the proposed exploitation of a CSG site in inner Sydney at St Peters, about 5km from the CBD in the middle of a high density population. If you want to know about the results of CSG in the USA, watch the doco 'Gasland' its an eye opener, it was for me. The attitude of the O'Farrell Conservative Government is as it always is with the Liberal Party 'if there is a buck to be made any development at any price is good'.

Yes Paul1405, I agree that the conservative Govt's we get in this country are particularly damaging and destructive when it comes to development at any cost as you say. Labor seems to be headed in this direction also , but not all of the party.

I am not a Green member, but I think CSG is a massive problem , not just for the owners of arable land upon which CSG operators conduct their business, but for the entire community the plants and animals, all the way down to the microbes.

We are talking serious and repeated poisoning of the environment here. This is more damaging than nuclear energy which endows the problem of disposal of its waste product to future citizens. This one starts polluting from the get/go. You get the downside as you go and most probably in a way that can never be reversed or rectified. It is madness personified.

This is the most flagrant abuse of our planet, that man has devised thus far. It flies on a wing and a prayer and a hope that the planet will repair itself afterwards, without the slightest understanding of the possibilities/consequences associated with living on a post fracked planet.