Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts

Monday 11 January 2016

Did Clarence Valley Council attempt to pull the wool over Iluka residents' eyes?


Recently I received a ‘phone call from an Iluka resident which began along the lines of: I met you once at the bus stop in Maclean and I wonder if you know…

What this very concerned person from the opposite side of the Clarence River then told me was that Clarence Valley Council chose to advertise an approx. 19ha 162 lot low density residential subdivision with 10 new roads within Lot 99 in DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka on 24 December 2015 – Christmas Eve – and also to start a 28 day exhibition period from Boxing Day, 26 December. [Clarence Valley Council, block_ad_
December_24_26.pdf]


From my experience, local government only acts in this manner if both it and the developer of record do not want informed community scrutiny of a ‘favoured’ development application (DA).

The development application SUB2015/0034 submitted by NSW central coast development company Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Stevens Group) was first lodged with Clarence Valley Council on 11 December 2015 and then referred to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel by council administration on or about 18 December 2015.

The owner of the land in question is Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Clarence Valley Council states of this DA:

Clarence Valley Council is the consent authority and the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel has the function of determining the application. Any submissions made will be provided to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and may be viewed by other people with an interest in the application. The development application and documents accompanying the application are on exhibition and may be inspected at Council’s customer service centres*. Submissions close 4pm, January 22, 2016.
Any person may make a written submission to Council during the exhibition period concerning the development application. If you have any submissions you wish to make regarding any proposed development please do so in writing, addressed to the General Manager, during the exhibition period. Where a submission is an objection to a proposed development the submission must set out the grounds for the objection.

It does not say that any resident wishing to make comment directly to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel on the subject of this proposed development can do so online here.

The state-appointed panellists for the Joint Regional Planning Panel are: Garry West (Chair), Pamela Westing and John Griffin, with Bruce Clarke as an alternate.

When considering development proposals within the Clarence Valley they are joined by Mayor Richie Williamson, Deputy Mayor Craig Howe, with Cr. Andrew Baker as the alternate.

The timing of the DA advertising is not the only concern. Although SUB2015/0034 is clearly on public exhibition, there are currently no details on the council website’s “On exhibition” page.

Interested residents have to physically attend either the Maclean or Grafton council chambers if they want information on this DA. This initially created a dilemma for concerned residents and ratepayers as Maclean and Grafton council chambers were closed between 24 December 2015 and 3 January 2016.

This of course effectively reduced the length of time that DA documents could be researched in preparation for a submission by 11 days.

By 6 January media attention and pressure from individual community members saw council administration extend the exhibition period to 4pm on 12 February 2016 and place a copy of the DA exhibition documents in Iluka township. However, it remains a matter of concern that council administration thought the original truncated exhibition period was acceptable.

I have no doubt that the owners of the land are willing to be transparent in their actions concerning this proposed subdivision, however when a large development company is also involved in a land release it is wise for any community to be wary.

Readers may recall that in 2014 the Stevens Group sought to remove approval conditions on a NSW south coast development before building commenced and, in the same year, the managing director and owner was called to appear before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s Operation Spicer investigation concerning alleged unlawful political donations.

So this parcel of land deserves a closer look.

Firstly Clarence Valley Council is on record as stating to The Daily Examiner in January 2012:

Clarence Valley Council development services manager Clem Rhoden said the parcel of land at lot 99 Hickey St was opposite Iluka Golf Club and encompassed an area of approximately 194,031sq m.

Secondly, this lot (bounded by Hickey Street, Elizabeth Street and Iluka Road) is covered by what appears to be relatively dense tree cover:

Aerial Snapshot of Hickey Street Iluka NSW, Google Earth, 4 January 2016

Snapshot of section of the southern boundary of Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka NSW

To prepare the land for 162 residential lots this block will have to be extensively cleared and, it is possible that this clearing may entail the destruction of coastal cypress:

Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is apparently restricted to the NSW North Coast bioregion.

Thirdly, the existing tree cover may possibly be koala habitat. Koalas are of course listed as vulnerable under federal law.

Council itself admits that:

calls are still frequent from Clarence Valley WIRES who reported six calls regarding injuries in 2009, suggesting there may still be a residual population surviving in the Iluka area or frequenting the area from the adjoining Bunjalung National Park. It is therefore important to reduce further clearing and protect and rehabilitate those areas that are remaining. Particular focus should be given to restoring fragmented areas of koala habitat, lands within identified habitat linkages and koala habitat buffers, and lands adjacent to contiguous blocks of existing koala habitat (McAlpine et al. 2007). [Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Ashby, Woombah & Iluka localities in the Clarence Valley LGA, undated]; and
A further 260 koala food trees (approximately) were inspected for evidence of koala activity during eight transect searches within the Iluka study area….
field observations and anecdotal observations confirm the presence of what appears to be a highly dispersed but small population cell at Iluka…
Since 2002 there have been at least 51 koala records between the Iluka township and Shark Bay that have been contributed to the NSW Wildlife Atlas, while additional koala observations were provided to us and Council officers by residents and National Parks staff. These records create an Extent of Occurrence (EoO) of approximately 1,028ha (Figure 4).  [Biolink Ecological Consultants, Koala Habitat Assessment Ashby, Woombah and Iluka: Report to Clarence Valley Council January 2012]

When comparing this Biolink koala map below with the Google Earth map above it is clear that the possibility exists that koalas may still travel across and perhaps feed in Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka.

On 20 January 2012 The Daily Examiner on Page 5 of that issue reported that:

AFTER spotting a mother koala and its baby on 19ha of Birrigan Gargle land that could be cleared, Clarence Environmental Centre secretary John Edwards said bulldozing and developing the wildlife corridor would amount to environmental suicide.
While surveying the area two months ago, Mr Edwards said he spotted two endangered species, the mother koala and baby and a coastal pine community.

Image of koala female with infant on Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka. Supplied by Iluka resident. Date unknown.

Fourthly, mineral sand mining for heavy minerals rutile, zircon, monazite and ilmenite occurred in the wider Iluka area and old mineral sand mining sites can sometimes emit low levels of radiation incompatible with full-time occupation of a site [Guidance for Licensing of Mineral-sand Mining that Generates Radioactive Residues, June 2009 & Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion, August 2005]. There has been some suggestion in the online comments section of a local newspaper and a later article that at least part of the existing tree cover is regrowth on an old mineral sand mining site.

Finally there is the rather mundane but very important matter of how the soil would be stabilized after large-scale clearing and before construction is finished, if that will impact on adjacent land and where the storm water from roofs, gardens and road surfaces will be directed.

Then there is this disturbing online advertisement which appears to have been on various real estate websites since at least September 2015 and boldly anticipates approval by both the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel and Clarence Valley Council:


Is any or all of this what Council is trying to hide from Clarence Valley residents and ratepayers by sneakily activating the clock on this DA over the Christmas holidays?
Or is there something more?

With these questions in mind I went to look at the exhibition documents:

Snapshot taken from Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision

The site is roughly trapezoidal in shape and is bounded by: Iluka Golf Club to the north; Iluka Road and the Iluka Nature Reserve to the east; Undeveloped land to the south, west and north west; and Existing residential development to the south west.
[Cardno Geotech Solutions, August 2015, Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision, p.1]

Having now sighted the Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision and Statement of Environmental Effects: 162 Lot Residential Subdivision Lot 99, DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka, prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd/ Shellharbour Unit Trust (click on link to access documents), it is clear that this parcel of land is partially low-lying, gently undulating back-dunes, potentially prone to localised flooding in sections and, was covered by Mineral Lease 7 (held by L. Foyster) a mineral sand mining lease active between 1958-1978. It is likely that the subject site was sand mined sometime between 1966 and 1978 [Keystone Ecological, 2015, Statement of Environmental Effects, Summary].

Vegetation is generally thick semi-mature to mature native trees and coastal scrub across the site and, includes an unspecified number of Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gums, Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood - all koala food trees, with the first two species being preferred by these animals.

It is also clear that 16.71 ha of koala habitat is to be removed to make way for 162 houses and an estimated 400-500 new residents living on the outskirts of Iluka township.

The Phascolarctos cinereus Koala observed on site was walking along the ground – not foraging in the trees or moving through the canopy – and moving from south to north [ibid, p.32].

Apart from koala habitat existing on the land evidence was found on site of coastal emu which is listed as endangered under state law:

Snapshot taken from Keystone Ecological, Statement of Environmental Effects:
162 Lot Residential Subdivision Lot 99, DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka, October 2015

Image of coastal emu outside the boundary of the 135 hectare Iluka Nature Reserve.
Supplied by Iluka resident. Date unknown.

As for the three internal parks listed on the DA plan – the first is 1.76 hectares, the second is 1 hectare but only 50 metres wide for its entire length, while the third (to protect an Aboriginal scar tree) is only 0.075 of a hectare and wedged in the middle a row of houses. This brings the total internal reserve land to a fragmented 2.83 hectares.

What is not yet clear is how much additional infrastructure and services will be required or how much in developer contributions Clarence Valley Council is expecting to receive and if this will cover all additional infrastructure and services outlays.

The bottom line with regard to Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka is that it is a demonstrably ecologically sensitive parcel of land admitted as being “identified as an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ being in, or within 100 metres of an area identified as a wetland of international significance or a world heritage area and complying development may not be carried out on part of this land” [Cardno Geotech Solutions, August 2015, Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision, p.5] and, even though Clarence Valley Council has zoned the lot R2 Low Density Residential, the size of the built footprint of this development is not appropriate for the location and the plan provides ineffective native flora and fauna safeguards.

If the developer, the landowner and council administration genuinely wish to see this lot developed in a sustainable manner then they should all revisit what they are progressing so enthusiastically at present and, as a bare minimum, reconfigure the plan to significantly reduce the number of lots and provide genuine wildlife corridors which would continue to allow vulnerable koalas, endangered coastal emus and other wildlife much the same access to Iluka Nature Reserve and the national park that native animals use today.

UPDATE

Coastal cypress pine community on Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka (and adjacent lots) represented by blue flags.
Image supplied.

 It is important to note that even small patches that have been disturbed in the past by clearing, or fire are still considered to be important remnants of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest and meet the criteria of being an EEC. [NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSWNorth Coast Bioregion, 2009]

Sunday 1 September 2013

Coalition Policies and the Environment



In the election campaign both major parties are short-changing the environment but by far the weakest response to environmental issues comes from the Coalition.

The Coalition parties' attitude is encapsulated in a comment made by Nationals leader Warren Truss in an election broadcast – "You don't improve the environment by trashing the economy." Truss and many other politicians miss the point entirely when they speak of the economy and the environment as being separate entities with the economy the central matter. They do not understand that the economy and the human community are subsets of the natural environment.  A healthy economy is dependent ultimately on a healthy environment.

Politicians such as Warren Truss may learn this in the future as the effects of climate change start to impact severely on our way of life – and on the economy.

Truss' comment referred to the carbon tax which he and his Coalition allies have promised to abolish.

While the Coalition officially acknowledges that climate change is a problem, there is still the taint of climate scepticism about some Coalition politicians including the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.  His climate change is "absolute crap" statement was made some time ago but more recently we have had his disparaging comment about the "invisible substance".

Two major components of the Coalition's Direct Action policy on climate change are planting trees and paying farmers for storing carbon in their soils.  Another more significant one is paying polluters to reduce their emissions rather than making them pay for polluting.  Just how effective an incentive this will be in encouraging polluters to move to a low carbon economy is very doubtful.

There are serious questions about the effectiveness of this policy in meeting the target reductions to which the Coalition committed.  There are also questions about the cost of the scheme.  A recent report commissioned by the independent Climate Commission highlights the problems with the Coalition scheme.

For another view of the recent ALP-Coalition "debate" on Direct Action's likely effectiveness see Politifact   http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/mark-butler/how-much-direct-action-cost/

Another Coalition policy which has serious implications for the natural environment is the pledge to reduce what developers call "green tape" and to leave much environmental governance to the states.  The idea behind this is to make it easier for business and prevent duplication – naturally something business and industry applauds.  However, removing federal oversight is not in the interests of the natural environment or the broader community.  Consider, for example, what has happened to environmental regulation / environmental protection in NSW under the current state government where, for example,  marine reserve protection has been downgraded, national parks are to be opened up to recreational hunters and land-clearing regulations have been eased.  Giving the states either too much power or sole power on environmental protection is almost certain to be disastrous for the natural environment. 

The Coalition has committed $20 billion to road infrastructure but is ignoring investment in rail which is a much less carbon intensive method of transport.  According to the Australasian Railway Association (quoted in Smoke and mirrors, with no policy on smoke   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/smoke-and-mirrors-with-no-policy-on-smoke-20130825-2sjoc.html) 14% - 76 million tonnes per year - of Australia's greenhouse emissions are generated by transport.  90 % of these emissions are attributable to road transport and only 2% to rail.  Investment in rail in this carbon-constrained world is sensible policy.  Why is this not obvious to Mr Abbott and his team?

Other policies/announcements which are cause for concern include:

* The scrapping of the Biodiversity Fund (originally $1 billion but which now stands at $600 million) and replacement with a $300 million "Green Army".
* Slashing of the $10 billion renewable energy fund and replacement with a $1 billion solar roofs program. Plans to review and possibly weaken the current renewable energy target.
* A proposal to build up to 100 dams throughout the country.

Simplistic sloganeering has been the hallmark of the Coalition in Opposition.  If they win government, they won't be able to rely on slogans.  Environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss, and particularly preparing Australia for the climate challenge ahead, will test the new government.  The Coalition's policies show that it is ill-prepared to meet that challenge.

Hildegard
Northern Rivers
30 August 2013

* Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Tuesday 27 August 2013

Stop the NSW O'Farrell Government selling your rights to developers!


Better Planning Network email 14 August 2013:

Dear NSW Resident
Within the next 2 to 6 weeks, the NSW Government will introduce its new planning legislation to Parliament, legislation driven by powerful developer lobbies whose primary focus is profit-making. If it is adopted, the outcomes of this legislation for ordinary residents and communities will be dire. In particular, the legislation will:    

·  Remove our right to have a say on up to 80% of developments. This means that you won’t have the right to comment if your neighbour wants to build a new 2-storey house next door and you will have no right of say if someone wants to build up to 20 terrace houses in your street or even put up a block of flats nearby.    
· Use the planning system to drive economic growth and fast track development at the cost of our quality of life, environment and heritage.  Economic considerations are an important component of our quality of life, but they are not the only component. The new planning system is about ‘development at any cost’ and drastically reduces the need for decision-makers to consider the social, environmental and heritage impacts of new development.    
· Increase the risk of corruption associated with planning and development decision-making.  The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has warned that the new system will carry serious corruption risks.

In exchange for all this, the NSW Government says that we will be able to have a say in the planning controls that guide development in neighbourhoods. However, the Minister will have broad discretion to amend these planning controls without community consultation.  And developers will be able to apply to exceed these controls as well.
Act now to stop this legislation from being introduced to Parliament. Sign our petition To the Premier of NSW - the Hon. Barry O’Farrell, MP: Withdraw the NSW Government’s Planning Bills! 

Yesterday (13/08/13), the SMH reported that Mr Sam Haddad, Director General of Planning and Infrastructure, had admitted that:

"...a proposed overhaul of planning laws has ''gone further than the government intended'', reducing the community's ability to fight bad decisions" and that department staff may have unintentionally spread ''inaccurate or misleading information'' about the changes, touted as the biggest overhaul of the state's planning system in more than 30 years."


This admission by the State’s top planning official is simply unacceptable and the Government’s legislation must be withdrawn immediately, re-drafted and re-exhibited, with accurate information provided on its effect on communities, our environment and heritage.
Most importantly, spread the word by asking your neighbours, family, friends and community networks to sign our petition as well.
It’s not too late to make our voice heardTogether, we are stronger.
Thank you for taking action!
Sent on behalf of the Better Planning Network



(The Better Planning Network is an independent, non politically-aligned affiliation of over 420 community groups across NSW, striving to achieve a fair and balanced planning system that delivers responsible and sustainable development)

Tuesday 13 August 2013

Saving the Ballina Plateau


Letter to the Editor The Northern Star 9 August 2013:

Buffer zone

FOR 30 years the villages of Alstonville and Wollongbar have been separated by an agricultural buffer zone. This land has resulted in the Plateau being seen as the rural heartland of Ballina Shire. In the past, attempts to rezone this land have been rejected by council.
A rezoning application is currently on exhibition with council that seeks to rezone part of the buffer, which is also State Significant Farmland, to industrial land. This time council appears to be supporting the rezoning.
One might ask why? Nothing has changed since the rejection of this application in 2002. It is still designated State Significant Farmland, and it is still zoned Urban Buffer. There is plenty of industrial land nearby.
If this rezoning is approved it will set a precedent for others who also want to rezone and before long our unique green belt between Wollongbar and Alstonville will be lost.
If you love the Plateau with its rural flavour please respond to this rezoning application immediately. The deadline for submissions is August 16.

Jane Gardiner
Past President
Alstonville and District
Ratepayers Association

Tuesday 4 December 2012

Are the Tara coal seam gas fields any indication of the effect Metgasco's mining plans will have on NSW North Coast property values?

.
 2011 Google Earth image
Click on image to enlarge
 
This is an image of one section of the coal seam gas well cluster and other associated infrastructure between Tara and Chincilla townships in Queensland.
 
Metgasco Limited appears to have similar plans on the NSW North Coast, with an estimated 1,000 gas wells proposed for the Lismore-Casino area alone.
 
Recently Clarence Valley residents concerned over Metgasgo’s test drilling in the Clarence Valley have expressed fears that land values may decrease if gas production wells are eventually established in the local government area.
 
As usual Metgasco director, shareholder and CEO, Peter Henderson, is quick to deny any negative relationship between coal seam gas mining and land values.
 
Using the Western Downs local government area in Queensland as an example, it is clear that overall property values have only increased by a moderate 3 per cent between 2011-12.
 
In towns around which the gas fields are centred, the residential sector saw an increase of between 10-30% from October 2010 to October 2011. While commercial and industrial property valuations in these towns have apparently responded with a range of valuations going from no increase, through to moderate increase and, in the case of Chinchilla’s fringe commercial market a large increase in that same period falling away to a moderate increase in 2012.
 
 
According to anti-CSG activist Peter Ralph, in practical terms this translated for one Wieambilla rural residential property owner into a fall in his land valuation from $115,000 last year to $77,000 this year. This same landowner had seven drill rigs and a gas compressor station within seven kilometres of his house in 2011 and a pipeline 300 metres from the front door.
 
As the majority of established gas wells are sited on rural land, one can assume that production wells on or near a rural property may have a detrimental impact on the value of that property.

For an area such as the Clarence Valley, where the majority of land is classified rural and much of this used for forestry, agriculture, grazing and ‘tree change’ retirement, such a valuation trend does not bode well.

Ballina local government area is in a similar position, with an estimated 20 per cent of its population living in rural zones predominately given over to agricultural activities.

Background:

A short helicopter tour of the Tara region gas fields.

 

Thursday 8 September 2011

The Daily Examiner couldn't or wouldn't name company directors responsible for the illegal destruction of pristine natural habitat - why?



A COMPANY which illegally cleared 38 hectares of native vegetation and may have displaced several koalas on a Halfway Creek property was fined $200,000 in the Land and Environment Court in Sydney on Thursday.
Judge Shaehan found Graymarshall Pty Ltd had breached the Native Vegetation Act by completely clearing six areas of the 170ha property of white mahogany, tallowwood and red mahogany.
One company director was found to have participated in the clearing, which was done on the instructions of both directors using a D6 bulldozer and a D65 excavator.
Neither director was named in the judgement.

Now, I have no idea if the company’s directors were not named in The Daily Examiner article because the newspaper knew their names and declined to publish or if it was too apathetic to search the public record – either way the Clarence Valley community is entitled to know all relevant facts surrounding Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Graymarshall Pty Ltd (No.2) [2011] NSWLEC 149 (1 September 2011).

The judgment in this case clearly stated that:

One director of the defendant participated in the clearing, done on the instructions of both directors, and under their supervision, using a D6 bulldozer and a D65 excavator….
I agree with the prosecutor's submission that the offence should be considered to be of high objective gravity.

This is what is previously stated about the company structure in Graymarshall Pty Ltd v Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water [2010] NSWLEC 54 in relation to the same illegal clearing matter:

Annexed to Mr Beaumont’s affidavit was a company search dated 15 March 2010, which listed Mr Murray Gray and Mr Darrin Marshall as the sole directors and shareholders Graymarshall. Mr Darrin Marshall is also listed as the company secretary. No other evidence concerning the company was, however, given. [my bolding]


Development Application SUB2009/0026 was lodged on 22 June 2009 by Peterson Consulting Group on behalf of the owners D. Marshall and M. Gray (Graymarshall Pty Ltd) for subdivision of land (boundary adjustment).
The applicant is seeking approval for boundary adjustments between 5 existing lots (Lots 20, 53, 54 and 105 DP751368 & Lot 3 DP816313) to reconfigure the lots to create 4 lots of 40 ha and one lot 195.6 ha in size.
The boundary adjustment will result in the creation of an additional three (3) dwelling entitlements.
The lots are located at the end of Gilmores Lane approximately 7.5 km south of Halfway Creek and 4 km west of Kungala. The lots are zoned 1(a) General Rural under the Ulmarra Local Environmental Plan (the LEP). Together the lots comprise approximately 356 hectares……

By letter dated 11 March 2009, Council was notified by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) that it was investigating potential illegal clearing of native vegetation on Lots 20, 53, 54 and 105 DP751368. At the time of writing this report, DECCW had not concluded investigations though the Department has advised Council that a direction to carry out remedial works was to be issued pursuant to Section 38 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 for the revegetation of approximately 50 hectares of land on the lots.

This was extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 08:25:57 on 07/09/2011 and shows the only recorded change in company detalis since 2008:

Name GRAYMARSHALL PTY LTD
ACN 132 679 719
ABN 60 132 679 719
Type Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date 11/08/2008
Next Review Date 11/08/2012
Status Strike-Off Action In Progress
Locality of Registered Office Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission
31/08/2011 6010 Application For Voluntary Deregistration of a Company

It took me all of fifteen minutes to search for, download and open files relating to this destruction of an estimated 38ha of pristine habitat (including part or all of a 2ha section listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) in the Halfway Creek area and, it is very evident who the company owners/directors were during the relevant period.

It took me only a few minutes more to ascertain that two businessmen with identical names are listed in the Coffs Harbour local government area – one an earthmover and excavator, the other a medical specialist. These two men may or may not be the same Gray and Marshall.

I’m still wondering why the newspaper didn’t bother to identify the company directors in question. It is very quick to name and shame drink drivers and others coming before the local courts on the NSW North Coast. I would have thought environmental vandalism perpetrators should also be similarly shamed.

Wednesday 15 June 2011

Coal Seam Gas Exploration in Australia 2011



http://youtu.be/smP9tL_e3U8

Abandoned Metgasco coal seam gas exploration site in June 2011 – waste water storage leaking and overflowing at Dobie’s Bight Road in the Dyraaba area on the NSW North Coast.

From coalseamgasnews:
Update; So two days later they have cleaned this up after me making a complaint, I happened to visit it again while they where there. They just filled it in, covered it all with dirt without removing the water. So I'm not sure how effective that was. Like I said I don't know what was in these ponds, produced water, drilling fluid, rainwater, whatever it was at some point chemicals or toxic water were probably stored in those ponds and even if they pumped it out and what I'm looking at is rainwater, you'd think they'd also remove the contaminated plastic liner when they pumped it out? Instead, now they let it flush out for months and have just buried it. The nearby creek runs into he Richmond River.

Wednesday 30 September 2009

Casino set for railway revolution


Moving freight by rail rather than road ... how sensible!


CASINO is on the cusp of a railway renaissance, with a development application to build a $10 million rail terminal about to be lodged with the Richmond Valley Council.

The terminal, which will be built on land next to the Casino Saleyards by the end of 2010, promises to reduce road freight by 150 trucks per day.

The Northern Star reports:

The terminal will connect to the main rail line and from there freight will travel to destinations and ports around Australia.

With the capacity to load two 750m long trains or a single 1550m train, it is expected one short train will depart for Brisbane daily and one long train will head southward to Sydney or Melbourne every two to three days.

Phillip Imrie, the Sydney-based engineer behind the proposal, said the terminal represented the future of freight in Australia.

