http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2010/10/coal-seam-gas-prof-garry-willgoose.html?site=upperhunter&program=newcastle_afternoons

As he says, CSG has only been around for 15 years so all the companies are feeling their way, especially on environmental issues.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/cubbie-may-face-water-grant-buyout-20090817-enop.html

In January 2013, the sale of our nation’s largest farm to Chinese interests settles.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/farm-sale-betrays-poor-judgment-of-lie-of-land-20130124-2d9yc.html

These people are crazy and in charge.

http://www.thegwpf.org/eu-summit-set-turn-climate-agenda-upside/

But here in OZ we have to wait until sept to boot out our stupid Labor govt, then hope the Coalition will cut back even harder on this useless renewable energy cancer.

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4WQIB_enAU533AU534&q=Professor+wilgoose+coal+seam+gas+in+australia

Fine.

My concern is wells drilled in Coal Seams in central southern Queensland. A completely different geology. All evidence so far shows that they leak, there is now methane bubbling up into the condamine river where there wasn’t before. Visitors to the area immediately notice the smell. Children are suffering medical problems never before experienced.

Matt Ridley tells it like it is:

There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet. Hunger, rainforest destruction, excess cold-weather deaths and reduced economic growth are all exacerbated by the rush to biomass and wind. These dwarf any possible effects of worse weather, for which there is still no actual evidence anyway: recent droughts, floods and storms are within historic variability.

The harm done by policy falls disproportionately on the poor. Climate worriers claim that at some point this will reverse and the disease will become worse than the cure. An acceleration in temperature rise, they say, is overdue. The snag is, the best science now says otherwise. Whereas the politicians, activists and businessmen who make the most noise about — and money from — this issue are sticking to their guns, key scientists are backing away from predictions of rapid warming.

Yesterday saw the publication of a paper in a prestigious journal,Nature Geoscience, from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report; two are lead authors of the crucial chapter 10: professors Myles Allen and Gabriele Hegerl.

So this study is about as authoritative as you can get. It uses the most robust method, of analysing the Earth’s heat budget over the past hundred years or so, to estimate a “transient climate response” — the amount of warming that, with rising emissions, the world is likely to experience by the time carbon dioxide levels have doubled since pre-industrial times.

The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too. That is to say, up until my teenage children reach retirement age, they will have experienced further warming at about the same rate as I have experienced since I was at school.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3769210.ece

“Smells good – smells like destruction !”….

Wow

Your quote:

“You’ve answered it for me. If they have the power then warn miners they haven’t got the right to farmer’s land unless the farmer gives the OK. Simple as ABC.”

Wrong again. You never get tired of being wrongo, do you ? Your deliberate density is amusing

Miners can ONLY access land with an Exploration Permit granted by the Minister (or his delegated Deptl Head). Normally, such Permits are NOT given until a “damages” agreement has been concluded with the landholder – by “damages”, it is meant that restoration of tracks, sumps, cuttings etc are agreed upon as well as payment for lack of any land use involved in the duration of the exploration

If the landholder withholds consent to any reasonable agreement offer, the Minister may then make a decision one way or the other. I have been in Supreme Court hearings for appeals from both sides on just such issues. ABC it is NOT

PLEASE pay attention to the FACTS, not what you may wish them to be (there seems to be really no chance of that, does there ?)

And also notice that you have unsuccessfully attempted to move the goal-posts twice now from the paper I linked to your own political opinions. You are entitled to your opinions but not your take about existing law. The linked paper tells you straight up that properly formed, sealed and maintained fracked gas wells do NOT impact with any measurable adversity on overlying potable aquifers. Now that empirical data is ABC

You need all the help you can get Luke.

We used to do this with a Vickers MG on 12 inch ironbark but we didn’t need 3,000 rounds to do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY