A figure given last night by Alan Jones for one mega coal mine in NSW WAS 7,000 acres...His main concern was the amount of water used for mining and coal seam gas. disclaimer. I certainly don't support Alan Jones or Clive Palmer as a matter of fact I don't have any political heroes. I am a political atheist. However. I do agree with some issues that Alan Jones raised last night. Regards Errol 43
Maybe the mining companies would not like to pay the cost of the water especially in this mining downturn. Then you have the problem of what do you do with the brine from desalinated water? Also a huge amount of water is involved.. Regards Errol 43
I think the area of a decent sized (open cut) coal mine would be 7,000+ hectares rather than acres. Then there's all the rail, washing, loading, etc infrastructure. But it's not really that big in the scheme of things. People like Naphth would know better, but once rehabilitated it should be able to return to agricultural use (with its productivity subject to various factors of course).
OK 7000 hectares is more than double...Now if this prime black soil country then it is a mighty big farm in such a district...It is not scrub country. Australia is not a land of rich soils with most of the land semi desert or scrubland. IMO , we should not use good agricultural land for mines or gas wells. If we do then all I can say Is God help Australia. Regards Errol 43
Trying to dictate what is the "best use" of agricultural land in the absence of actual willingness to pay is fraught.
As a member of a democratic State, errol is well within his rights to dictate "best use" of a resource. If he gets enough support, he can move from dictating how best to use agricultural land onto dictating how best to utilise the Great Barrier Reef, how best to deploy the police force and even how best to raise other people's children.
I don't give two hoots whether I get any support or not. Surely you don't think I'm a Dictator, DICTATING to SS members? Wait a minute, I have a thick hide, play the ball, lift the bat and through to the keeper. Regards Errol 43
The only problem I have with the mining v at debate is land owned is land owned. Just because some thinks there is something valuable beneath it shouldn't give someone the right to come onto that land and drill/dig for it. The land owner should be able to dictate on what terms and what compensation they receive for allowing access to his land.
