The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 1 Common Provisions, Restricted Land

 by George Houen 

Photo taken by John Jenkyn on the night of Jan 12, 2015 of Origins gas flare 16 km away to the ENE. At the same time John took photos of a further 2 big flares going, Brentleigh to the ESE & Codie that is due west. Under the Common Provisions regulations this coal seam gas infrastructure could be constructed only 200 metres from your home.

 

The M&E Resources (Common Provisions) Act brings massive, mostly adverse change to landholders’ rights  concerning exploration and the objection and approval process. It does also bring some worthwhile streamlining and coordination changes between the resource Acts.

Understanding  the practical effect of those numerous changes is not easy, even for practitioners who work with the resources legislation.

In Queensland a large proportion of the mineral and petroleum resources are located in highly productive, more closely settled agricultural and grazing land, so it is inevitable that resource activities cause a high degree of land use conflict.

It is the job of the State government, in authorising access to private land and controlling the exploitation of mineral and petroleum resources, to manage the resulting land use conflict. Fairness and minimal disruption and damage to the affected agricultural and grazing businesses must be the objective.

 I believe this paper shows that the reforms have severely reduced the rights of landholders for the benefit of miners. Once landholders come face to face with the changes, I believe we will see open hostility and resistance to resource operators. I believe it would be prudent for the government to reconsider the changes so as to restore fairness and effective management of land use conflict.         

 

Restricted Land

All resource activities including CSG  will be subject to the restricted land system.

• Prescribed activities are now prohibited on restricted land, whereas for 25 years since 1989 it has been entry to restricted land that was prohibited.
• Prescribed activities include anything conducted on the surface, or below the surface if it causes an impact such as subsidence. That seems to mean exploration crews or prospectors can drive or walk around restricted land and even camp on restricted land.
• Construction and operation of pipelines is exempt – this seems to mean a CSG operator could ignore the restriction and build and operate gas or water gathering lines through restricted land regardless.
• Water facilities and stockyards are no longer restricted land.
• Permanent buildings - and a buffer around them to be set by regulation - which are used for residence, school, church, childcare hospital or library will be restricted land (but see below re mining lease and petroleum lease applications).
• Land used for aquaculture, feedlot, piggery, poultry shed or cemetery is restricted land.
• A building used for business or other purposes which is not easily relocated and not able to coexist with resource activities is restricted land (I feel for anyone trying to interpret that).
• On a mining lease or petroleum lease application area, a building or land is only restricted if it was being used as at the date the lease application was lodged.

The new restricted land regime is complicated, inappropriate and ambiguous. It could lead to significant damage or loss through disturbance of stock and stress on landholders and their families and staff. Its complexity will baffle and frustrate exploration crews and landholders and give rise to disputes as they try to interpret it in their day to day operations.

Landholders should aim to convince explorers and prospectors to voluntarily remain bound by the original restricted land scheme – that is, use every reasonable means at their disposal to press every explorer entering for preliminary activities and every prospector to sign a brief agreement specifying:

- no entry within a 50 metre radius of any water points (whether artificial or natural); and

- no entry within a 50 metre radius of stockyards, mustering laneways or any other specific areas sensitive for stock management.

For advanced activities where a conduct and compensation agreement is required, use whatever means of persuasion are available to gain acceptance  of those same no entry provisions. 

Previous Related Posts

New bill denies natural justice

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill

PRA: Regional Queensland deserves better



Broke, Hunter Valley, image sourced [here]
 

One lousy sentence



Treasurer Tim Nicholls in Gladstone Harbour
source: Courier Mail

One lousy sentence given grudgingly by the Qld treasurer, Tim Nicholls, gives no justice and portrays no understanding what farming families and other landowner...s have been subjected to in the unleashing of the CSG colossus.

Tim Nicholls is quoted in the Courier Mail article, Liquefied coal seam gas shipment set to leave Gladstone, as saying, “landholders had to be acknowledged for the sacrifice and trouble they had been put to as CSG companies moved onto their land.”




It has been a lot more than just mere trouble, Tim. Try non-disclosure of information; isolate, divide & conquer; lying; pressured negotiation; bullying; ambushing with contrived bluffs; tactics to apply pressure; limited, miserly compensation; landowners time uncompensated; stress; complete disregard & disinterest in how agricultural management systems can work in with a gas field; the co-existence myth; gates open; weeds; loss of underground water; no solution for a mountain of salt brought to the surface; loss of amenity of living; roads destroyed; dust; noise; sense of community lost; liability from contamination; diminution of property value.

