216 replies to this topic

[Rockoz]

Ok Ian so you worked it out.

 

But you are hard to follow sometimes.

Your concerns have changed from damage to farming lands to catastrophes to people making money to chemical poisoning to the Artesian Basin.

With the given information I cant see any evidence of toxic chemicals.

 

But if you are worried about the Great Artesian Basin then other subterranean water supplies are probably more at risk.

There are aquifers in other places that have been affected.

The ones I have seen have been because of coal mining.

A mate of mine has told me about his local area from CSG drilling.

Some have returned. Others remain dry after 30 years.

 

Gas Water and Minerals are all natural resources that we currently need.

But whose need is more important?

 

One thing I dislike in situations like this is the use of American information being used as arguments for Australian situations.

Ive worked with Yanks on many different projects and they have a lot less consideration for others in their processes.

They cant understand the restrictions we generally have here on getting projects completed.

They have less consideration for the environment and even the workers.

That could be part of the reason they have so many dramas over there.

[Rockoz]

Wow Ian.

I made a mistake and admitted it.

You have harped on about things yourself that evidence you have presented have shown you wrong.

 

You should have a job on the ABC.

You have misquoted me.

You have taken my comments and twisted them to suit yourself.

 

You dont know your own opinion.

You say you support it but post negative commentary.

You are very hard to work out.

 

You claim 800 chemicals are used.

Where is your evidence this is the case in Australia?

Edited by Rockoz, 26 March 2015 - 09:22 AM.

[EunUCh]

Reading the link posted from Gov. website it seems like.

1. it is cheaper to drill a hole and get gas?

2.methane is a good source of energy for certain things?

3.cheaper than digging up the coal that deep to use it, or turn it into coal gas while under ground then use the coal gas produced.

4.not much on the water quality/quantity that is displaced and what it can/can't be used for?

5.a little bit on the chemicals used for the fracking process,they call it "BTEX" although "others" can be used,chemicals used in the fracking process are required to be listed with "NICNAS",most have not been assessed by "NICNAS"?,although they do say that "BTEX" is used in "small quantities"?

6.it is a rather large area that is being looked at ,and if i read the paper correctly,43 million tons/year from eight proposals at full capacity,3 have approval and expect to export mid this year,so where is it going? ,and even if some form of generation system is built here,what percentage will be used here for "cheap domestic power"?

7."if"/"when" each "site" is given approval over a gradual time frame,what exactly are we dealing with.....

I read something like  partnerships with certain local and international companies?
 

[FLY_LX]

wow, some strong and unwavering opinions on CSG. I don't live near or have even seen a CSG mine myself. Like most my knowledge is 2nd hand from what i;ve read or watched.

 

CSG can't be that bad, after all these foreign multinational companies have paid for and conducted in-depth studies saying how safe it is for us and the environment and the many benefits it brings. Now surely they would not try to deceive with these unbiased studies? What would they have to gain from that? It's not like any company sold or produced things that they know are dangerous, deadly or toxic.

 

I guess one benefit is that if your water catches on fire you probably can run your car on it, that's if there's any left, because from what i've read one well can use from 2-3 million litres of water PER A WELL. http://theconversati...t-fracking-3498 being the driest continent on earth is that a good idea?

 

And i also don't think its right that a private entity can come to you an Australian citizen/ land owner and say i'm going to sink a gas mine on your property, LIKE IT OR NOT and with the blessing of the government, but its ok because you get a minimal negotiated annual payment per a well.  

 

Australia is for sale people and its going cheap!!   

Its not like Australia or Australians are benefiting from any of these mining ops from $$$ or anything else. Don't have cheap petrol/gas. Don't get royalties. Infact our LNG is sold for next to nothing to China while we pay market rate for our own gas. Work that out

 

Its like all these energy companies spend alot of money saying how they care about our future, the environment, what ever, but invest there capitol in same old shit they have for the last 100 years. 

 

And when that oxygen thief Abbott says coal is good, why would any company operating in Aus want to change.

[Rockoz]

Land owners dont own the mineral rights to their land any more.

That changed when they brought in Torrens Title.

There were still many people however who had land under Old Title, which meant they had mineral rights.

Under Torrens Title someone can come along and stake a claim on your property and develop it.

There would be some compensation to the landowner for access.

 

Gas was slightly different though.

