Police throw the book at coal seam gas protester

"When injustice becomes law, rebelling becomes duty".....favourite quote at the moment. Love to Warwick for having the courage to do what he has done.

Honestly would one of you Greenies seriously tell us where you want us to get power from. Wind , solar Geothermal is not ready and too expensive and your against coal seam gas. Bythe way, your argument of fraccing used in CSG........there is no fraccing at ESG sites

It saddens me to see protests against safe coal seam gas extraction, and therefore supports the continuation of the burning of coal in coal-fired power stations. The Federal Greens are about to announce their agreement with the Federal Government for a carbon tax. The effect and PURPOSE of this carbon tax is to enable gas-fired power to replace coal-fired power. The price on carbon will not be enough to make solar and wind economic in their own right. it designed such that the dirtier coal-fired power will be phased out (gradually so as not to put all power stations out of business overnight), and phase in gas-fired baseload power stations. So that is what the Carbon Tax is designed to do - replace coal with gas, to have an immediate and large reduction in our carbon emissions. Gas as a transition fuel to 100% renewables, which is simply not currently feasible. Unfortunately, the East Coast of Australia does not have large amounts of 'conventional gas'. Coal seam gas is the only option if gas is required. As such, coal seam gas provides the maximum energy extracted, with the minimum footprint. Taking up a tiny portion of land, which will be rehabilitated or offset. And is no threat to the Great Artesian Basin whatsoever. Farming, and the drilling of bores directly into the water table poses a far greater threat. In fact, withdrawing the water from coal seams, isolated by hundreds of metres of impervious rock from the water table, can then be treated and discharged into our depleted river systems. This will come to be seen as a valuable resource once the inevitable droughts return to the region. I implore anyone who is passionate about this issue to do their research thoroughly into CSG, and how it is such a valuable fuel in the effort to reduce carbon emissions . That means FULLY understand the science of coal seam gas and how it is extracted. Just like with climate science, you need to understand the science in order to make an informed judgement. And like science, you need to be prepared to challenge your own views to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Many of us share environmental goals. And, there are always difficult choices to be made. The choice I have made is to put carbon reduction, via gas replacing coal, as my number one concern. And if that means safely using a fraction of regrowth scrubland that was previous part of failed efforts to farm, that is what it means. It is a small price to pay to reduce Australia's carbon emissions.

Maybe all you Greenies should go back to Tassie and take Bob Brown with you . Burn candles for light , sell your cars , sell your houses , quiet your jobs (what jobs if you worked and paid taxes you would not have time to climb up drill rigs ) Hope like hell you don't hurt yourselves or get attacked by the Tassie devil when you forage through the bush for food . There will be no hospitals . And leave the wild life alone no meat for you Greenies . Have fun living like the caveman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman Greg . D

The really sad thing is that all these underground coal mines are removing methane from their longwalls as they mine and it is just disposed into the environment and wasted. Note that methane is 25 times worse than carbon dioxide. There are mines that spill more than 2500 litres per second into the environment which is enough to power all of Maitland continuously...eg Ravensworth UG, Ashton, Wambo, Blakefield..just to name a few...shame on them

I recall two separate proposals to build this type of plant in Australia- both were being touted as the biggest solar power plants in the world at the time (mid 90s?). I also recall that among the many challenges presented to those projects were environmental concerns!

stringent regulation and monitoring would put CSG out of the picture - we could be investing these millions of dollars on clean renewable energy right now - instead we have a fossil fuel industry gasping its last gasp at the expense of a future- my thanks go to those dedicated young people who put their lives on hold to right what 's wrong. trish mann

For all the sceptics, here's how it's done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_thermal

