Famers say to CSG industry: ‘show me the money’?

I MIGHT be a bit slow, but it is now very clear why farmers are opposed to the coal seam gas (CSG) industry.
It is because landholders will not make much money out of the industry. Michael Pascoe’s recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald makes the point that this is the driving issue for landholders, who consider they are missing out on the ‘coal seam gas gravy train’ and ‘want a slice of the action’.
Mr Pascoe must have heard the speech given by Rachel Nolan, Queensland Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts, to the Queensland Gas Conference on August 16. Minister Nolan, quoting from her previous experience as transport Minister, commented that opposition to mining developments often came from those in rural communities that could not identify ‘what’s in it for us’.
It is blatantly obvious from talking to farmers that they have far greater concerns than just compensation.
Farmers are justifiably concerned not only about the dislocation to farming by gas extraction facilities on the surface but also about the potential long term loss of ground water, which is needed to sustain highly productive grazing and agriculture businesses. This includes the aquifers that sustain irrigation on the Condamine Plain.
There are also concerns about the volumes, quality and reliability of CSG water supply and the implications for the disposal or use of this water over the coming decades.
As Minister Nolan pointed out to the gas industry executives on August 16, the Queensland Government is committed to see these massive projects proceed to reap the gains for the state economy in terms of exports, jobs and taxes.
To address community concerns, she outlined that the State Government is applying stringent environmental requirements to address concerns about environmental harm that these massive projects may cause locally or basin wide.
Landowners however have had enough contact with both the State Government and the project companies to know that both do not have a full understanding of how significant water extraction will impact on groundwater, particularly the extensive resources of the Great Artesian Basin and the overlying sub-artesian aquifers.
Legislation introduced in late 2010 provides for the State Government and the CSG companies to adopt a ‘learn by doing’ or adaptive approach to deal with the complex issue of the management of groundwater impacts.
QFF recognises that project companies are required to produce underground water impact reports regularly as part of a rigorous monitoring program of water quality, quantity and water levels within their tenures to improve the understanding of groundwater and impacts of water extraction.
The Queensland Water Commission (QWC) is also to conduct monitoring and prepare impact reports over wider impact areas to assess the cumulative impacts of CSG projects.
However, landholders have difficulty with the adaptive approach taken by the Queensland Government in dealing with the environmental harm these projects could have.
Landholders continue to ask what is environmental harm and if projects singularly or collectively cause environmental harm how will negative impacts be fixed and if they can’t be fixed who will meet the costs of the impacts.
The tension we see in communities is directly related to the fact that the State Government has already approved many the CSG projects to proceed and will be reluctant to alter those approvals or indeed make legislative requirements retrospective given the benefits to the State economy and to government’s tax receipts.
Communities feel disempowered, taken for granted, and disrespected by this process. Michael Pascoe’s reassurance that ‘the companies big enough to run LNG operations in this country are too attuned to the environmental and financial imperatives to widely risk a catastrophe’ is cold comfort for local communities that fear that their farming areas and communities may be sacrificed for the wider benefit to the State and national economies.
Farmers and communities must have confidence that firstly there is a robust monitoring program in place that will transparently measure the cumulative impacts of CSG operations before the Government completely takes its foot of the brake on these developments..
Secondly they want to see measures defined in legislation that can be activated to mitigate cumulative impacts and if this is not possible, adequate compensation should be obtained for impact on groundwater levels or quality.
It will be important that these procedures can address impacts over both the short to medium term as well as end of project impacts
QFF agrees with Mr Pascoe’s conclusion that ‘Australia does well and should do better out of its agricultural industry. It also stands to do very well out of the LNG industry. They are not mutually exclusive.’
However, we won’t achieve this objective if we are unable to manage for the development of both industries at the local and regional levels.
In this regard QFF agrees with Minister Nolan’s aunty who lives in Chinchilla, as was mentioned in her speech: ‘the gas industry and the government need to do more – more doing, not just talking’ to convince local communities that they have a sustainable future based upon agriculture (which they already know) and the less-certain gas industries co-developing.