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'.