SANTOS - Happy Farmer TV Advertisement

Social, legal and health issues related to air and water toxic pollution in Australia.

SANTOS - Happy Farmer TV Advertisement

Postby HVPA_research » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:43 am

Link to this page:

We are all pretty sick of the SANTOS - HAPPY FARMER TV promotion but Peter Firminger from the Lock The Gate went one step further. He made an official complaint to The Advertising Standards Board. We have archived the result as presented in a long thread on the Facebook in our research archive. It is not as nice as the Facebook page but it will not going to be snowed under in a few days or even hours like the original Facebook discussion. It is important to present this discussion for future reference. It is all very educational and shows clearly what we are fighting against.



Peter Firmingerposted to Lock the Gate Alliance Inc
ASB Notification regarding a complaint
Mr Peter Firminger
C/- Wollombi General Store

1 August 2011
1. Complaint reference number: 0213/11
2. Advertiser: Santos Ltd

Dear Mr Firminger,

We refer to your complaint regarding the above advertisement.

The Advertising Standards Board viewed the advertisement and considered your complaint at its recent meeting. We have to advise you that the Board did not uphold your complaint.
A copy of the case report reflecting the Board's determination is enclosed.

Please note that if you are dissatisfied with the determination it may be possible for you to request a review, within 10 business days of the date of this letter. Before submitting a request for review, please refer to the information about the Independent Review process. This will ensure that you have the right information to decide if you have grounds to make the request. This information is available on our website at​process/theprocesssteps/indpen​dentreviewofasbdeterminations
Please consider completing a survey about your ASB experience at​8QXBRSF.

Thank you for writing to us.

With regards,

Daniela Gray/Nikki Paterson Case Managers Advertising Standards Bureau

Case Report

1 Case Number 0213/11
2 Advertiser Santos Ltd
3 Product Other
4 Type of Advertisement / media Pay TV
5 Date of Determination 13/07/2011


1 - Truthful and Factual 1)i misleading or deceptive


A farmer is shown working on his farm and talking about Santos. long-term presence in the region, his personal experience with the company, and Santos. broader interaction with landholders and the community.

A voiceover completes the commercial, noting the potential of natural gas as an important future energy source and Santos. leading role in the industry.


A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

The advertisement is totally misleading the "Natural Gas" they speak of is Coal Seam Methane and the method of extraction has been banned in France and England due to known and proven environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing. Also proven is that Coal Seam Gas (and other Unconventional Gas extraction methods) is NOT a cleaner alternative to coal (while the ad doesn't mention coal specifically as I recall) - the extraction process of unconventional gas makes the end product as bad or worse than coal.

If this advertisement (which is highly politically charged in nature) is to stay on air then equal time has to be given to the other side of the argument which is largely unfunded. Farmers Doctors Environmentalists etc. fighting huge multinationals with virtually unlimited funding to sell their untruths to the unaware public and government.

Just because a huge company can buy the support of one farmer to make these advertisements negates the fairness of balanced reporting. It is false advertising. Many thousands of people are fighting against this environmentally disastrous industry that takes (surface) property rights of landowners away under the guise of mineral rights. The surface activity of the extraction and delivery process and the damage to the water table are an incredible threat to food and water security of this nation. Landowners have NO RIGHTS to stop these companies from destroying their land and family (agri) businesses under current legislation in Queensland and New South Wales.


Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this advertisement include the following:

The specific purpose of the commercial is to promote Santos. positive relationships with landholders.

Generally, the complaints made against the commercial allege that it is a misleading representation of the nature and impact of coal seam gas activity. It appears that the section of the Environmental Claims In Advertising And Marketing Code to which the complaints appear most relevant is 1.1., which states that environmental claims 'shall not be misleading or deceptive or be likely to mislead or deceive,' and it is to this point that we address the following.
This commercial is a true and accurate portrayal of the relationship between Santos and a landholder upon whose property we operate.

The commercial shows a real farmer working on his own property and talking about his own experiences with Santos. It is one example of our many strong relationships with landholders, and, more broadly, the communities in which we operate. We note that the farmer was not paid to appear in the advertisement.

It is noted in some complaints that there is no gas infrastructure shown in the commercial. Santos has been operating on this farmer.s property for about two years, and we currently have five wells that are ready to enter the pilot production phase, and which are contained within a fenced area of about 100m x 80m. When the pilot phase is complete and the wells move into full production, the size of the fenced area will reduce to about 10m x 10m, and the land around that will be returned for agricultural use. As the landholder, the farmer is appropriately compensated. As mentioned above, the purpose of the advertisement is to show that farming activity is not impacted by Santos' CSG operations, rather than show the activity itself.

Taken as a whole, the complaints appear to be about coal seam gas activity in general, rather than about this specific advertisement. Santos is well aware of the questions and concerns expressed in the complaints, and we continue to address those through our extensive community engagement program.

Santos actively engages with landholders and the community to answer questions about the potential environmental, social and economic impact of coal seam gas activity. The company.s ongoing engagement includes public meetings, one-on-one consultations, regional offices where the public can obtain information, freecall 1800 numbers, email enquiries, factsheets, newsletters, and a section on our website dedicated to coal seam gas (
One complaint asserts that we are 'advertising coal seam gas under the guise of .Natural. Gas, which is misleading'. We would like to clarify this misconception. Coal seam gas is natural gas that is extracted from coal seams (rather than, for example, sandstone reservoirs). Its use in Australia is common, and today approximately 20 percent of the natural gas being used in this country comes from coal seams.

It is important to clarify that we were not seeking to address community concerns in this particular advertisement, nor were we seeking to make claims about our environmental credentials. The commercial deliberately focuses on a specific aspect of our coal seam gas activity: our relationships with landholders.

Rather than making a specific environmental claim, the commercial depicts a real relationship between Santos and a landholder upon whose property we operate, and is a true and accurate example of our strong relationships with landholders and, more broadly, the community. Our company supports the concept of self-regulation and, in particular, the AANA Code of Ethics and the AANA Environmental Claims in Advertising and Marketing Code with AANA Environmental Claims Code. We do not however, believe the commercial in question is in breach of any section of these Codes and ask that the Advertising Standards Bureau find these complaints do not represent a breach.


The Advertising Standards Board ('Board') considered whether this advertisement breaches the AANA Environmental Claims in Advertising and Marketing Code (the Environment Code).
The Board noted the complainant's concerns that the advertisement is misleading in its representation of Coal Seam Gas due to the environmental damage caused by mining this natural gas.

The Board noted that the Environment Code applies to 'environmental claims' which are defined as 'any representation that indicates or suggests an Environmental Aspect of a product or service, a component or packaging of, or a quality relating to, a product or service.'
An Environmental Aspect means .the element of a product, a component or packaging or service that interacts with or influences (or has the capacity to interact with or influence) the Environment.'

The Board noted that the advertisement features a farmer talking about Santos using his land for Coal Seam Gas and how they look after people and the land.
The Board noted the advertiser's response that the farmer used is a real farmer and that he was not paid to appear in the advertisement. The Board considered that no environmental claims are made in the advertisement regarding the effects of Coal Seam Gas mining on the environment, or regarding any other environmental issues, but rather that the advertisement is focused on the relationships Santos has with landowners and communities.
The Board considered that the advertisement does not fall under the Environment Code because it does not make any environmental claims.

Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaints.
See more
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike · · SubscribeUnsubscribe

Thorsten Jones and 5 others like this.

