What the Australian Press Council thinks of Rupert Murdoch's national newspaper

Australian Press Council APC Update - Issue 41:

Clarence Valley - the area of the Northern Rivers which Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has failed to protect to date

Never one to stand firm on any issue unless it was of direct benefit to himself, NSW Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, unsuccessfully attempts to straddle the fence on the issue of coal seam gas in this The Northern Star article on 2 October 2014:

CLARENCE MP Chris Gulaptis has welcomed an expert's calls for designated gas fields in New South Wales.

The state's chief scientist Professor Mary O'Kane made the claim in her review on the NSW CSG industry.

Mr Gulaptis said coal seam gas drilling areas must be geologically tested.

"It's all about science and fact, and not about emotion," he said.

"The most important thing is the science has to be done first before the coal seam gas extraction is proposed.

"Make sure that your geology and your hydrology is right and then I think everything else will follow."

Mr Gulaptis said there needed to be boundaries where the industry could not operate and agriculture had to be protected.

"There will be some places where it can be carried out, there will be other places where it can't be carried out," he said.

"If it's unconducive to gas extraction then it becomes a problem. Clearly there are some areas where there are some land use conflicts and those areas have to be very closely examined so that neither one is impacted on."

Now when the NSW Coalition Government revisited its mining policies in early 2013 the North Coast Nationals did not insist on comprehensive exclusion zones within the largest part of his electorate, the Clarence Valley, so presumably neither did Chris Gulaptis.

Gulaptis also did not attend the NSW Energy Security Summit on 26 September 2013, which meant that that Metgasco Limited and other coal seam gas miners had a seat at the government summit table but Clarence Valley and Richmond Valley communities did not.

This failure to protect resulted in the drinking water catchments of the Clarence-Coffs Harbour Regional Water Supply, upstream of the Nymboida Weir and associated with the Shannon Creek Dam, having no protection against coal seam-tight gas exploration and mining under the NSW Coalition Government’s coal seam gas exclusions zones included in the Mining State Environmental Planning Policy.

The policy he voted for also does not adequately protect Clarence Valley primary production, including the sugarcane industry, under current biophysical strategic agricultural land (BSAL) mapping, nor does it adequately protect the valley’s identified regionally significant farmland or place limits on the loss of prime crop or pasture land.

In a 21 November 2013 submission to the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure Clarence Valley Council noted:

It would seem from the actions and outcomes to date that the State Government is not intending to provide protection from CSG activity by way of exclusion of those closely settled rural residential precincts within the Clarence Valley LGA.

and

Council considers that not considering the drinking water catchments of the Clarence - Coffs Harbour Regional Water Supply as specified in point iv above for exclusion from CSG activity is not in the public interest and should be rethought to help guarantee the integrity of the drink water of the region that this Water Supply infrastructure and asset serves.

and

Whilst the “CSG excluded” areas and areas subject to gateway assessment through BSAL & CIC mapping will enjoy a greater degree of certainty and assessment respectively, uncertainty will remain about the degree of protection and assessment of the larger areas outside of these areas if and when they are to be subject to mining and CSG exploration & production activity.

This is the area of the Northern Rivers which Chris Gulaptis has failed to protect to date:                                                                                                     

Unfortunately for the Clarence Valley, to date NSW Labor also offers little protection under its coal seam and unconventional gas policy either.

Standard and Poor's has downgraded APN News & Media's debt credit rating

An interesting snippet from the AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER HISTORY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. 79 October 2014:

79.3.4 APN (2): Rating downgraded

Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has downgraded APN News & Media’s debt credit rating after the media company canned a proposed offering of senior unsecured notes in the US bond market (Australian, 18 September 2014). S&P has lowered the publishing, outdoor advertising and radio company’s debt to BB from BB+. APN was expected to use the proceeds from the $US250 million ($270m) issue to repay its outstanding debt and to cancel commitments under a bank facility of $630m.

A BB rating is assigned when a company’s creditworthiness and ability to meet financial commitments is deemed to face “major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions”. APN abandoned the offering citing unsatisfactory “terms and conditions”, and said the decision would not impact debt level or maturities. The company recently entered into a new facility with a syndicate of domestic and international banks, and was carrying net debt of $482.6m as of June 2014. The debt downgrade comes as APN considers strategic options for APN New Zealand, which operates publishing assets including the New Zealand Herald as well as The Radio Network and the digital business GrabOne. APN has retained Grant Samuel to assist in the process.

