Balancing CSG risks with rewards
10th November, 2011
Opinion Editorialby Hon Warren Truss MP
Published in The Land
10 November 2011
Rural communities would be more supportive of coal seam gas if they had something to gain, says WARREN TRUSS.
AT the moment, many regional communities and farmers do not feel they are a respected part of the huge development of coal seam gas (CSG) resources occurring on their land.
Landowners may receive compensation but almost never have a real stake or receive a real return from the development of an asset that can only be accessed from their land.
If the towns and the farmers have little to gain from CSG development why would they bother to co-operate with the industry or defend it?
CSG represents both a risk and an opportunity for regional Australia.
The risk is the potential environmental damage that may occur. There are few alternative supplies of water in some of these towns so it is an absolute essential that no damage occurs to aquifers.
The opportunity is the size and scale of the energy under the ground. Australia's CSG reserves are estimated at more than 40 billion barrels of oil in energy equivalent terms. In the Bowen and Surat basins in Queensland alone there are 5 billion barrels of commercially proven reserves.
To put these figures in perspective, the discovery of the East Texas Field in 1930 was, at the time, the largest oil field ever discovered at 6 billion barrels of oil.
The discovery kicked off a Texan economic boom and Houston subsequently rose from the desert to become the fourth biggest city in the United States.
There is no reason we can't build bigger cities west of the Great Dividing Range as well.
A properly managed CSG industry represents an unprecedented opportunity for regional Australia. Poorly managed it could tick every box of a social and environmental disaster.
While the States have primary responsibility for the approval and oversight of the industry, the stakes are so high that it is time for the Federal Government to provide the national leadership that has been so far lacking on this issue.
The Nationals have adopted five core principles we think should guide the development of CSG.
First, we should make it absolutely clear that no CSG development can be allowed if it damages aquifers or water quality.
Second, CSG development must not compromise prime agricultural land. We must protect our ability to deliver food security - not only for our nation, but for a hungrier world, for generations to come.
Third, CSG development should not occur close to residential areas. Those who have a reasonable expectation of the quiet amenity of their home should be able to enjoy it.
Fourth, payments to landowners should not be limited to simply compensation, they deserve a proper return on the development of resources that occur on their land.
Fifth, the regions that deliver much of the wealth from CSG deserve a fair share of the revenues to be reinvested in their communities.
Unless regional communities are engaged as respected partners, and have something to gain, they will not support CSG extraction - let alone on their land.
As Ian Hayllor, a farmer in the Dalby area, put it a couple of months ago:
"I want to get to the point where I can actually drive past a gas well and smile and think, 'Well that's not a bad asset'. I want to have that same feeling with that gas well as I have with a 12 or 14 bale to the hectare crop of cotton - that it's a good part of my business."
We have a fair way to go to get to where Ian wants - but we can do it.
If we are successful we can deliver a lasting legacy of wealth to regional Australia and the nation beyond the 35-year life of a coal seam gas well.
Warren Truss is Leader of The Nationals.