Byndy Stork I would like to talk to that farmer five years from now when full production has had its effect... Lucky for Santos that they could afford legal counsel to address the complaint in the exact way that the advertising council needs to tick a box. Nice try Peter - and any right thinking person would agree with you... but we are all aware of the uphill battle of a roundly supported and protected industry,,, the gist of what you said in your complaint is true,,, its annoying to have to split hairs with an organisation that is supposed to protect innocent consumers from cashed up corporations and their well paid spin doctors,,,
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

Denis Wilson Wonder what Bill Heffernan would think about this decision?
My beef is that Santos is NOT operating yet, on this guy's farm.
Just test wells, No production, no "holding tanks" for produced water, etc. And no draw down of his bore water (as yet).
Good for you in lodging the complaint.
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading...

Peter Firminger I'm a bit concerned that the Date of Determination was 13/07/2011 and they just got round to sending it to me today. I complained immediately when I returned from the AGM in M'bah (where I saw the ad in the hotel). Anyway, I know thay had a number of these to deal with so the company would have wasted time responding to them all and it would have made an impact. Unfortunately, there isn't a real complaint path for this ad: "The Board considered that the advertisement does not fall under the Environment Code because it does not make any environmental claims." Lying just isn't enough.

"The specific purpose of the commercial is to promote Santos' positive relationships with landholders." No, that should read ONE PAID landholder.
19 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Denis Wilson The whole "self-regulation" thing is bullshit anyway, Peter.
Advertisers judging advertisers.
19 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Ali Dee ‎"We note that the farmer was not paid to appear in the advertisement" well that is contrary to what has been mentiond previously, what was it $2,000 to $3,000 per day? or was this "farmer' just more compen$ated than others? & what was that comment with the implication in the ad that ' Santos has been here for 50 years, nearly as long as i have'? or something like that. Seems that is utter bull too.
19 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Denis Wilson Well, in fact the Roma gas fields are quite old. But they are different from the rest of the "play" as they like to refer to this industry. Deeper, I think. It is regarded as "conventional gas". not like the newer CSG business.
Apart from that, I agree entirely.
Bill Heffernan quizzed the APPEA people about payments to this guy, and eventually some other form of compensation via water rights, or something was the suggested "formula" for describing their arrangement. But don't overlook the possibility that they simply lie to the ASB. It has no legal standing, after all, only industry acceptance.
18 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading...

Caine Mitchell I agree totally Ali. When submitting TVCs for banks and numerous other unrelated businesses we are always being made to add lengthy disclaimers for much less.

In my opinion this TVC misleads the general public when the farmer states that "Santos has been here for 50 years" when they show only his farm that they have been on for a maximum of 2 years [as stated by Santos above].As a matter of cash for his comments for most of us he is obviously compensated in other indirect ways for his comments, that which you can never prove so unfortunately we have to suck that one up.

A most effective way to antagonise their cause is to have a parody TVC made, taking the absolute piss out of them and showing the other side of the coin so to speak. That's the kind of thing that can go viral - and then you attach a small targeted campaign to follow up the viral interest in the conventional media, culminating in a Nation-Wide protest quite similar to the We're Sorry campaign years ago... And invite international media via press releases pre the event to cover this national disgrace, especially from nations that have already banned these ridiculously small minded money grabbing industry practices.
17 hours ago · UnlikeLike · 4 peopleLoading...

Ali Dee ‎"It is noted in some complaints that there is no gas infrastructure shown in the commercial. Santos has been operating on this farmer.s property for about two years,...."
17 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

Peter Firminger I have written back (and copied Media Watch, Senators Heffernan, Barnaby and Hansen-Young and the Committee email address) quoting the minutes from the Brisbane Senate hearing.
17 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Peter Firminger Re the SANTOS misleading advertisement I complained about... and you dismissed (attached for the Senators)

You said: "The Board noted the advertiser's response that the farmer used is a real farmer and that he was not paid to appear in the advertisement."

This "farmer" apparently doesn't yet have a producing gas well (he only has a test well), nor the evaporation ponds, pipelines, compressor stations etc. that are intrinsic on a property involved in producing gas in the way they are intimating. And he is believed to be getting $2-3000 per day for this charming yet totally misleading story portrayed in the ad.

I really think you need to investigate this further - well, no you probably wont, but don't worry, Senators Heffernan and Joyce will (along with the others on the committee). Then we'll certainly make sure it is publicly known that you dismissed this without really bothering to take a look as to whether this "farmer" is actually happy with something he doesn't yet have to cope with. Of course he's happy... with the money and the fact that they are currently NOT doing gas production on his property as clearly intimated.



This is from[url]​ard/senate/commttee/s171.p​df[/url]

Minutes of the Senate Enquiry: Management of the Murray-Darling Basin system

20/07/2011 Brisbane
The Chair is Sen Heffernan.


CHAIR: In other words, it is a garbage process. I understand an ad appears from one of the companies, without naming the company, where a cocky is going through the gates saying, 'They're welcome on my place.' What do you think the industry would think if they knew that that farmer is getting perhaps $3,000 a day from that company?

Mr Murray: You once said of me that I am as independent as the person who pays me. That probably applies there as well.

CHAIR: I understand there is some sort of water deal involved.

Mr Murray: I am not aware of the details of that. I have heard comments that there is a story behind that guy. That is all I know.

CHAIR: Money speaks in all languages.

Senator STERLE: Mr Murray, if I can get it on the record that, coming from Western Australia, I am a very strong supporter of mining oil and gas in our state, but certainly not for the overall long-term health of the aquifers. In your opening statement you said that water entitlements to the farmers could be cut by 40, 50 or 90 per cent. Would that send farmers to the wall?

Mr Murray: Not only to the wall. That has happened and those cutbacks exist now. Has it sent farmers to the wall? It has certainly caused some farmers to have to completely re-invent their business, and some have chosen to sell out. Whether they went to the wall financially, I am not sure. Senator, thanks for pointing out that you are from Western Australia. As I understand it Western Australia needs to be congratulated because you are one of the very few states that have actually banned coal seam gas in the Margaret River area. That sort of courage is what is needed in a few other states.

Senator STERLE: We do not have coal seam gas, but we have a very healthy LNG industry. The reason I ask is that those who are not affected, the majority of Australians, just see the real piece of meat wrapped in plastic on the Woolworths shelf and are not understanding where it all comes from. They would not understand the impacts of having water cut. That is why I ask because the perception out there could be that farmers are still surviving. I think this is the great tragedy that we are not seeing the downside or the terribly harsh effects on farmers and farming communities, and through the social and other challenges in the community that come before us. In terms of your members in the cotton industry, have they been affected by the coal seam gas wells on their properties at this stage?

Mr Murray: Not to my knowledge at this stage in terms of actual wells in the ground. You heard yesterday from Ruth Armstrong, Graham Clapham and Stuart Armitage. All of them are covered by prospecting areas and all of them are in areas that are targeted. Their lives have been turned upside down for at least the last 12 months. So, yes, they have been very much affected. Are there holes in the ground on the properties? As yet, no.

Senator STERLE: Would it be fair to say that the footprint where the well is would have a far greater effect on your members than it would, say, on cattle producers?

Mr Murray: I would think so, just through the intensity of farming and the layout of the farm as far as irrigation goes. Did Stuart Armitage show you a diagram yesterday? You saw the likely impact. I am not sure whether it was before or after he spoke to you, but he actually went to Arrow and said, 'This is what I think my farm may look like,' and they basically confirmed that is how his farm would look. He would have to actually significantly re-layout a number of his fields and his overall efficiency would be greatly affected. That is the surface issues. At the end of the day, if it is only the surface issues you can probably live with that with fair compensation, but it is the risk to the aquifers that is the great unknown.

Senator STERLE: I am happy to hear that you are not one of the NIMBYs—not in my back yard—so, do you want a detention centre?

Mr Murray: I have areas.

Senator EDWARDS: Mr Murray, in your opening statement you said that the extraction is possibly up to 350 gigalitres. Is that right?

Mr Murray: That is a number that I have heard mentioned in numerous forums. As I say about 40,000 wells of up to 350 gigalitres. My understanding is—

Senator EDWARDS: That is fine. I just want to put it into perspective for the rest of Australia. I come from South Australia. The annual average use of the city in the greater metropolitan areas and in country areas of South Australia is 160 gigalitres. So, you are talking about more than twice the extraction of the annual use of a city of 1.2 million people in a state of 1.5 million.

Mr Murray: That would be correct.

Senator JOYCE: That is annual extraction?

Mr Murray: Yes.

Senator EDWARDS: And for free. I come from South Australia and water is never free. We just spent $2.3 billion on a desalination plant down there and we know what to do with the brine, unlike the coal seam gas industry.

Mr Murray: Without defeating the coal seam gas industry, I would say they would argue it was not free because it has a huge extraction cost. If it is going to be used for any purpose, the most likely way is reverse osmosis and that is quite expensive; however, it is unlicensed.

Senator EDWARDS: As a farmer, I have to get a licence for my water and pay for it annually, but do they?

Mr Murray: Not to my knowledge. They certainly do not need a licence. Whether there is any charge that is related to the volume of water, I am unaware.

CHAIR: Just to clarify this, the National Water Commission said that to meet National Water Initiative objectives it recommended that industry, water and land use ensure that the risks to the water resource are carefully and effectively managed. The current projections indicate that the CSG industry would extract in the order of 7,500 gigalitres. We were told by the CSIRO it would be 400 gigalitres a year. In comparison, the current total extraction from the Great Artesian Basin is approximately 540 gigalitres per year, and that is before the completion of the capping and piping. The commission also said: Potential impacts of CSG developments, particularly the cumulative effects of multiple projects, are not well understood.

Senator WATERS: I am interested in the difference between Queensland and New South Wales on this water licence point. In New South Wales you have to have a water licence for CSG activities and in Queensland it is a free ride. Have you noticed a difference in the on-ground effect of that? How has that changed the practices of New South Wales CSG operations, if at all?

Mr Murray: It probably has not as yet because the wells are not on the ground. Sorry, that is not entirely correct. In the area that I am most concerned about on the flood plains, I am not aware of any actual CSG production as yet. There is CSG production just outside of Narrabri and they are pulling up water. They are doing it under an exploration licence, as I understand it, rather than a full production licence.

Senator WATERS: The water is not that great yet.

Mr Murray: But in terms of providing any sort of confidence to people like us, we do think that licensing is absolutely essential. It is the minimum requirement that is applied to all our growers. As I said, our growers have gone through a lot of pain to reach sustainable yields and it is just beyond belief that different rules can apply

Senator WATERS: Absolutely, and there seems to be no justification for the difference in treatment between the two industries other than that one pays an awful lot of royalties. I am not sure if you have any views about why there is different treatment.

Mr Murray: There is no doubt that the coal seam gas industry offers a very large and direct income stream to government, and as such it is going to be attractive, but that does not mean that we should be putting at risk the very long-term resource of the state for a relatively short-term gain.

Senator WATERS: That is right, and you cannot eat money, can you?

Mr Murray: No.

Senator WATERS: I want to take you to the strategic cropping land policy which, as we know, is not in legislation yet at the state level. We heard earlier from QFF that in their view CSG really should be considered as permanently alienating farmland and therefore be dealt with by that policy. Do you share that view?

Mr Murray: I do. Just looking at the surface and aquifer impacts, if you accept that alienation greater than 50 years is permanent alienation, it is probably arguable whether or not coal seam gas activities will permanently alienate. However, I think we should err on the side of caution until it is proven that it can be completely rehabilitated. As a simple example, coal seam gas companies need to have all-weather access roads to reach their wellheads. If you are trying to put gravel roads across flood plains, how on earth are you going to fully rehabilitate that, or how would you fully decommission a well to make sure that there are no issues of cross-contamination?