Australian National University divests itself of certain mining shares

The Australian 4 October 2014:

THE Australian National University has become the first local high­er-education institution to announce that it will divest its holdings in seven companies — in­cluding Santos, Newcrest Mining­ and Iluka Resources — which it says have a poor record on environmen­tal responsibility.

ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young said yesterday that the value of the divestment was about $16 million of ANU’s $1 billion endowment.

The decision was based on principle but he hoped it would draw attention to companies that “do harm”. “We are saying we don’t want to invest in companies that are not socially responsible and are doing harm,’’ Professor Young said. “That is different from saying we won’t invest in any ­mining companies.”

The other affected stocks are Independence Group, Sandfire Resources, Oil Search and Sirius.

Julian Poulter, the executive director of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, said the ANU’s gesture was largely symbolic but was also very “helpful”. “We are seeing people starting to hedge their portfolios against potential stranded assets, including divesting of the very worst,” he said.

In August, the University of Sydney called a halt to investments in Whitehaven Coal until it had completed a review of its investment strategy over environmental concerns on Whitehaven’s Maules Creek project.

The Australian National University (ANU) is attempting to establish its green credentials.

This is not the first time that ANU has divested itself of mining shares.

In 2012 the university was the 17^th largest shareholder in coal seam-tight gas miner Metgasco Limited holding 2,500,000 shares as of 21 September that year.

By February 2013 after pressure from its student body and individuals in the Northern Rivers (including the Clarence Valley) ANU announced it had sold all of its Metgasco shares.

The state of play in the coal seam and unconventional gas industry, according to the NSW Chief Scientist

Excerpts from the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer Mary O’Kane’s Final Report of the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW (September 2014):

Stakeholders have significant concerns

* Land is a key issue and one that strikes an emotional chord due to the strong affinity

Australians have with their land and its central role in the livelihood of rural communities.

There is a perceived lack of support for rights of landowners in terms of access to their

land. Lack of consultation, inadequate compensation, property value decreases, and

potential legacy issues are also cited as major issues by landowners as are the negative

impacts on amenity and a lack of adequate benefits for their neighbours and their

communities.

* Water is another key issue. Primary producers and others fear that CSG developments

will negatively impact prime agricultural land by depleting aquifers and contaminating

groundwater reserves. They argue that it could result in reduced food production.

* Other major concerns, especially from community groups, are short- and long-term

negative environmental impacts (and who will pay to remediate land); managing

produced water and associated by-products such as salts; possible impacts on human

and animal health; the distributed nature of the industry (giving rise to concerns including

malfunctioning unattended wells and heavy traffic on minor roads); and the cost to the

taxpayer of regulating the industry.

* Certain processes such as fracture stimulation (‘fracking’) and, to a lesser extent,

horizontal drilling, are of particular concern in the context of CSG although the use of

these techniques in other industries (underground water access in the case of fracture

stimulation and infrastructure provision in the case of horizontal drilling) is more

accepted.

* There is concern about lack of adequate and respectful consultation. Stakeholders cited

the failure of industry proponents and government agencies at all levels to engage,

provide information, communicate and address community concerns before proceeding

with development. On the issue of consultation and adequate information provision, the

Review notes that getting the balance right between overall benefit to society and impact

on individuals is a recurrent challenge for governments especially for issues as divisive

as CSG. While the Review found that consultation and information provision could be

significantly improved, it is clear that there are many in the community whose level of

concern is such that they are likely to remain opposed to CSG production in NSW under

any conditions.

* A large number of those who expressed their opposition to CSG to the Review also

made it clear that they were not opposed to CSG per se but were opposed to CSG

production in heavily populated areas and in areas of intensive agricultural production.

* Local councils, especially rural councils, are concerned that they are not receiving

adequate funds to cover rapid infrastructure upgrades (such as upgrades to local roads

and other amenities) necessary to deal with the CSG industry coming to a rural locality.

* The CSG industry is concerned that it is being adversely affected financially by what it

perceives to be an uncertain, often changing, and increasingly tough regulatory regime in

NSW.

* There is a perception in some parts of the community that CSG extraction is potentially

more damaging and dangerous than other extractive industries. This perception was

heightened following the release of the American movie Gasland in 2010. The Review

examined this issue in detail and concluded that while the CSG industry has several

aspects that need careful attention, as do almost all industries, it is not significantly more

likely to be more damaging or dangerous than other extractive industries.

* Many perceive the CSG industry to be a new industry that is being fast-tracked without

adequate attention to significant concerns. CSG production has been happening at

significant levels in North America (where coal seam gas is generally referred to as coal

bed methane) for two decades and in NSW for 13 years (at Camden by Sydney Gas,

later AGL). CSG from NSW sources currently accounts for 5% of the NSW gas supply. In

the 1990s the Government introduced measures such as a five-year royalty holiday

(followed by a five-year incremental sliding scale of royalties from 6% up to 10%) to

encourage the petroleum industry. This benefit was removed at the end of 2012. Some

of the companies that began exploring during this time were responsible for incidents

that led to increased concerns about the industry generally.

* Complex and opaque legislation and complex regulatory processes. This concern was

raised repeatedly by community, the CSG industry and government agencies. It can lead

to considerable administrative burden for those needing to comply, those assessing

compliance and those trying to understand the legislative and regulatory regime from the

community for the purpose of investigating concerns. This complexity can also lead to

gaps, overlaps, contradictions and wasted time in inefficient oversight. The Review

agrees that the legislation and regulatory processes need to be addressed.

* Inconsistent legislation. Many industry and community groups have alerted the Review to varying legislative and regulatory regimes for things similar to those relating to CSG

extraction. Legislation and regulation covering the construction of wells and production of

gas from coal seams as part of coal mining activities is less stringent than that for CSG

production. Similarly a 2km buffer zone approach has been introduced for CSG

extraction, but no such zone is in place for conventional gas or other types of

unconventional gas extraction.

Lack of trust

* CSG companies are viewed as untrustworthy by some members of the community in

both urban and rural areas. This lack of trust seems to stem particularly from some CSG

exploration companies: being perceived to be in violation of land access regulations;

being perceived by some to bully vulnerable landholders; not managing sub-contractors

appropriately; engaging in questionable environmental practices; and not reporting

accidents to the regulator quickly enough.

* Despite the limited extent of CSG development across NSW, Government is perceived

by some as favouring the CSG industry for allowing it to proceed in areas where there

has been considerable community opposition. Government is also perceived by some as

not managing regulatory compliance effectively and not supporting compliance activities

with sufficient penalties where CSG companies have infringed regulations.

* Government and industry information about CSG is perceived by some as lacking

independence and, accordingly, is not trusted.

* Among groups trying to understand CSG impacts there is concern about lack of access

to raw data, and especially baseline data associated with a locality, before CSG

exploration and production commences. While the Government open data access

provisions of recent years go some way to addressing this concern, the fact that most

companies are not releasing this data in raw form (and are not required by Government

to release it) leads to increased suspicion.

* There is considerable social tension and animosity between some neighbours in some

local communities where CSG operations are proceeding or proposed. On the one hand

there are those who are concerned about potential negative impacts of CSG extraction

and see those who want its introduction as ‘selling out’ to CSG companies. On the other

hand, landowners and community members who are in favour of CSG often feel that the

debate has been ‘hijacked’ by environmental activists who are ‘using’ the community for

their own ends……….

There are things we need to know more about

* While Australia has a long history of working in the subsurface, there is still considerable

uncertainty associated with the development of any new resource province. Currently

CSG activities tend to be considered mainly at a site-specific level. A better

understanding of the industry impacts at scale and over time is needed. To enable better

planning decisions and better management of cumulative impacts, it will be necessary

that industry collects and provides to Government significantly more data than at present

including data from a wider range of sources. With a diverse range of resources,

including coal, CSG and underground water, hosted in our sedimentary basins, there is a

need to understand better how the different resources and their development regimes

interact. More detailed knowledge of the structure and composition (especially regarding

hydrogeology) of the sedimentary basins is needed to enhance productivity for the CSG

industry through more precise resource characterisation and better subsurface and

surface environmental management.

* There is a need to understand better the nature of risk of pollution or other potential

short- or long-term environmental damage from CSG and related operations, and the

capacity and cost of mitigation and/or remediation and whether there are adequate

financial mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. This requires an investigation of

insurance and environmental risk coverage, security deposits, and the possibility of

establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund. Doing this is essential to ensure that

the costs and impacts from this industry are not a burden for the community.

* Legacy issues, including better understanding of inappropriately abandoned wells, need

attention.

Summer Daylight Savings: Good morning to five different Australian time zones in pictures

Australia  has a landmass of approximately 7.692 million square kilometres making it the world's sixth largest country by physical size.

Therefore it always has three different time zones, Western Standard Time (AWST), Central Standard Time (ACST) and Eastern Standard Time (AEST):

For visitors to this country this translates as Greenwich Mean Time plus 8, 9.5 and 10 hours respectively:

At 2am on Sunday 5 October 2014 annual summer daylight savings time comes into force and five different time zones exist until Sunday 5 April:

This means that this morning when it is 9am in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory:

it will be 6am in West Australia;

7.30am in the Northern Territory; 

8am in Queensland; and

8.30am in South Australia.

Desmond John Thomas Euen wants a sea port - Part Two

In the words of Darryl Kerrigan (in The Castle), 'tell 'em they're dreaming' - it's not going to happen

[Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson, 5 March 2012]

plans are a pie-in-the-sky idea

[NSW Nationals MP Clarence Chris Gulaptis, 27 May 2014]

Sixty-four year-old Queenslander Des Euen’s current goal in life is to turn the small working port at Yamba, on which local fishing and tourism industries also heavily rely, into a generic freight hub at the end of a phantom west-east rail line and, in the process destroy a significant Yaegl cultural and spiritual site, Dirrangun reef.

He has created a website Y.P.R. Australia and registered a second company in March this year Y.P.R. (AUST) PTY LTD.

Like his first company, this second incorporated entity has Mr. Euan as sole director and secretary. All its shares are owned by him through his first $1-1 share company AUSTRALIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD.

When talking up his plans Mr. Euen apparently alternates between generic freight hub and port to ship bulk petrochemicals/mineral ores, depending on his audience.

He appears to be more phantasist than self-educated businessman and, like all good teasers he always promises to reveal more later.

However, the holes in his grand plan have now drawn the mainstream media’s attention.

This was The Armidale Express on 1 October 2014:

The company YPR, owned by managing director Des Euen, wants council endorsements of the project from Armidale, Glen Innes, Inverell, Uralla and Guyra. 

But after an investigation The Armidale Express has revealed several organisations YPR has listed on its website as endorsing the project have not given approval. 

One such organisation is engineering consultants Aurecon. YPR’s website names managing director Andrew Keith as giving his support. 

But when The Express contacted Mr Keith, who is actually leader of mine services, he said while he spoke with Mr Euen neither he nor Aurecon had given anything resembling an endorsement. 

Another apparent endorser is David Liddiard, a prominent indigenous businessman who is a well-known advocate for indigenous issues. But again Mr Liddiard said he had talked with Mr Euen but hadn’t endorsed the project.

Mr Liddiard was very concerned when he discovered there were fears the project could damage a culturally significant reef at the mouth of the Clarence River. 

“If it’s going to interfere with indigenous sacred sites then I’m pretty against that,” he said. 

Clarence Valley Council, which includes Yamba, told The Express YPR’s website used to feature a logo which implied it supported the project. 

A spokesman from that Council said Mr Euen had not provided them with enough information to make an endorsement. 

That logo has since been taken down. Another apparent endorsment is from Moree Plains Shire Council. 

But while that council supported the project through committee resolution, but its executive projects officer John Carleton said this was different from an endorsement.

Rather surprisingly Mr. Euen appears somewhat camera shy, so this is the only image of him I have been able to find to date:

http://au.linkedin.com/pub/des-euen/7b/305/272

Perhaps Des Euen would like to explain how he expects a flood-prone Clarence River estuary port limited by a channel depth of 4.0m to the Goodwood Island common user berth, with a typical high tide maximum draft of only 5.0m (and a river mouth bar on which commercial shipping in the past was sometimes stuck until the next high tide) - will be able to accommodate his aspirations.