Some Metgasco Limited shareholder disquiet over merger with Elk Petroleum

From the HotCopper MEL forum on 29 and 30 December 2014:

As doctornoh raised in post #14500228 the MEL Board notes that "Metgasco has applied to the ASX seeking in-principle advice as to whether ASX will exercise its discretion to require Metgasco to seek shareholder approval to proceed with the transaction, and if so, whether ASX will require re-compliance with Chs 1 and 2 of the Listing Rules. Having regard to the circumstances of this transaction, Metgasco does not presently intend to seek shareholder approval unless ASX requires Metgasco to do so;"

This is perhaps surprising as it indicates MEL may not have, as recommended by Section 2.8 (a) of Guidance Note 12, applied for in-principle advice from ASX about the application of Listing Rules 11.1.2, 11.1.3 or 11.2 to the transaction before proceeding with the transaction. 

This may indicate that MEL is hoping to pressure the ASX into just waving the transaction through.

Of course one of the easiest methods to ensure that the ASX did not require re-compliance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Listing Rules would have been to ensure that shareholders had sufficient information about the proposed transaction for trading to be occurring on a reasonably informed basis or to seek shareholder approval of the transaction as permitted under the Guidance Note.

Of course, the Board and management of MEL (either through ignorance or deliberately) seem to have previously adopted a relatively caliver [sic] attitude to the Listing Rules. Even with this most recent announcement, as an oil and gas exploration entity that is not earning any material revenue from operations, MEL appears to have ignored the recommendation of Section 2.8 of Guidance Note 12 and failed to provide any indication of annual expenditure that will result from the proposed arrangement with ELK.

In addition, for the AGM in 2013, in an apparent attempt to inhibit the challenge from disaffected shareholders, the Board issued papers calling the AGM, ignoring the requirements of the Listing Rules to provide 7 days notice of this intention. To further compound this failure, the Chairman then assured all shareholders at the AGM that the Company had fully complied with the requirement for the 7 days notice.

It is also well known that anti csg protestors in the Northern Rivers (perhaps with little justification) have complained that MEL may not have fully complied with the continuous disclosure requirements in relation to the provision of advice as to the extent of protestor activity in the MEL area of operation.

In the absence of significantly more information, it is very difficult for MEL shareholders to determine whether the transaction is in their best interests. While it is likely the Independet [sic] Experts' report prepared for ELK shareholders will provide substantially more detail, the purpose of this report is not for the benefit of MEL shareholders. The transaction may well represent a substantial opportunity for MEL shareholders, but on the surface there appear to be significant questions. The main asset being acquired, the Grieve EOR development, appears to have a very troubled history. It appears that ELK initially believed total field expenditure of less than USD28.6 million was required before the development became cash flow positive. Currently total field expenditure stands at USD70 million and it is forecast that there is at least two more years before first oil production and any chance that the project could become cash flow positive. Initial pressurisation of the field commenced one year later than originally planned and first oil is now forecast to be running up to three years later than initially planned.

There is no doubt that the transaction represents a significant change to the scale of MEL’s activities. 

Read the full comment here.

Thought I might shortcut the need for research on ELK's prospects and look at what shareholders have been saying on HotCopper. Well it was truly depressing, ELK seems to have a long history of optimistic promises and then, not just under delivering, but totally failing to deliver at all.

One indication of the very low enthusiasm for the stock can be gained from looking at the last Company’s Share Purchase Plan which closed on 16 July 2014. The SPP provided for all shareholders to subscribe for up to an additional $15,000 worth of shares at an issue price of $0.12 per share with subscriptions capped at $3,000,000. There was also one free option attached to each share acquired. So 25,000,000 shares were on offer. But only 2,600,000 shares, just over 10% of those on offer were taken up by shareholders. Only two (of the five) directors took up the offer and then at less than 50% of their entitlement. Of course it didn't help that the ELK share price was only $0.13 at the time the SPP was announced and then promptly dropped below the $0.12 offer price and stayed there for most of the offer period. And the ELK share price has never been above $0.12 since.

Great vote of confidence by the apparently badly disillusioned shareholders. Further it looks like the underwriters and sub underwriters bailed, taking up only $688,000.08 of the underwritten $1,000,000. One sub underwriter for $150,000 looks like they bailed totally.

But the other interesting thing is that only one of ELK's long term posters has bother [sic]  to post anything to HotCopper about the merger. Maybe they are all laying low, hoping like Christ that the merger goes through. The register is dominated by large holders, with the top twenty holders at 30 June 2014 holding 60.63% of the issued shares. This is a little down on the 64.28% held by the top twenty at 30 June 2012 but substantially up on the 39.62% held on 30 June 2005 just after listing…..

The AUD1.25 million loan due to be repaid on 8 January 2015 was from private individuals, likely to include some of same large shareholders from the top twenty. 

It is beginning to look like the MEL proposal may have more to do with giving these large shareholders a way out of ELK rather than any grand opportunity for MEL. And it certainly guarantees repayment of the AUD1.25 million loan which was looking very shaky indeed. Maybe MEL is looking at these grateful shareholders to provide the proposed March funding.

Read the full comment here.

It would appear that the market also shares investor doubts, as the merger announcement failed to break Metgasco's ordinary share price out of the 4 cent doldrums it has been in since November 2014.

While the Federal Government remains gloomy about the gas industry as a whole: 

“Every oil and gas company in Australia will be cutting back on its exploration and development with oil prices sitting at $60” [Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane in The Australian, 3 January 2015]

BACKGROUND

Elk Petroluem Limited was registered in West Australia on 19 January 2005.

Its principal place of business since December 2011 is Suite 4, Level 9, 31 George Street, Sydney NSW.

Current directors are Anthony James Strasser of North Bondi NSW, Matthew Healy of Chatswoood NSW and, Neale Forest Taylor (Executive Director and Chairman) of Casper, Wyoming USA.

The company has oil interests in Wyoming and Nebraska USA it is seeking to progress.

According to the Annual Report 2014, the company has a number of wholly-owned US subsidiaries: Elk Petroleum Inc LLC,  Grieve Pipeline LLC, North Grieve LLC, Natrona Pipeline LLC and Elk Operating Company LLC.

The company’s largest shareholders as at 20 September 2014 were:

Someone's not happy with the NSW Baird Government and their local National Party MP Chris Gulaptis - Part 2

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner, 9 December 2014:

Gas or hot air?

Does Chris Gulaptis know what his government is doing when it comes to managing the state's unconventional gas resources?

Late last month, in his newsletter, Chris Gulaptis MP stated, 'The NSW Government is cancelling all CSG exploration licence applications... It is also buying back existing licences'.

Then, a week later, the Government approved Dart Energy's application to renew its licence for a further six year period. The licensed area for this exploration includes much of the Richmond Range, significant parts of the Richmond Valley around Coraki and Bungawalbin, and part of the Clarence lowlands around Tabbimoble.

As required under law, the government reduced the area of this renewed licence but chose to remove areas such as Byron Bay, Ballina and Lennox Head. This was presumably motivated by the fact that these lie in the Ballina electorate, which is considered vulnerable in next year's state election.

Voters in the Clarence electorate deserve more.

We should not be taken for fools who will tolerate gas exploration and the risk it poses to our water, land, air and climate.

Until all licences are cancelled, the future of our region's clean and green image remains at risk.

JANET CAVANAUGH

Whiporie.

So who really owns coal seam gas exploration tenement PEL 445 recently renewed by the NSW Baird Government in the face of regional opposition?

Dart Energy (Bruxner) Pty Ltd registered in Brisbane, Queensland, in February 2013 has successfully applied to have its coal seam gas exploration licence PEL 445 renewed for a further six years by the NSW Coalition Government.

On 4 December 2014 the Minister for Resources and Energy Anthony Roberts cited the company’s financial and technical capacity, good record of environmental management and rehabilitation as reasons underpinning this renewal.

According to the minister; Dart Energy is only permitted to undertake low impact exploration activities including data review, mapping and technical evaluation. Any other activities require further approvals and are subject to the Government’s strict new conditions and regulations.

As required by legislation the company had to relinquish 25 per cent of its original tenement (choosing sections which contained no identified commercially viable gas deposits) when applying for the licence renewal and this is the amended 5,868 sq km exploration lease:

The Dart Energy group was spun off from Arrow Energy Pty Ltd in 2010, when that company was taken over by Royal Dutch Shell and PetroChina. Most of Dart Energy’s current management team was originally with Arrow Energy.

Dart Energy acquired PEL 445 then covering approximately 7,100 sq km centred about 39 km WNW of Lismore (containing 15 wells) from Arrow Energy in 2013.

On 12 May 2014 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Dart Energy has abandoned hopes of emerging as a global player in non-conventional gas, agreeing to a scrip merger from a UK operator that will see it dump all its non-UK assets.

Dart has agreed to merge with IGas Energy, which is listed on London's secondary AIM market, via a scheme of arrangement.

Dart shareholders will receive 0.08117 IGas shares for each Dart share held, which values Dart shares at just 18.98¢ and the entire company at $211.5 million.

Dart shares last traded at 12.5¢, a far cry from their levels above $1 three and four years ago.

Agreeing to the merger will see longstanding Dart shareholders lose out following a series of changes of strategy as the group has floundered in recent years.

Its most recent raising of $20.7 million at 9¢ will see shareholders who took up that offer last September come out in front, although its 2011 raising of $100 million at 75¢ a share has left shareholders with bruising losses.

Soul Pattinson's New Hope Corp has a 16.3 per cent stake in Dart and has backed the merger proposal in the absence of a rival offer emerging, as have shareholders with a further 14 per cent of Dart's capital.

Dart has sought to undertake a series of changes over the past few years to put its operations on a viable footing, which included listing offshore assets in Singapore and, after that failed, seeking a listing in London, which now has been abandoned.

Dart was spun out from Arrow Energy in 2010, when Arrow was bought by Shell. Dart took the offshore assets of Arrow, which it bolstered by acquiring Apollo Gas, giving it a suite of domestic assets. But the company has struggled, making limited progress in developing its extensive asset portfolio despite high gas prices.

It recently booked $43.5 million of impairment charges, mostly relating to the writing down of assets in NSW and the UK. It also has sold some offshore assets, such as in India.

In October 2014 IGas Energy announced:

As part of the October 2014 acquisition of Dart Energy, the Group holds a number of Coal Bed Methane (CBM) exploration licences across Australia, Indonesia, India and Germany.

IGas will continue to progress Dart’s previously announced divestment plan. IGas will Operate non UK assets where it is contractually obliged to do so…..

In Australia we hold our licences under a care and maintenance basis.

We currently hold seven petroleum exploration licences all located in the state of New South Wales.

PEL 445 is one of those exploration licences.

IGas Energy Plc is a leading British oil and gas explorer and developer, producing approximately 3,000 barrels of oil and gas a day from over 100 sites across the U.K. IGas assets are predominantly 100% owned and operated by this corporation

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the NSW Baird Government’s renewal of the exploration title PEL 445, is that the application made through IGas subsidiary Dart Energy (Bruxner) Pty Ltd sought to increase the value of this asset ahead of any sell-on of the title.

Therefore, the assurances given by the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy as to the character of the nominal owner of PEL 445 are as ephemeral as a burning sheet of paper.

Gasfield Free Northern Rivers has echoed the sentiments of many communities across the Northern Rivers, from the NSW-QLD border down to the Clarence Valley:

Gasfield Free Northern Rivers has welcomed Dart’s surrender of twenty five per cent of PEL 445, which it says ‘covers the Ballina electorate’.

But it describes the move as, ‘only a small step in protecting our area from the practice of invasive and dangerous unconventional gas extraction’.

‘This is only a part relinquishment and a very large area of PEL445 and the rest of the Northern Rivers remains open to unconventional gas exploration and fracking,’ said Gasfield Free spokesperson Dean Draper

‘It’s crucial our region’s water supplies and our agriculture and tourism industries are protected. Our community is calling for a full cancellation of the entire PEL 445 and all of the petroleum Exploration Licenses in the northern rivers.’

‘We need to have certainty in protection, until all of the licenses are cancelled the future of our regions clean and green image remains at risk.’ he said

‘It seems this announcement by minister Roberts is motivated by the fact that the Ballina electorate is considered a vulnerable seat by the NSW government in the lead-up to the NSW election.

‘However, the impacts of invasive gasfields stretch across electorate boundaries, and our community will not rest until the entire northern rivers receives the protection it deserves.’ Mr Draper said.

Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association's nonsense response to a coal seam gas study is exposed

DeSmogBlog 19 November 2014:

In August 2012, two Australian research scientists attached a highly sensitive spectrometer to a vehicle with a GPS tracker and took a 700 kilometre drive around gas fields in Queensland.

Starting at 3.30am in the morning, Dr Isaac Santos and Dr Damien Maher, of Southern Cross University, wanted to measure the levels of methane and carbon dioxide in the air around coal seam gas fields operated by BG Group, formerly known as British Gas.

Twelve hours of driving took them past fields with about 300 wells that tap coal seams to release gas, often with the help of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology.

They also drove past other areas where you might expect levels of methane to be high such as wetlands, fields of cows and sewage treatment plants.

The researchers found methane levels at the gas fields were triple the background levels.

The chemical fingerprints of the methane they detected near the gasfields — known as isotopic signatures — matched those from the gas produced from the wells.

Methane is important because as a greenhouse gas it is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide over the course of a century.

Santos and Maher made their findings public at a forum and in a submission to the federal government. They also sent them to a journal for peer review.

Predictably, the industry group Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) attacked the scientists claiming — wrongly — that they had targeted the gas fields while ignoring other potential sources of methane.

At that time the Federal Resources Minister was Martin Ferguson.

He joined in the attack on the scientists, characterising them as unprofessional media opportunists — a claim he had made without having actually read the scientists' submission.

This week, the research from Maher and Santos was finally published in the journal Water, Air and Soil Pollution. The paper reads:

Data from this study indicates that unconventional gas may drive large-scale increases in atmospheric CH4 (methane) and CO2 concentrations, which need to be accounted for when determining the net [greenhouse gas] impact of using unconventional gas sources…

Considering the lack of previous similar studies in Australia, the identified hotspots of GHGs and the distinct isotopic signature within the Tara gas field demonstrate the need to fully quantifyGHG emissions before, during and after CSG exploration commences in individual gas fields.

The findings are identical to the initial publicized research. The response from APPEA is similarly identical.

The gas industry lobby group has again attacked the scientists, repeating the criticisms addressed two years previously as if time had stood still.

Astonishingly, APPEA reported it had written to Southern Cross University Vice Chancellor Peter Lee two years ago with a series of questions, but “no response was ever received”.

In fact, DeSmogBlog understands Lee wrote back to APPEA on 20 November 2012, defending the work of the scientists at his university and defending their right to speak about what they had found.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time that Lee had written back, rejected APPEA’s assertions and also accused them of issuing a “misleading” press release.

According to APPEA, the group asked four questions of the researchers and their findings. The questions seem to me to be more an effort to produce doubt, rather than to produce responses. Repeating them now when all the answers are in plain sight adds to this suspicion.

APPEA first asked if the work was being peer reviewed – the answer to that now seems clear.

APPEA asked if the university would “provide GPS data highlighting exactly where and how many readings/measurements were recorded in the Tara area, on which roads and when”.

The original submission clearly shows detailed maps of where the measurements were taken. Maher told DeSmogBlog that the university had also shared GPS and data with the Queensland state government’s GasFields Commission. One of the commissioners is Rick Wilkinson, the chief technical officer at APPEA…..

APPEA asked if the researchers had taken into account “other potential sources of emissions such as naturally-occurring hydrocarbon seeps” even though it was made clear in the original submission that the researchers had done this by taking measurements at locations including “wetland, sewage treatment plant, landfill, urban area and a bushfire”.

Maher said:

We surveyed 100’s of km’s inside and outside of the gas fields. The high methane concentrations were not found directly outside of the gasfield, in spite of identical geology and topography, etc.

Our research cannot definitively say how the gas is escaping to the atmosphere. What we can say is that it had the identical chemical fingerprint to the gas within the coal seam, and that we did not find any similarly elevated concentrations directly outside of the gas field, i.e. as soon as we drove out of the gas field theCH4 (methane) concentrations returned to near background levels for 100s of kilometres.

The data indicates that [the increased levels of methane] is related to some of the activities or infrastructure within the gas field which is leading to gas of an identical chemical fingerprint toCSG being released to the atmosphere……

Finally, APPEA said it had asked if “other potential sources of emissions such as large scale feedlots” had been taken into account. A section of the journal paper read that during the surveys:

… a number of other potential point sources were observed including the following: vehicle emissions (from passing cars), wetlands, a combined sewage treatment plant and landfill site, an abattoir and cattle holding complex, urban areas, and a bushfire.

Read the full post here.

Coal seam & tight gas miner Metgasco Limited and community consultation

This is a snapshot from a Metgasco Limited 17 page ‘community consultation’ document dated March 2014:

So is this image a slice of the Berwyndale gasfield in Queensland and is it really a bucolic nivarna as suggested?

Berwyndale and the Undulla Nose gasfields are situated here:

The field configuration in the Metagasco snapshot does not match the Berwyndale South gasfield (left), but appears to be land sandwiched between that intensive gasfield and another to the north. Gas production on this land is apparently not yet fully developed and, the land itself may possible belong to the mining corporation holding the tenement.

Conclusion? 

By not precisely naming the gasfield and limiting the image in its community consultation document to a small number of paddocks, it looks suspiciously like an attempt by Metgasco to conceal the bigger picture in the Berwyndale area.

UPDATE

The 'community consultation' document also states that Metgasco has entered into:

More than 300 voluntary landholder agreements.

These 300 land holder agreements to date appear to cover less than 50 boreholes, 63 drill cores and only two gas sites (NSW Trade and Investment: Energy & Resource MinView) with one potential production well.

However, like its "suscessful co-existence" spin, all is not quite as the community is being told.

The Northern Star, 10 June 2014, Page 4:

When asked about the inconsistency between the claims, Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson said: "We have approximately 50 land access agreements for wells, the remainder are associated with seismic programs." 

Apparently Megasco believes that it is acceptable to fudge the facts during its alleged consultation process.

Metgasco Limited intends to stay put on the NSW North Coast despite widespread community opposition to gasfields being established in the region

ABC NEWS 13 November 2014:

Metgasco is unlikely to take up any offer from the State Government to buy back its licence to operate in the Northern Rivers.

Today's CSG policy announcement included provisions for a one-off buy back scheme of previously approved licences.

But Metgasco managing director, Peter Henderson, said the company has spent too much time and money in the region to walk away now.

Metgasco media release 14 November 2014:

Response to NSW Government Gas Plan

Metgasco Limited welcomes the NSW Government’s recognition that gas supplies are essential to the future of NSW and that the gas industry can be managed safely.

Metgasco is, however, concerned about the repeated changes in regulation and policy since the current Government came to office and the uncertainty the latest announcement has created.

In March 2011 the NSW Government effectively put a hold on the industry while it created new regulations, which included a Strategic Land Use Policy and a myriad of other regulations.  In September 2012 it announced that the industry had the toughest standards in the world and gave the green light for exploration and development to proceed.  It correspondingly renewed exploration licences and announced the approval of Metgasco’s first production licence (just south of Casino). 

Since then it has taken a number of actions which have had the effect of stifling  the industry.

The new policy announcement does not sufficiently clarify the business and regulatory environment for the gas industry in NSW.  Business needs a degree of certainty to justify expenditure.   We now have new rules and regulatory responsibilities, many of which will not be defined until well into 2015, uncertainty about the rules for land holder compensation and some indication that the royalty regime might change to encourage exploration. 

Metgasco has invested approximately $120 million over the past ten years exploring for natural gas in NSW and has established the second largest gas resource in the state.  It did so with the expectation that its exploration rights would be respected.

Metgasco is seeking a meeting with the Minister for Resources and Energy to clarify the impact of the new policy on the potential of the significant gas resource in the Northern Rivers region. 

It is important that the NSW Government sends a message to all investors that NSW is a place in which investment can be made with confidence.

Metgasco Limited's ordinary share price is languishing at five cents.

Australian Stock Exchange:

Metgasco Limited's future plans for gas exploration on the NSW North Coast dependent on NSW Police acting as its agent?

The Northern Star 22 October 2014:

THE QUESTION of what constitutes effective consultation dominated the final day of Metgasco's Supreme Court hearing in Sydney yesterday.

According to Gasfields Free Northern Rivers spokesman Dean Draper, the government's counsel argued Metgasco should have been more transparent about its future plans if the Rosella gas well was successful.

Mr Draper said the government's legal team read from an email from Peter Henderson to Land and Water Commissioner Jock Laurie, which Mr Draper said informed Mr Laurie the company needed to mobilise its drill rig and "needed some help from the government to engage with the community".

The government's lawyers also quoted from a letter from Peter Henderson to the NSW Premier saying the company needed government and police assistance in order to proceed with its drilling and its gas plans for the region…..

Justice Richard Button asked for extra information to be given to him by close of business Friday. It is understood he is under no time constraints. A decision could take up to a year.

One reader’s online comment under this article:

Clarence Valley locals say no to coal seam gas

Clarence Valley Councillor Margaret McKenna........

http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php/2014/10/07/grafton-locals-say-no-to-csg/

NSW Far North Coast coal seam gas tenements map updated

Click on image to enlarge

This map comes courtesy of the Yuraygir Coast and Range Alliance

a member of Lock The Gate Alliance

Metgasco Limited v Minister for Resources and Energy: Managing Director gives evidence

Metgasco Managing Director Peter Henderson gave evidence in Metgasco Limited v Minister for Resources and Energy (Case # 201400165970) before the NSW Supreme Court on 20 October 2014.

ABC News reported on the same day:

Managing Director Peter Henderson told the Supreme Court drilling at the Rosella well was not in order to find coal seam gas but rather "conventional" gas.

But he agreed there was community concern the extraction could involve fracking.

Mr Henderson could not recall police at one stage telling him there may have been more than 2,000 protesters at the Rosella site.

He said Metgasco had been in the Northern Rivers area for about a decade and had previously drilled 50 wells there.

When questioned about community opposition to another well in the area, the Kingfisher Well, he said: "I can't remember any newspaper or public discussion."

BRIEF BACKGROUND

On 14 May 2014 the Office of Coal Seam Gas OCSG put a hold on Metgasco's approval to drill an exploration well at Bentley, near Casino in the Northern Rivers, on the basis that the company was not in compliance with its community consultation obligations under Petroleum Exploration Licence 16 (PEL 16).

Excerpt from Council acts on CSG tip off in the Northern Rivers Echo, 10 November 2011:

Lismore City Council has withdrawn support for seismic testing by Metgasco on Council-owned land in the Rock Valley area after discovering staff had approved an application without the councillors' knowledge.

On September 1 a Council staffer sent a letter to Metgasco approving the testing, but it wasn't until after Tuesday night's Council meeting that councillors became aware of the approval.

Having learnt of an application by Metgasco, Mayor Jenny Dowell moved an 'urgency motion' during the meeting that all requests for CSG and mineral testing or exploration on Council owned or administered land be brought before the Council for consideration. However it wasn't until after the motion had been passed and the meeting concluded that Mayor Dowell became aware that approval had already been granted following a discussion with Rock Valley resident Wanda Halden, who had been liaising with Council staff. Mayor Dowell took swift action and by Wednesday lunchtime Metgasco had been advised that Council's permission had been rescinded….

Greens fear rash of CSG wells, ABC Regional News, 13 December 2011:

The Greens fear that 500 or more coal seam gas (CSG) wells are planned for the New South Wales north coast.

Mining spokesman Jeremy Buckingham says Metgasco has reluctantly revealed its future plans for the region during hearings of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas.

Mr Buckingham says such developments will ruin the north coast's environment.

"We believe that if they are to go ahead with their plans for the power station and also a pipeline up the Lyons Way that they would need somewhere between 500 and 1,500 [wells]," he said.

"But the scale of the industry is beginning to emerge and the question is now where do Metgasco plan to put these 500 wells?"

Meanwhile, Metgaco says it has never tried to deceive the public about its fracking operations on the north coast.

Kyogle's Group Against Gas says the company used fracking in the Kingfisher well a year ago.

Metgasco's managing director, Peter Henderson, says that information was made public and he thinks claims that the company tried to hide the fact are unfair.

"No I don't think it's fair. We try to be open and transparent," he said.

"I'd have to say though in a climate like this where there's a lot of misinformation going about and a lot of accusations that are simply uninformed, we probably do need to be careful about the words we use simply to make sure that people respond to the right information.

"But we do our best to be open and transparent. There are no secrets."

Excerpt from Metgasco says it needs 1000 wells, ABC North Coast NSW, 28 May 2012:

Metgasco says it will need about 1000 wells operating in the Casino area to make its economic forecasts come true.

Excerpt from Being fair to all is tough editorial in The Daily Examiner, 9 January 2013, page 10:

A quick glance at our web stats shows more than 300 stories on the CSG issue over the past year.

Excerpts from Metgasco chief issues statement on Kingfisher incident* in The Northern Star, 3 October updated 4 October 2013:

* NIMBIN Environment Centre has accused coal seam gas company Metgasco of initially understating the seriousness of a dangerous incident at its Kingfisher well in July.

And Environment Centre secretary Alan Roberts has said the degraded state of pipes shot from the well, which is on the outskirts of Casino, in the incident meant it was likely toxins associated with coal seam gas drilling had migrated into the water table.

The incident has been the subject of an investigation by the NSW Government's Mine Safety Investigation Unit, as reported last week by The Northern Star, which found some workers at the site "were put at serious risk of harm from falling pipes".

No-one was injured in the incident but it caused "significant" equipment damage, the government report says.

However, in a statement released by the Nimbin Environment Centre, Mr Roberts says Metgasco downplayed the incident.

* METGASCO has rejected claims it understated the seriousness of the incident at its Kingfisher well in July and that toxins were able to pass into groundwater. The company has said it plans to release a statement tomorrow responding to the claims by the Nimbin Environment Centre…..

* METGASCO chief executive and managing director Peter Henderson has issued the following statement regarding the dangerous incident at the Kingfisher well, on the outskirts of Casino, in July….

* Fifteen online reader comments were listed below this article.

Excerpt from The Battle of Bentley* in the Northern Rivers Echo, 7 January 2014:

Metgasco has announced it will be targeting tight gas in upcoming drilling activities.

The company states that the Rosella exploration well at Bentley is targeting tight gas in the Gatton Sandstone formation and looking to the "confirm tight gas potential in the broader exploration area".

 * A tight gas reservoir is one that cannot be produced at economic flow rates or recover economic volumes of gas unless the well is stimulated by a large hydraulic fracture treatment and/or produced using horizontal wellbores.[Oil & Gas Journal, digital magazine]

Excerpt from Protesters resume waiting game as Metgasco drilling on hold in The Northern Star, 2 April 2014:

But Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson refuted claims Monday morning's 2000-strong turnout had derailed the company's plans, saying activities were "influenced by weather and availability of the drilling rig, neither of which we control".

Excerpts from Up to their necks in it, farmers lead coal seam gas protests by example in The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April 2014:

* Near Lismore late last month, about 2000 people gathered on a rural property to prevent mining company Metgasco from starting exploratory gas drilling in the area….

* Metgasco chief executive Peter Henderson claims opposition to gas mining is driven by a core group of "professional protesters".

"They're the people who tend to be the mainstays, quite often the troublemakers ... they are basically anarchists," he said. "When the television cameras come they tend to get to the back and they push a local farmer to the front."

But Environmental Defenders Office principal solicitor Sue Higginson said local opposition to mining projects, including from farmers, was genuine.

"We are seeing 75-year-old blokes standing locked on to machinery for nine hours after getting up at 3am to make a difference, to try to be heard by a system they believe is not listening," she said.

Excerpts from Police should have stepped in at Bentley sooner: Metgasco* in The Northern Star, 14 August 2014:

* POLICE should have intervened at Bentley before the situation escalated to a crisis point where 800 officers were needed, Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson said.

Mr Henderson was commenting on government documents released last week describing the unprecedented tactics used by activists and the "high to extreme" risk to the public and police of any confrontation.

In hindsight, he said the best time for police to act was when protesters had first established a presence outside the proposed drilling site in January….

* The company had asked police to "go in early" and arrest protesters breaking the law, given Metgasco's past experience at previous blockades at Doubtful Creek and Glenugie…

* Seventeen online reader comments under this article

NSW Government Trade & Investment PEL 16 map showing the number and location of Metgasco exploration wells:

Not happy, NSW Labor!

The NSW Labor men who betrayed the Clarence Valley:

Labor candidate for Tweed Ron Goodman, Labor candidate for Ballina Paul Spooner, State Opposition Leader John Robertson and Labor candidate for Lismore Isaac Smith. 

Photograph: The Northern Star 1 October 2014

Letters to the Editor in The Daily Examiner, 11 October and 6 October 2014:

Labor falls short

STATE Labor has fallen short on their promise to declare the Northern Rivers gasfield-free.

What political games are they playing? What plans do they have for this region?

What backroom deals have already got the nod?

The mighty Clarence River has always dominated the Northern Rivers.

We are the largest of the northern council areas. It's impossible to imagine the area not to be seen as part of the Northern Rivers.

Yet that's exactly what the State Labor Party has done.

Nothing more than empty promises from politicians.

When will governments get real and start acting on real change that benefits all, not just the top end of town.

More support for renewables is needed, not more fossil fuel madness.

Jennifer Lewis

Ewingar

 Labor fails on CSG

At the NSW Labor State Conference in July 2014 the following urgency motion was passed by the political wing of the party: “That Conference: 1. Notes: a) on the NSW North Coast there is overwhelming community opposition to Coal Seam Gas and Unconventional Gas mining and mining operations; b) the community's concern relates to the harmful effects of CSG mining on water quality, farm lands, the environment, communities, residents' health and tourism; c) the CSG industry has no social license to operate on the NSW North Coast; d) the NSW North Coast has unique environmental qualities; and e) CSG mining is incompatible with the NSW North Coast's important employment sectors including tourism and agriculture; 2. Condemns the NSW Liberal/National Party Government's pro-CSG fracking, drilling and expansion agenda on the NSW North Coast; and 3. Calls on the NSW Labor Party to: a) support an immediate moratorium on all CSG activities and licences within the boundaries of the State Parliamentary seats of Lismore, Ballina, Clarence, and Tweed on the NSW North Coast; and b) support a declaration that the State Parliamentary seats of Lismore, Ballina, Clarence and Tweed be 'CSG Free' and therefore be off limits to the Coal Seam Gas and Unconventional Gas industries.” [Janelle Saffin & Justine Elliot MP].

On 30 September Opposition Leader John Robertson and Labor Northern Rivers candidates at the March 2015 state election, Spooner, Smith and Goodman,  betrayed the Clarence Valley when they sent out this media release: “Labor is committed to ensuring we do not compromise the quality of drinking water supplies by allowing CSG and unconventional gas exploration within the core catchment areas. Labor will declare a total ban of CSG and unconventional gas in the Northern Rivers of NSW, encompassing the local government areas of Ballina Shire, Byron Shire, Kyogle Shire, Lismore City, Tweed Shire, and Richmond Valley. This region is pristine and stunning with World Heritage listed national parks and recreational areas. It has a unique quality of life with a blend of lifestyles ranging from alternative to agriculture. It has a mild, sub-tropical climate with a significant elderly and retirement population. The region also has the nation’s most significant internal migration in Australia. The industries of tourism, cattle, sugar and dairy all rely on the area’s natural values. The environmental values of the region are internationally significant. The development of the CSG and unconventional gas industry would fundamentally undermine these environmental assets and the economic drivers that rely on them and should not be allowed.” 

Apparently the Clarence Valley, its vital water catchment, significant environmental values and tourism, sugar cane, commercial estuary fishing, forestry, other primary production industries are less than nothing to NSW Labor as it gears up for the state election.

To say that I am disappointed, that Federal MP for Richmond Justine Elliot and former Federal MP for Page Janelle Saffin failed to follow through and ensure that Robertson lived up to the state conference resolution which sought to also protect the southern-most parts of the Northern Rivers, would be an understatement.

When I contacted John Robertson’s Sydney office I was told “at least you have the moratorium”. Well, that particular Labor policy statement has more holes than a block of swiss cheese and will give little comfort to Clarence Valley communities if unconventional gas miners come knocking at their doors.

JUDITH M. MELVILLE

Yamba

UPDATE

On 29 October 2014 NSW Labor announced that it had included the Clarence Valley in its policy permanently banning coal seam gas/tight gas/unconventional gas exploration, mining and production in the Northern Rivers region.