The list continues.

The government has failed to govern for all. The Newman LNP government & preceding Bligh Labor government have not allowed the agricultural department to protect even the small percentage of good quality soils; the Department of Environment & Heritage has not been allowed to do its job; there was very limited legal aid made available & that did not continue; landowners suffering impacts ask government for help only to be fobbed off by organisations devised by government, Gasfield Commission & CSG Compliance Unit, with the purpose of to be seen to be doing something and to dampen down the voice of the rural landowner to be heard in the urban communities.

On top of all that with landowners already suffering significant imbalances of power the Newman government systematically made significant legislative changes that removed what few rights landowners had.

What for? This Courier Mail reveals the answer; this first ship alone has loaded $50 million worth of LNG. When the industry gets into full stride in 2017 there will be 360 ships leaving the harbour loaded with LNG every year. The Qld government is expected to rake in $500 million annually. 

LNG tanker, Methane Rita Andrea, docked at QGC LNG plant at Curtis Island
photo sourced Gladstone Observer

Rising Seas are Nothing New

by Viv Forbes

 

The most careful analysis of world sea levels suggests they are rising at between zero and 2mm per year. Measurements to this accuracy are questionable as they are complicated by changes in ocean currents and wind direction, and shorelines that may rise and sink.

Sea levels are never still, but with global temperatures flat and snow cover and polar ice steady, sea levels are probably as stable today as they ever get.

Image sourced [here]

However, we still have creative climatists concocting complex computer models that predict dangerously rising seas to justify their goal to ban coastal development and to revive their failing war on carbon.

Alarmists should study earth history.

At the depth of our recent ice age, just 16,000 years ago, a thick sheet of ice covered much of North America and Northern Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much water was locked up in ice that humans could walk on dry land from London to Paris, from Siberia to Alaska and from New Guinea to Australia. The River Rhine flowed across a broad coastal plain (which is now the North Sea) and met the Atlantic Ocean up between Scotland and Norway.

image sourced [here]

 

 

 

 

There was no Great Barrier Reef as Queensland’s continental shelf was part of the coastal plain, and rivers like the Burdekin met the ocean about 160 km east of its current mouth. Most of its ancestral river channel can still be recognised beneath the Coral Sea.

Then, about 13,000 years ago, with no help from man-made engines burning hydrocarbons, the Earth began warming. This was probably caused by natural cycles affecting our sun and the solar system, aided by volcanic heat along Earth’s Rings of Fire under the oceans.

The great ice sheets melted, sea levels rapidly rose some 130m and coastal settlements and ancient port cities were drowned and are being rediscovered, even today

 

As the oceans warmed, they expelled much of their dissolved load of carbon dioxide. The warm temperatures and extra carbon dioxide plant food caused vigorous plant growth. Permafrost melted, forests colonised the treeless tundra and grasses and herbs covered the great plains. Iceball Earth became the Blue/green planet, supporting a huge increase in plant and animal life.

Without any zoning laws to guide them, our smart ancestors moved ahead of the rising waters and adapted happily to the warmer climate with less snow, more rain, more carbon dioxide plant food and more ice-free land.

This warming phase peaked in the Medieval Warm Era about 1,000 years ago, when sea levels also peaked. They fell during the Little Ice Age, rose slightly during the Modern Warm Era, and are relatively stable now.

Rising seas are never a lethal threat to life on Earth. The danger sign is falling sea levels caused by a return of the great ice sheets. This would quickly put high-latitude farming into the deep freezer, thus creating widespread starvation. Trying to grow crops on emerging salty mudflats in an icy climate will give some future farmers a real climate concern.

And despite World Heritage listing, when the next ice age comes the skeletons of the stranded Great Barrier Reef will become bleached limestone deposits on the coastal plain. The indestructible coral populations will abandon their marooned homes and build new reefs further out under the retreating seas.