There is a long way to go to be proven. It may be possible but at this stage I think we should be erring on the side of caution.

Senator WATERS: I think our laws would require that as well. The precautionary principle—I do not where that went; maybe it jumped out that window because we sure have not seen a lot of it lately. Just one further question: you talked a bit about the Commonwealth water act and the fact that it did not apply to the Great Artesian Basin—in your view should it and in what manner?

Mr Murray: I do not know what other issues may have been in play to have it excluded. I think the little that we know about groundwater is that there is a greater or lesser degree of connectivity over all aquifer sources and therefore it seems very hard to see how you can possibly manage one in complete isolation to the other. Unless there are some very, very good reasons that I am unaware of why the GAB was excluded, it probably should be picked up as well. Of course the GAB extends far outside the Murray-Darling Basin and that may itself be the primary driver.

Senator WATERS: Just one final question: I think it was AgForce that recommended that the Great Artesian Basin be brought in under our federal environmental laws as a matter of national environmental significance, and the Greens have certainly been contemplating a groundwater trigger in those laws. Can you talk to me about which of those modes you would prefer—do you think simply adding the Great Artesian Basin as a trigger in those federal laws would be sufficient; would you support a groundwater trigger more broadly; or would you support neither of those?

Mr Murray: To be honest, I am not over the issue enough to comment in great detail. As I said, my focus is on the production aquifers. There is certainly a linkage between the production aquifers and the GAB, particularly when you consider the Walloon coal seam measures are considered to be part of GAB. They should be managed as one but, in terms of the broader question, I am not really in a position to answer that.

Senator JOYCE: I want to touch on a couple of things just to get them on the record. The biggest cotton place in Queensland would be Cubbie Station—it would be the biggest cotton place in Australia; probably one of the biggest in the world.

Mr Murray: It has probably got the biggest footprint. Sometimes it does not have the biggest production.

Senator JOYCE: That is right. How much water would it use on average each year? I know its storage is about 435,000 megs but what on average would it use each year?

Mr Murray: To be honest, I do not know the detail on that.

Senator JOYCE: It would be vastly less than 350 gigalitres on average.

Mr Murray: Certainly.

Senator JOYCE: Sydney Harbour fills up with about 485,000 megalitres; this is 350,000 megalitres. So each year they take about two-thirds of Sydney Harbour without paying a cent.

Mr Murray: They certainly do it without a licence?

Senator JOYCE: How much does a litre of water cost a cotton farmer?

Mr Murray: To buy a licence, it varies from valley to valley but in the valley that I am most familiar with, the Gwydir Valley in New South Wales, a groundwater licence probably trades in the order of $2,800 a megalitre.

Senator JOYCE: $2,800 a megalitre to buy the licence—it is a pretty handy licence we have given them for free: 350,000 a year.

CHAIR: I have to say—I cannot resist it—but, up until this point in history, Cubbie Station has had a similar deal. Don't take the bait.

Senator JOYCE: Because it is not right. What is the actual compensation to your knowledge that farmers get on average for a well in roundabout figures? I know they are all commercial-in-confidence, so do not tell us who they are but what sort of numbers do you hear of that people are getting for a well?

Mr Murray: As there are at this stage no wells on the actual Condamine alluvium, I have only heard the same sorts of numbers that got mentioned earlier.

Senator JOYCE: What sorts of numbers are they?

Mr Murray: I think on the ABC report they were talking about as little as $250 a well to probably in the order of $5,000 a year.

Senator JOYCE: Do you know how much some of these wells earn a day?

Mr Murray: Again, I have similar numbers to what was mentioned earlier on: $30,000 plus a day in some cases.

Senator JOYCE: That is another pretty good deal, isn't it? For $250 a year, you can earn up to $10,000 or $30,000 a day.

Mr Murray: I certainly think there is a huge inadequacy in the compensation arrangements that so far have been made available to landholders. That comes back down to the huge imbalance of power between what a landholder's rights are and the mining company's rights are.

