Thanks be for a reply that attempts to address issues rather...

Thanks be for a reply that attempts to address issues rather than engage in meaningless abuse (and does it with a certain amount of wit - hence the TU!)

"Isaks and Nimby, you blokes/gals appear to be the bastion of anti CSG posting here."

Given the attitude of the regulars here that is no surprise - rather than engage in debate/ discussion they seem only to ready to "play the man and not the ball" while simultaneously bombarding moderators with complaints. As a result posters whose only real "crime" is having a different opinion are effectively silenced. Hell of a way to run a discussion IMHO. Is this how you guys see a broader society running? The jack-booted heel silencing all opposition? The disposal of those whose opinion differs from yours? Beware my friends - that could turn against you!!!

"I admire you for continuing to fight your fight despite appearing to be outnumbered."

Only outnumbered here! Pick your statistics but just under 80% of locals oppose unconventional gas mining in the Northern Rivers according to the peer-reviewed research; 87% opposed you in the plebiscite run by the electoral commission; and as many as 99% oppose you if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed. It may be hard being in a minority here, but it is just as hard for you "on the ground"!

"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."

Couldn't agree more, a point I've tried to make on several threads!

"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."

I actually think this goes to the heart of the issue here!
If you believe that CSG mining is inappropriate in some areas what areas are they exactly?

We've seen the areas that our politicians think deserve protecting - if you have thoroughbred studs or grow wine you are a high value agricultural pursuit and need protecting from CSG mining (and by extension other forms of unconventional gas mining). If you merely grow food you are somehow not a high value agricultural pursuit! I like an occasional sip or three of wine and I have the odd punt, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that food production is of greater importance than either a vineyard or a horse stud. Therein lies the hypocrisy of allowing both coal and CSG mining in the Liverpool Plains.

Of course MEL isn't planning on mining the Liverpool Plains but the Northern Rivers. I wonder if you have ever been there?; I very much doubt you have ever lived there!

I expect to be howled down for saying that the agricultural value of the NR, great though it is, is secondary to both the environmental values and the intrinsic value of the social "experiment" that has been conducted there for decades. Between those three there is a growing tourism sector. All four have potential to be destroyed by industrialisation on the scale proposed by MEL.

I assume you'll agree with me that prime agricultural land should be protected, and on that basis alone MEL's proposal SHOULD be stopped, but if you take a broader view, the environmental risk, the loss of community and social values and the virtual destruction of the tourism sector all need to be considered.

Leaving aside your personal financial involvement, would you be willing to say that the Northern Rivers don't deserve the same protection as thoroughbred studs? (And I realise that most (if not all) of those posting here have a lot of trouble seeing the situation other than from the perspective of financial loss, but that is the only way you can objectively look at this issue.)

The argument that "NSW needs MEL's gas" just doesn't stand up - we've all seen the statement from Chuck Yaeger that Bass Strait can supply the eastern states for decades, we are all aware that APT (hope I got that code right, but the pipeline mob, not the trustee) have duplicated the pipelines linking Bass Strait and NSW. There is no supply issue - the gas is in Bass Strait, just as there is no transport bottleneck. While NSW may need gas, it DOESN'T need to destroy prime agricultural land in the Liverpool Plains, Gloucester or the Northern Rivers to get it.

So when you say "I’m not for CSG under every circumstance", what do you mean? Do you mean that where economic, social and environmental factors militate against it, it shouldn't be allowed, or do you mean when you're financial welfare isn't involved it shouldn't be allowed? You see, if you are really willing to accept the first alternative then you have little option but to say that MEL has no place in the Northern Rivers. IT never HAS had a place, it doesn't have a place NOW and it will NEVER have one in the future!!!