An industrial estate will form part of the terminal. From there, businesses will be able to load goods directly onto waiting trains.

The Casino branch of the stockfeed company Riverina currently brings in more than 100,000 tonnes of grain and protein from Northern NSW and South-East Queensland every year by road.

“A facility such as this would give us access to southern grain markets which are currently cost prohibitive by road,” branch manager Col Shelton said.

Stage one of the terminal will employ 10 to 20 people on a full-time basis, although more will be working during the construction phase.

Mr Imrie said the terminal was likely to attract new businesses to Casino and this would bring more jobs.

Richmond Valley Council general manager Brian Wilkinson said the council was very keen to see the proposal go ahead and supported the overall concept.


Source: The Northern Star

Thursday 17 September 2009

Monsanto spinning so hard that its head faces backwards?


On 23 July 2008 the Molokai Dispatch published an editorial titled Monsanto Could be its Own Worst Enemy: Using too much water could force the company to downsize.

This editorial pointed out that:

Last November, General Manager of Monsanto Molokai Ray Foster said that the company was sensitive to the island's water needs and that Monsanto had a water conservation program for times of drought.
Last month however, amidst a 20% water cutbacks mandated by the Molokai Irrigation System (MIS), Monsanto is requesting an increase to its water use. However with water supply levels in the Kualapu`u reservoir over 60 million gallons short of where it was this time last year, many are left wondering where the water will come from?
The MIS was built for the Hawaiian Homesteaders which is why the law reserves two thirds of its water for Hawaiians. As the MIS becomes short on water due to dilapidation and drought, Hawaiian Homesteaders are beginning to feel the pressure.

Non-homestead ag-users like Monsanto currently account for 84% of MIS water consumption. Monsanto itself is using almost twice the amount of water of all 209 homestead users combined.

In a previous article titled Homesteaders Confront MIS:Water scarcity and increasing demands raise concerns the newspaper had reported that:

Water demand continues to increase, while supplies plummet. In one month, the Molokai Irrigation System (MIS) reservoir has dropped 50 million gallons, from 19 feet to 17 feet. Despite the Hawaiian homesteader's two-thirds right to water, roughly 80 percent of MIS supplies are allocated to non-homesteaders.
If the reservoir drops another two feet, a mandatory 20 percent conservation reduction will be issued to all non-homestead users. An advisory board would consult the DOA, which manages the MIS, on how to handle homesteader restrictions.
In an attempt to bypass this cutback, corn-grower Monsanto has proposed to pay for increased MIS pumping from Waikolo Valley. Presently, the DOA is checking into the viability of this proposal by conducting hydrology reports and assessing permit restrictions.
Randolph Teruya, DOA asset manager said Monsanto has increased its producing acreage and water usage in the past year. He also said the DOA will ask all non-homesteaders for a water conservation plan for the upcoming summer, but the agencies hands are tied because conservation enforcement is a county responsibility.
MIS board member James Boswell motioned for the MIS to send a letter to Monsanto to stop watering with a cannon during the day, where most of the water evaporates in the hot sun and wind. The MIS will request watering be done at night for efficiency and conservation.

In the Monsanto & Co. blog Monsanto According To Monsanto on 8 September 2009 when accusing a recent The Guardian U.K. article of selectively quoting the Molokai Dispatch editorial the company blithely did what it allegedly so abhorred in the post Monsanto a Water Bully? Not So.

Nowhere in this Monsanto spin was there any mention of the biotech corporation's desire to increase its water consumption in 2008 and the blog's denial of the existence of a new aquifer is used to deflect from this request to use additional water.

Water which is ultimately sourced from a combination of stream water, spring water and at least one well (sunk into an existing aquifer) within Kalaupapa National Park's Waikolu Valley.

Nor does the company blog mention that it sought to expand land under production during the prolonged drought and asked the Hawaii Dept of Agriculture to service this land with irrigation access.
A request which was denied by the department in July 2008 according to the newspaper, which also pointed to the fact that Monsanto had yet to implement a water conservation plan at that time.

Might I recommend that Monsanto employees acquaint themselves with an excellent little book Straight and Crooked Thinking by RH Thouless, with special attention to the thirty-eight dishonest tricks which are commonly used in argument.