Senator JOYCE: What about the inequality in the bargaining power? Basically, to your knowledge, they can say, 'We are going to do this to you.' If you did it to anybody else on the street, you would get arrested and be thrown in jail. But they can do it to farmers with the indemnity of the law.

Mr Murray: There is a legal process that they must follow, but at the end of the day if a farmer resists it goes to a land board hearing and the compensation that a land board hearing can award is very narrow.

Senator JOYCE: There is definitely coal seam gas under metropolitan Sydney. What do you think would be the reaction of Sydney if they put a wellhead in the Botanic Gardens?

Mr Murray: I think it would be a very interesting reaction.

Senator JOYCE: The politics of it is the only thing that stops them, isn't it?

Mr Murray: Absolutely, yes.

Senator JOYCE: You are a cotton farmer. Cotton generally grows on prime agricultural land, doesn't it? You cannot grow it on rubbish.

Mr Murray: That is right.

Senator JOYCE: Do you think it is practical to have wellheads every 450 metres through the middle of an irrigation paddock?

Mr Murray: No, I do not think it is practical.

Senator JOYCE: Do you think there is any way you can sort of politely do it?

Mr Murray: They talk about being able to do horizontal drilling, so they have one wellhead and four go out. That obviously lessens the impact.

Senator JOYCE: It says inequality of bargaining power, inadequacy in compensation, no indemnity for damage and 'make good'—and we do not know what that is; it is a feel-good phrase. They get the water for free. The arrow in their quiver is that the state governments get a lot of money out of their royalties, so the state governments are disinclined to impede them in any way. That is basically it, isn't it?

Mr Murray: I think so, yes.

Senator JOYCE: Thanks for that.

CHAIR: Yesterday we saw some evaporative storage. It was 1,500 megs. It was intended to use reverse osmosis. As you would be aware, down on the Lower Condamine and the Balonne there is about 2.5 metres of evaporation per annum and I think there is 1.8 metres of evaporation here, so that storage is still going to evaporate. They have changed the name but not the storage or the method. They have called it a storage pond rather than an evaporation pond. Isn't that quaint use of bureaucratic language to try to make a cover?

Mr Murray: My understanding is that they are now not allowed to have evaporation ponds, but how they have stopped the evaporation I do not know.

CHAIR: It is the same storage but they have changed the name.

Mr Murray: Exactly.

CHAIR: Do you think the average farmer would be distressed if they knew the guy doing the ad—that joyful bloke—was getting $3,000 a day by quaint cover of some water exchange for productive use? Do you think they would be distressed to know that money does speak all languages in that way?

Mr Murray: I think at the very least they would like to know the details and what deal was done to make that ad.

CHAIR: I think we might make that happen.

Mr Murray: I do not think that would hurt.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for your evidence.



Peter Firminger
Lock The Gate Alliance Inc.
17 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 4 peopleLoading...

Wolf Web Of course the ad makes environmental claims - the pretty pictures devoid of mining infrastructure along with the farmer's perceived knowledge of his land is used to fool the rest of us into thinking it's safe. The fact is the company lied to the farmer and fooled him into making that ad.
17 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Leeanne Undery If you watched Landline yesterday you would have seen the map depicting the CSG infrastructure planned for Australian Country Choice's property (at around 14:10) and boss David Foote's comment "Each of these red dots, wherever they are is going to have a pipeline for water and a pipeline for gas and a connecting road to service the pipelines and/or the motors on each. So it becomes a massive infrastructure network of pipes and roads. So where the cattle go, where the farming goes, I got no bloody idea." I wonder if Santos has shown their version to their farmer friend?
15 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

John Heaton Nothing like a good spin, is there. I change the channel every time that add comes on. I'm glad Peter took the time to complain.
12 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Sally Ann Chapman Peter has done the country a service; may he be ultimately successful.
2 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:26 pm

Return to Coal Seam Gas and Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest