Ann: Seismic aquisition program, page-17

This all sounds a bit like Genesis, Chapter 1. "In the beddining ....."

In the beddining there were neither people nor residents. There was only government and there was land. And the land in its entirety belonged to the government (i.e. the crown) And the government, as exclusive owners of the land said "We will first create a law governing land ownership". So they sat and pondered and mulled it all over and came up with various acts of state parliament relating to land tenure and below ground resources.

And the government said about its land “we will take some of our crown land and give people greater rights to some of the benefits emanating from this land. But we will not give them ownership over all of the benefits emanating from this land. We will retain our rights to ownership of the below ground resources, that is coal, gas, oil and other minerals. ....and that was the creation of freehold tenure and that was the first day.

And so a system of freehold ownership came into existence whereby people have alienable rights from the State to some, but not all benefits, emanating from the land. And in the giving of these rights, the government legislated its right to deal with it's residual ownership in that land, i.e. itrs resources, under all forms of land tenure as it saw fit. ... and that was the second day.

And the government, concerning itself with governing said, “We do not want to be responsible for extracting the bounty that resides under the earth and outside the rights of natural and artificial persons who have freehold rights. Instead we will lawfully permit other interested parties to establish rights to the benefits emanating from the below ground resources”... and so the government decided to issue, exploration permits..... and miners and mining companies came into existence. That was the forth day.

The third day was taken up with the rum rebellion. Sorry, so drunk I lost a day.

And the miners, after doing some exploration, went back to the government and said “we have found a resource that we wish to extract”. And the government mulled it all over and said “we will issue you with a development permit and once you have established that you want to extract the bounty hiding in the ground, you can pay the government a royalty, and all freeborn New South Welshmen (sorry sexism existed back then... there were no “New South Welch women’”) will benefit from the lottery that is the placement of mineral and O&P reserves about the State.... and that was the fifth day.

And once the miner, after dealing with so many matters including the fair treatment, as the law prescribed, of other parties who held an interest in the land, determined that they were a go to commence extracting the bounty from under the earth, went back to the government and said, “we are ready to roll”......and the government mulled this over and said “here is your production permit... and all will be happy as everyone is fairly remunerated according to law and according to their ownership rights in the land.....and the miner’s commenced mining, in accordance to their rights to do so....and they commenced paying to the government, royalties at the prescribed rate and all freeborn New South Welshmen and by this time, Welshwomen, for NSW was now an emancipated state, benefitted from these royalties .and that was the sic..day......

Or so we have the legal right to expect.

Sorry people...no seventh day..no day of rest and reflection.

This is all just one big fractured fairy tale... that doesn’t appear to have much in the way of a happy ending.

Isaks, the people do not predate MEL. The law and land ownership rights predate the people. In amongst all of this is a permitted right to explore for and to extract the mineral reserves contained within the land. Dare I say it, but I would probably think that this right actually trumps freehold ownership rights, given that mining requires compensation to be paid We are now talking about a system of land ownership and ownership rights that now date back nearly 200 years.

Isaks and Nimby, you blokes/gals appear to be the bastion of anti CSG posting here. I admire you for continuing to fight your fight despite appearing to be outnumbered. I do not disrespect your right to protest to make change. What I find so difficult to come to grips with in respect to yours and perhaps the entire anti CSG movement, is your 100% polarised opinion that mineral and gas extraction cannot occur anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances.
I also think some of the pro gas posters are now falling into the trap of becoming offhanded and a little too personal with their posts and this appears to be feeding back into turning all of this thread into a bit of a debacle.
To add to my assertion, A couple of weeks ago I was listening to a woman, who was the head of a conservation movement being interviewed on radio about mining. She was an Aussie representing an Aussie conservation movement. I just cannot remember which. She spoke of examples of mines that she and her organisation were opposed to. The interviewer astutely asked her if she could name any mine that her organisation thought was doing a good job. She stumbled and stammered and was found wanting. She could provide no examples. She and her organisation had tarred all mines with the same brush. I found this so disappointing and to a great extent, hypocritical.
But Isaks and Nimby I would believe it reasonable to think that in fact me and we, the pro CSG argument do not have the polar opposite opinion that mineral extraction has to occur everywhere, at all times and under all circumstances. I’m not for CSG under every circumstance. But what I am for, is the rule of law, and where the law is proved wanting, for fair compensation to be paid. I am also for miners to be environmentally responsible. I do not think we are as unlike minded as to what we believe to be fair and proper as this thread had deteriorated to the point of suggesting otherwise
Oh, and Aidan....you will be happy now. Yep I do rant, but I really don’t give a toss about getting a “thumb’s up”.