Thank you for your reply. The article you quote from makes the following claim, which is the crux of its argument against the use of gas: "To be burnt in a power station, natural gas has first to be extracted and transported. If this broader picture is considered, natural gas ceases to be particularly “clean” in greenhouse terms even when compared with coal. In fact, it can be downright filthy. The trouble is the gas that gets away, leaking into the atmosphere without being burnt. " So it is accepted that the burning of gas in power generation is far cleaner than the burning of coal. So the debate all comes down to the claims that more gas escapes from coal seam gas extraction than it does in coal mining. So, to make a scientific comparison, we would have to compare the emissions associated with the extraction of gas and the burning of gas vs the mining of coal and the burning of coal? Logical? Make a comparison using 'the broader picture ' - coal, end-to-end vs gas, end-to end. Fair enough? Cate Faehrmann, Green MLC in NSW, was kind enough to post some reserach on her website about so-called 'fugitive gas emissions'. This is a link to a study in the US into the Greenhouse effects of gas vs coal, end to end. (and no, it wasn't funded by the gas indistry, in case you were wondering! :) From Cate's website, this is the link to that study: http://p2pays.net/ref/07/06348.pdf ""Based on data collected, methane emissions from natural gas operations are estimated to be 314 ± 105 Bscf (6.04 ± 2.01 Tg) for the 1992 baseline year. This is approximately 1.4% ± 0.5% of gross natural gas production. This study also determined that the percentage of methane emitted per gas production rate for an incremental increase in natural gas sales would be between 1.19% and 1.38% of the total gas production, compared to 1.4% of production for the baseline case. Results from this study were used to compare greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel cycle for natural gas, oil, and coal using the GWPs recently published by the IPCC. The analysis showed that NATURAL GAS CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TO GLOBAL WARMING PER UNIT OF ENERGY THAN COAL OR OIL, WHICH SUPPORTS THE FUEL SWITCHING STRATEGY SUGGESTED BY ipcc AND OTHERS. " p5. (my emphasis). Yes, fugitive gas emissions exist from natural gas production, in very small amounts (1.4%). But the amount of gas escaping as a percentage is so low that when you compare the greenhouse impact VERSUS COAL, it still has gas-fired power as a far more preferable option than coal. WHY< because more methane escapes during coal mining than gas extraction, and then there are more adverse emissions during the power production stage also. But, if you really believe that gas is worse than coal, then I seriously suggest you start campagining AGAINST the carbon tax, AND SOON. Because the carbon tax, about to be signed off by the Greens, is designed to allow gas to replace coal in power generation - that is the point. At around $20/tonne, gas becomes competitive with coal and we can start phasing out coal. At around $80-$100/tonne, solar and wind become economic without subsidies. And that is what the carbon tax is all about - putting a price on carbon, such that the marketplace can migrate away from coal-fired power. Whilst this issue divides the Green community, I think you find Bob Brown accepts that gas, as a transition fuel, is a far better option, end-to-end, than coal. This issue is not one that is serious debated in academic circles. It is why many of the world's biggest economies are looking to replace coal with gas. So if you are going to compare apples with apples, then you also have to compare coal mining, END-TO-END with gas , END-TO-END. And as that study indicates, and logic tells us, the gas emissions during the mining of coal in the open air are far worse than in the extraction of gas in a closed system, whilst leaving the coal in situ.

Is it just me, or has this discussion simply ignored the previous (false) contentions about coal seam gas and how it is worse than coal? Such contentions are entirely without a factual basis, and do nothing but misinform the debate. Instead, Mr Jordan hangs off a coal seam gas drill while the real culprit (coal) continues to pollute? Coal seam gas is protested against, and yet it use in gas-fired power will result in 40-70% emission reductions compared with coal. Crikey, even the Federal Greens only have a target of 40% reductions on 1990 levels by 2020. Why not 100% if solar was technically feasible to replace coal-fired baseload power? Perhaps because, even Bob Brown knows that renewables cannot replace the current baseload power generation. So gas is a necessary transition. The world is not so black and white as some make out. There are many 'shades of green'. And the Federal Greens, as they are about to come to a compromise with the Government, are realising this too. I wish they had come to a deal with Kevin Rudd two years ago. We might have already started on the path to lower emissions... Over and out for me. If anyone GENUINELY wants some information about coal seam gas - how it is completely isolated from the water table; how many companies (like ESG) don't do 'fraccing', and those in this country that do don't use harmful chemicals; how the methane is removed whilst the coal is left, and how the methane then burns cleanly in gas-fired turbines; and how water, removed from the coal seams (not the water table), and then treated, can be beneficially and safely discharged into our depleted river systems, feel free to have a genuine look at the technology with an open mind. You may be pleasantly surprised at the emissions savings this country is about to achieve because of this technology. But, if you have decided that nothing but a 100% solution will do, and it must be achieved yesterday, then I am afraid no one can help you with that....

