truth about the protesters, page-8

hydroman,

It depends on the type of well, the land use (cultivated paddock gets more than cattle scrub) and a bunch of other factors including individual negotiation. And most of the time the amount will be confidential.

But here's one article about it from AFR:

http://www.afr.com/p/qld_farmers_benefit_from_co_existing_nSFB6dtJzaSxm52kHjCXHJ

In June, Thompson’s project finally paid off, when the energy producer and retailer agreed to pay him $245,000 a year to develop 19 wells and 35 kilometres of pipelines on uncultivated parts of his property.

So that's $13,000 per well, per year. And that's only on the uncultivated land! Hundreds of thousands of dollars more will go in indirect benefits like APLNG upgrading roads, installing fences and gates and cattle grids, etc.

The spacing of wells in higher permeability areas is generally around 750m to 1km.

Also, the well sites are not even a quarter acre. They are about half the size of a netball court.

So imagine it. You own a farm of mainly cattle country but some cropping land. You're not an idiot, so you know the stuff about fraccing and water pollution is a load of rubbish. The company shows up to put 19 wells on your land, taking up half a netball court per square kilometre. You can graze cattle right up to the well fence and they leave your cultivation alone entirely.

Then they pay you $245,000 a year for 15 years. Almost $4M in total.

It's no wonder these guys are happy to sign up.