Image sourced [here]

For those who would like to read more:

Ice Age Europe
http://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html

Nothing New about Rising sea levels:
http://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

Sea levels were probably been higher than this during the Medieval Warming, and fell in the Little Ice Age:
http://carbon-sense.com/2013/12/02/endlich-sea-level-claims/

The Buried Burdekin River Channel
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/386/

Sea level in the southwest pacific is stable:
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/01/01/south-pacific-sea-level-changes/

Renewables NOT Renewable

by Viv Forbes

Horse Hollow wind farm

 

There is an incessant chorus from the green gospellers glorifying “renewable” energy and warning disbelievers that continued use of carbon fuels will damn the world to eternal fires of global warming.

Their ire is focussed on carbon dioxide, one very minor but beneficial atmospheric gas which is accused of causing more of everything bad: pollution and extreme weather, droughts and floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, malaria and mosquitos, icebergs and glacier retreat, heat waves and blizzards, declining polar bears and multiplying cane toads.

 
 

We are told that using “renewable” energy will prevent all these disasters and produce cheap “clean” electricity. Four points are relevant:

First, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol or wood is not a pollutant in the atmosphere, not the key driver of global warming or climate change, but a boon to all plants (and thus all life). It is clean and green. There is thus no environmental or climate justification for punitive taxes on carbon dioxide, or for really silly stuff like emissions trading or carbon capture and burial.

Second, wind and solar power have a role in remote or mobile applications and in domestic hot water generation, but are an unreliable and high cost addition to grid power. Because of their intermittent and unpredictable supply characteristics, the large areas of land required to collect significant energy, and their need for back-up generators or huge batteries, they can seldom compete in a fair market with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro power. Nothing anyone can do will change these natural characteristics.

Third, those who wish to use “renewable” energy or to become independent of the grid are free to do so, and this should continue. But green energy should not be molly-coddled with subsidies from taxpayers or other users, nor protected by extra taxes on carbon energy, taxpayer loans, mandated market shares or propped up prices.

Finally, there is one killer point that has recently emerged.

The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities.


Google has long supported green energy and had a dream to power all of their energy-hungry computers and air-conditioned data centres with “renewables”. It was revealed recently by their own technical advisers that this dream is a delusion. The fatal flaw discovered is that wind/solar energy may not reduce life-time emissions of carbon dioxide and is unlikely to ever be cheaper than coal. The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities.


Most so called “renewable” energy relies on the sun, and is better referred to as “in-exhaustible”. But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called “intermittent energy”. And to build plants to extract electricity from the sun using wind or solar collectors is a zero-sum game or worse – they may not produce enough energy to recoup the energy cost of replacing those facilities.

Wind/solar energy thus fails its central justification – it is not renewable.



Viv Forbes,
forbes@carbon-sense.com


For those who would like to read more:

Google Green tried hard to make green energy work:
http://www.google.com/green/energy/

But Google Engineers now say renewable energy won’t work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/22/Renewable-energy-so-useless-that-even-greenie-Google-gave-up-on-it

Troubles at world’s largest solar plant: production down, gas usage up:
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/

The Catch22 of Energy Storage:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Large amount of steel & concrete used for a wind turbine base. photo sourced [here]

Tragedies under Kyoto 1 will be echoed under proposed Kyoto 2.

Republished from Australian Climate Sceptics blog (LINK)

John Spooner: Taxing Air

Marcus Priest writing from the Lima COP20 Conference in the The Age:

But the Abbott Government is also in the middle of a new controversy at the Lima conference over the way Australia's emissions target will be calculated under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate agreement, due to expire in 2020 and replaced by any new deal signed in Paris next year. 

With apologies to John Spooner.

Australia is seeking to use favourable rules around land clearing - originally agreed to under Kyoto in 1997 to establish an earlier target - in calculating its promised cut for 2020 under the protocol's second stage. 

If Australia is not allowed to include land use emissions to calculate its target it is estimated that it will increase the national 2020 goal by between 40 to 80 million tonnes of carbon emissions or up to 2.5 per cent. 

Australia is threatening that it will not ratify Kyoto again if it does not get its way on targets, and has won support from major developed nations and also Brazil. (bold added)

In 1998, under the Howard Government, the Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group issued Current Issues Brief 10 (link) contained inter alia:

• Credit for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from land clearing changes or the creation of greenhouse sinks was allowed for in the Kyoto Protocol.

Allowance for emission reductions from land use changes was permitted in the base year in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from declining rates of land clearing or forestry can be used to meet target commitments. Similarly, removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by absorption into biological systems can be used. These removals of carbon dioxide, for example the planting of forests, are referred to as 'sinks'. 