100% renewable grid options are just now becoming available with the commercialisation of solar-thermal power plants. To invest heavily in gas now would be perverse. Gas infrastructure has a long lifetime, 30-40 years or so in the case of power stations. That is a long diversion AWAY from renewable energy. It is not greenies who decided "nothing but a 100% solution will do, and it must be achieved yesterday" - it is climate scientists like James Hansen of NASA. "Greenies" base our climate action proposals on what is necessary to avoid dangerous, out-of-control global warming, not what is good for gas industry profits. Coal should be phased out as renewables are built. Gas should simply be left where it is. Too bad, Mr Gas Miner. It is true that there is much research to be done on CSG fugitive emissions. Perhaps they are worse than coalmines, perhaps not - it depends on the coal bed in question I would imagine. But CSG can tap much deeper seams than coal mines generally do, and so could be opening up more intense fugitive emissions. There is also a lot of methane dissolved in the entrained water from these gas wells, it's not just about cracks through the ground. .BCC

Sorry for being like a scratched record about the farmers, but I cant help thinking why when the short comings of live cattle export is shown wanting, media can force a Government ban at the drop off a hat and because farmers cry poor they will flip flop on a dime. The Greens (the party) kept quite as the compo is to doshed out like a drunken sailor on bender, but if our interests or stock price is damaged by unfounded media claims the silence is deafening. Politicians instead try to have a bet each way by slapping the CSG industry with a moratorium although the industry has been subject to years of government regulation and oversight. Farming and land management worldwide produces more CO2 than all the worlds vehicles put together. Fact, google it if you don’t believe this post, farmers are not the friends of the greens they don’t like you and never have, another fact Bob Brown seems to have missed in his quest for power like the shabby treatment of cattle in the live export trade. When we look back at Pauline Hanson and how her views could have grown so popular, you can’t go past certain sections of the media that gave her way too much oxygen and failed to ask the hard questions. It’s ironic that Bob Brown who for years was treated with kid gloves, is becoming so very testy towards certain sections of the media willing to ask tough questions now he holds power in a minority government. I would ask anyone looking to find where the truth lays in this debate checkout Horizons-business BBC http://horizonsbusiness.com/#playlist/107 as I think it shows the future of clean energy and where this country can go if CSG is not stubbed out by the self interests of a very powerful farming lobby. Kind regards MB. PS, Thanks to Greenleft for letting me post here even if my views are widely shared.

If 40% emissions reductions were sufficient to stop dangerous climate change then I'd be listening to you. But they aren't: we need 100%. There is renewable energy technology available now that can provide energy security with zero emissions. Building gas infrastructure like gas power stations with a 30-40 year life span means either we lock out renewables, or we have these big stranded assets when the shit hits the fan a few years later and we go 100% renewable. It's sad that the Greens just don't get it on emissions targets but that's their problem. The least emissions-intensive gas plant is a CCGT plant. These run a steam turbine off the waste heat from the gas turbine. But they are not flexible like a peaking plant (OCGT). To match our great wind power resource, we really need flexible, despatchable power. OCGT plants have significantly worse emissions than CCGT. The best solution is a mix of wind and solar thermal power a la Beyond Zero Emissions' Zero Carbon Australia plan. Currently, gas is in a competition with renewables as to which will replace coal. Better we keep the coal plants a couple years longer and build 100% renewable. The safest place for all those hydrocarbons is naturally sequestered underground where they've been for aeons. BCC