I know that in the 80s AGL had all gas rights throughout Australia.

This was an issue for mines on the South Coast NSW.

Because AGL owned the Gas Rights, if the mines used the gas to produce anything they had to pay AGL compensation.

So the mines  just vented the gas to the atmosphere.

[EunUCh]

There is a lot of info. out there,some from the government,some from people affected directly,and other "independent" type stories and studies.

The positives they say are a "clean cheap" fuel and jobs,for sure jobs created will employ some people in the area and this of course 

helps an economy to a point?

The problem is by the sound of it is that most will be exported,so from a jobs point of view most will be "created" in export land?

 

"If" it is the all you beut future of energy,how many power stations will be built here to provide cheap power and long term prosperity?

Truth be known that probably most of the coal and iron ore goes export as well and we just by back the stuff made from our natural

resources at an over inflated price based on the "world" market?

 

Australia is not for sale any more.....it has been sold.

 

If CSG is such a good thing and the water can be used productively then where are all the positive reports from the CSG companies?

So far i have only seen one or two...which recommends pumping/piping the water into some already saline stream or some sort of evaporation pond/s.Maybe they should bottle the water displaced as well as the recovered water and put it on the same boat as the gas

to be sold in export land as "pure drinking water"...or they could just drink it at the meetings of "Business leaders meets Government"

luncheons etc. .......bloody expensive meals/deals meeting to participate in though? 

 

 

 

[Rockoz]

So we have this stuff in the ground.

We cant use it all.

So do we leave it in the ground?

Or do we create some income and jobs?

 

The companies that are doing the work have got positive information on their websites.

But apparently these arent to be believed.

 

Its not a perfect industry.

But then what industry is?

 

The anti CSG group around Camden are trying to link seismic activity with CSG drilling.

Really thought that if there was to be increased seismic activity it would have been in the adjacent area that has been extensively longwall mined.

 

There are even anti CSG people who think that tunnels are used for CSG.

 

One day there will be technology available for 24/7 reliable renewable energy. Probably be another 20 years or more though.

 

But looking at these projects I would wonder what the environmental risks of heating substances in a tower to 4 or 500 deg.C will have on the local environment.

 

Or what the reflected light back upwards will do to some layer in the atmosphere, or local climate conditions.

 

Trouble is that the anti people make more noise. They get noticed.

Then they produce information that suits their agenda that may not be truthful or factual.

Others then take this as gospel and spread it

[FLY_LX]

yes there will be some jobs and income created but the Australian Bureau of Statistics has about 23,000 working in gas and oil, most of them contract workers (or imported), so i don't think there employing as many people as they spruck.

 

Yes we need a energy source to keep the life we are accustomed to. The problem is we only have one earth, and it's finite. We have just about sucked it dry, here are but a few issues:

Oil supply predicted on current supply estimated 46 years supply

Natural gas 60 years

Phosphorus which is used in fertiliser and plants need to grow 30- 50 years

The list goes on

 

That's why they are extracting CSG, shale oil and shale gas and what ever else they can milk a profit from.

 

So the world could be a very different in 50 years if these figures a accurate? especially when everything today is made from petro-chemicals.

[Rockoz]

30 years ago it was said we only had coal to last another 50 years.

There are mines that were producing then that have said they have another 30 years.

Truth is that there is coal to last at current usage for a few hundred years.

Some of it is currently not economical to extract due to various reasons.

Lots of it is also tied up in National Parks.

If we need it badly enough it will come out of the ground.

 

Natural Gas has been said to have around 400 years supply.

 

Another source says that phosphate will still be available for another few hundred years as well.

 

But is it wrong to develop and extract this stuff?

Arent companies allowed to make a return on their investments?

There is a demand and there is a supply.

 

Or do we go back to living in a primitive way?

 

As much as I agree we need to protect our way of life, I still am not convinced about Global Warming/Climate Change/Man Made Climate Change or whatever they will call it next.

I still remember the Hole In The Ozone Layer Catastrophe that was going to descend us into darkness.

That was proved garbage by some scientists, but wasnt believed for a few years by a lot of them.

 

The truth is out there.

But I highly doubt you will find it on anything from ABC or Youtube.

[Rockoz]

http://www.qhatlas.c...ter-deeper-down

 

Without going and doing a day of research, that page you posted Ian appears to have a lot of supposition.

And with my internet speed it could take days.

 

It seems they may have selectively taken sentences and/or parts of sentences and possibly used them out of context.

 

Where someone will see demons in what is written, others will see doubts.

[FLY_LX]

cut and paste from https://water.usgs.gov/edu/

 

Notice how of the world's total water supply of about 332.5 million cubic miles of water, over 96 percent is saline. And, of the total freshwater, over 68 percent is locked up in ice and glaciers. Another 30 percent of freshwater is in the ground. Fresh surface-water sources, such as rivers and lakes, only constitute about 22,300 cubic miles (93,100 cubic kilometers), which is about 1/150th of one percent of total water. Yet, rivers and lakes are the sources of most of the water people use everyday.

 

 

Edited by FLY_LX, 29 March 2015 - 02:31 PM.

[EunUCh]

She be right then,the little water displaced that does make it to the top and of the wells that do require fracking will be of little consequence simply because the basin is so big it will simply deal with it over time,they only use 1% of chemicals of the total water used in fracking and some don't need it because it is not "tight gas".

If they only use say 2 million liters of water per hole that needs cracking then who knows how many holes need fracking and % of fracking chemicals will be very low depending on how many holes need the mix,some of it will be left underground,some will be "returned" and whatever is left will not be a problem because it won't affect the surface water and whatever is returned will be better than what is was when it came up through the self regulated systems in place.

Out of the 40000 holes proposed how many need a bit of help?

[Rockoz]

I dont have the answers thats for sure.

But what I have is some deductive reasoning and past experience to guide me.

 

These holes arent a secret.

The EPA knows about them Im sure.

 

Have you ever had a visit from EPA Inspectors where you have been working?

Honestly they make Workcover Inspectors seem like friends.

 

So if there is a problem you can be sure EPA is on to it.

And if they find a problem the site is hounded.

They hide in bushes, in ditches, wherever they think they can catch you out for something else.

 

A lot of the bigger companies I have worked for have their own Environmental People as well.

Their aim is to stop problems happening well before they do.

They will also ring the EPA as soon as they find they have breached the law. Before they do anything else.

 

There is actually a lot more corporate responsibility than most people would realise.

 

Perhaps the rules are wrong or flawed. But they are the rules.

 

And it really seems that the people complaining the most are the ones least affected.

Those who are directly affected seem to be happy.

 

So who has it right?

 

Certainly some of the science is flawed that those opposed use.

It is even coming through now of the misinformation that the climate change people are using.

Just as it did with the Ozone Layer so called disaster.

 

Guess it will be a long while before the truth will come through on any of it.

Maybe it will be all crap.

Maybe it will be too late for civilisation.

 

Im banking on the former.

[Rockoz]

Wouldnt know about that.

You seem to be the forum expert on the subject however.

Will leave it up to you.

[EunUCh]

"they" will almost suck every last ounce of a quick $ to their/our own  detriment at the end of the day out of this earth in the guise of clean,clean,clean,clean.

The population of this planet is exponential,even if we took 7 billion people and gave them 2 acres each,how much of the earths land mass would be needed to house and feed those people in a sort of decent manner?

The thing is i think that no matter what the energy requirements are needed to suit a decent life with the best possible outcome to all has been frocked up by those telling us we need to change our ways at our expense, and CSG is no different,ffs most of it is going out of a $40billion plant in Gladstone,and that helps our our economy?,short term yes?,where are all the clean cheap power plants to  power keep jobs/prosperity here?....fracking china or some other country? but we have cheap imports,frack yeah,,,that we do?

Edited by EunUCh, 29 March 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Rockoz]

This is one plant that I worked on.

The gas that powers it used to go to the atmosphere.

It and its partner provide 94MW of Power.

Enough to run 60000 home equivalents.

They also run the mines they get their gas from.

The developing company stood to make a lot of money from the carbon trading scheme.

But that has changed.

Their impact on the environment is low.

There is a bit of noise from the exhausts. But mostly covered by background noise.

The Greenies have objected to it. But not until it had been operating for 15 years.

 

There is also potential adjacent to the plants for users of heat.

Could produce steam.

Or heat the ground for an agricultural venture

 

.  appin.jpg   496.36K   1 downloads

[wot179]

Happy reading, DJ.

http://media.bze.org...Synopsis_v1.pdf