Ian Hampton writes of Australia's actions in Lima:

This is a carbon copy of the tactics adopted by the then Howard Government in the lead up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement. Australia's "success" in getting the "Australia Clause" in the Kyoto Protocol led directly to the Howard Government "engineering" the much more restrictive 2003 NSW Native Vegetation Legislation and similar legislation in Queensland.

Why Tony Abbott would pander to the loony lefties who read the SMH and watch "our" ABC is a mystery. Turning his back on the people who voted for him and bowing to  people who will never vote for him seems a suicide move.

SO, how did the Kyoto 1 Land Use Protocol work out for Australian Land holders. Let's look at two examples:

• Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol;
• Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol. 

Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol

Jennifer Marohasy wrote of the Stuarts of Mt Morris Station in June 2014:

Cate speaking to ABC radio May 20, 2014, about how carbon farming is a “good business strategy” at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/mount-morris-cate-stuart/5465060 . But the banks, for good reason, thought otherwise.

Cate Stuart among the mulga trees the Stuarts have used to create a
carbon-storage scheme with the help of Australian Carbon Traders.
Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen Source: News Corp Australia

Mark and Cate Stuart tried to work within the system and create a carbon sink. The sink was supposed to create income of $400,000 every 3 years. (link)

Cate and Mark Stuart will be evicted from their historic Charleville cattle station, Mount Morris, on Thursday after rural lender Rabobank last year called in the receivers Ferrier Hodgson to ­recoup an outstanding debt of $2.6 million. 

The Stuarts are heartbroken. But the tough outback family, which has run the 20,000ha far-west Queensland spread for the past six years, isn’t going without a fight. A very modern fight. 

They say the bank has failed to recognise their wild and sprawling home is more than just a cattle farm: it is a carbon bank. 

For the past four years, the ­Stuarts have worked with thespecialist carbon farming company Australian Carbon Traders to capture and store carbon on 5000ha of their mulga tree ­reserves. 

They planned to earn up to $400,000 every three years in valuable carbon credit payments.

Mt Morris is now for sale - See LINK.  The Stuarts have lost everything.

Cate has been featured before on the Australian Climate Sceptics blog, during the Convoy of No Confidence: LINK

Cate is now known as "Convoy Cate from Charleville." Listen to Cate on ABC's Counterpoint HERE.

Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol 

Readers of these pages should be aware of Peter Spencer: Our friend, Joanne Nova, has written a magnificent summary HERE

Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined. 

It is this legislation and the resulting theft of the stored carbon in the resulting trees by the Commonwealth (enabling Australia to meet its Kyoto commitments) that is at the root of Peter Spencer's case against the Commonwealth and NSW. (link)

Read the trial notes in  "Peter Spencer: Court diary"

These are just two stories (from both sides of the boundary fence) of the myriad tragedies caused by Land Use Protocol under the original Kyoto Protocol.

Now, landholders (and all Australians)  should gear up for more tragedies IF the Abbott Government gets acceptance of their new Land Use Protocol.

Peter Spencer: Court diary

The case Spencer v. Commonwealth of Australia began being heard in the Federal Court, Sydney on the 24th November, described as the biggest property rights case since Mabo.  

This post will feature the daily updates that Ian Hampton has been providing for the first week of the court case which will continue in the comment section below.

Please also check out a web page set up for Peter Spencer - Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth
and also the Facebook page - Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers


Peter Spencer's farm in the high country in New South Wales, fondly named "SAARAHNLEE",
a combination of letters from his children's names. He no longer owns this farm having lost it in 2010

Day 1 of the trial 24th November

The most important event today was the opening statement by Mr Kirk, the barrister for the NSW Crown Solicitor's Office.

Two things stand out - BOTH respondents (Commonwealth and State) are flatly denying the existence of any informal agreement or understanding between the Commonwealth and the State beyond the applicable legislation and relevant published intergovernmental agreements. The thrust of the rest of his statement was that the State had the ability to restrict Spencer's ability to clear timber on his land under legislation that existed before the Commonwealth involvement in native vegetation legislation after Kyoto, and that consequently Clause 51 (XXXI) of the Constitution (Commonwealth must pay just terms compensation for property taken) does not "come into play"...

From what I can see - neither Peter or Alastair were fazed by Kirk's opening statement.


Day 2 of the trial 25th November

In his opening statement, Mr Lenehan for the Commonwealth covered pretty much the same legal ground as Mr Kirk did the day before for NSW.

By contrast, in his oral opening statement, Peter Spencer started with the Magna Carta and traced the evolution of freehold title in Australia back to the foundation of Government in 1840 .

Spencer then went through the history of international, national and state government agreements and legislation linking environmental issues and native vegetation. Spencer traced a line of continuity from the First International Conference on Environmental Issues in 1950 and its Native Vegetation Advisory Workshop through to 2003. Important steps along the way included the 1972 International Conference Declaration of the UN on Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change) where Australia signed the treaty, the resulting 1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (signed by PM Hawke) and the 1992 National Greenhouse Strategy which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

In effect, the intention to take the benefit arising from the sequestration of carbon, through the native vegetation legislation of 2003 as the primary mechanism for meeting Australia's greenhouse gas commitments, was the logical outcome of the 1992 strategy.

So, the three opening statements have been completed - GAME ON.

Tomorrow morning the Judge will decide which documents from both sides are in or out. The afternoon will be taken up with the expert witness evidence of Dr David Evans for Spencer and by Mr Sturgess, a senior bureaucrat for the Commonwealth.




Peter Spencer and Alastair McRoberts boarding the train after Day 2

 

Day 3 of the trial, Wed 26th November

Peter Spencer had a good day in court today. Just as important, Peter is growing in confidence and really finding his feet as a self litigant.

The day started with the Judge expressing concern about the unavailability of former Howard Government Minister, Dr David Kemp when the Spencer team attempted to serve him with a subpoena last week.

The CGS and NSW Crown Solicitor then tried to "knock out" all of Spencer's witnesses with case law. Justice Mortimer adjourned the hearing to consider these submissions. She returned after a short break to confirm that the evidence of the two expert witnesses on the UNFCCC National Carbon Accounting System, scheduled for today could go ahead. The examination of these two witnesses - Dr David Evans for Spencer and Mr Sturgess for the Commonwealth went well.

Justice Mortimer will announce her decisions about the remaining witnesses tomorrow morning.

A long way to go - but definitely as good day for Peter Spencer.


DAY 4 of the trial, Thursday 27th  November

Justice Mortimer "knocked back" only one of Peter Spencer's nominated witnesses, in response to submissions from the Commonwealth and NSW Crown Solicitor to "knock out" all of them. This does not substantially affect Peter's case - good news.

Since then, Peter has been in the witness box. At the end of the second session, Peter was still being cross examined by the CGS (for the Commonwealth) and NSW Crown Solicitor. Consequently, we are not allowed to report on any of this until after he completes his evidence - scheduled to be lunchtime tomorrow.


DAY 5 of the trial, Friday 28th November

FORMER HOWARD GOVERNMENT MINISTER WILL BE IN THE WITNESS BOX NEXT WEEK

Peter Spencer was cross-examined by the two barristers for the Commonwealth Government and the NSW Government until the end of the afternoon session. The cross examination is now over. Unfortunately, we can't report on this yet because Peter is still under oath. He is returning to the witness box on Monday, allowed 15 minutes to provide corrections to any mistakes he may have made in his oral evidence.

Next week will be mostly taken up with witness statements and cross-examination.

On Tuesday, Justice Mortimer will announce which documents from both sides are admissible and which are inadmissible based on the arguments from the opposing sides.

The Court has ordered that Dr David Kemp, former Howard Government Minister for Environment and Heritage contact Peter Spencer about his availability to appear as a witness next week.

The team: the extended Kennedy family, and supporters Dan and Jeannie Hughes.




Previous related posts

PETER SPENCER NEEDS YOUR HELP

 

Peter Spencer: Farm associations where is your support now?

. 

The Federal Government can’t take your assets without paying - “bigger than Mabo”

Peter Spencer - who spent 52 days up a tree protesting the usurping of his "kyoto" trees on his own property....The Native Vegetation Acts were brought in by the states to stop farmers clearing native plants — but no compensation was ever paid to farmers.....however......The Commonwealth is not allowed to confiscate assets without due compensation...



Peter Spencer is doing this on behalf of all property owners in Australia and is determined not to give in.



Hat/Tip: Joanne Nova.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/the-federal-government-cant-take-your.html