Farmers’ perceptions of coexistence between agriculture and a large scale coal seam gas development

Huth, Neil; Cocks, Brett; Dalgliesh, Neal; Poulton, Perry; Marinoni, Oswald; Garcia, Javier Navarro

doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9801-0

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Initially, when the CSG production wells are depressurized, large volumes of CSGAW are produced [4,5]. As time progress, these significant water volumes decline, with increasing CSG flows [8,32,33]. Typically, the flow of CSG then gradually falls towards the end of the life of the CSG production well, when it can be decommissioned [34].…”

Section: Csg Water Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The model given in Figure 5 schematically represents the potential synergies between entities involved in the cattle value chain and the CSG industry, specifically focussing on CSGAW (and brine in the case of leather processing). This co-location of agri-based industries around the CSG developments allows the growth of the agriculture value chain, increased employment opportunities, regional infrastructure growth, and enhanced utility infrastructure [33,46,86].…”

Section: Agribusiness Promoting Industries: Coexistence Potential Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic Synergies from Tighter Agri-Business and Coal Seam Gas Integration

Mehreen¹,

Underschultz²

2018

Agricultural Value Chain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to government royalties, Australia's coal seam gas (CSG) development has been beneficial in terms of facilitating regional economic development and growth, expansion of remote populations and facilities, increased employment opportunities and improved regional infrastructure, mainly in regional Queensland. There is substantial revenue potential for the Australian economy from the export of the resource to international energy markets. Many current CSG operations in Australia are located in prime agricultural-cattle grazing regions. Failure to identify potential coexistence opportunities between agribusiness promoting industries (API's) and the CSG industry could limit the agriculture value chain and consequently restrict Australia's food security and agricultural export potential. The economic benefits of the CSG industry combined with the importance of a sustained agricultural industry lay the foundation for investigating coexistence opportunities between these industries. Emphasis has been placed on potential synergies exhibited by the CSG industry (namely from CSG by-products) and the local agricultural industry which is typically dominated by API's.

show abstract

Section: Csg Water Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agribusiness Promoting Industries: Coexistence Potential Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Synergies from Tighter Agri-Business and Coal Seam Gas Integration

Mehreen¹,

Underschultz²

2018

Agricultural Value Chain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Obviously, I was ready and willing to discover the common issues related to conflict over extractive resource development (socio-economic and environmental) including impacts such as: the power of large CSG companies faced by small communities, mistrust, negotiation, and compensation issues, the potential harm to ground water and agricultural productivity, and the coexistence with CSG, and the health-related impacts (e.g., Huth et al, 2014;de Rijke, 2013 a, b;Lloyd, Luke & Boyd, 2013;Williams, & Walton, 2013). I also discovered how the local communities have developed collective agencies to aid in their struggle against CSG development.…”

Section: Emotional Processing and Involvement In The Setting: A Reseamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The declining value of agricultural productivity, and depopulation of community all became predicaments that made development of CSG an attractive option, and an opportunity to diversify the rural economy as well as raise individual earning in terms of landholder compensation: off-farm income (Huth et al, 2014;Swayne, 2012).…”

Section: Project Outcome: Resistance Did Not Prevailmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coal seam gas development and community conflict: a comparative study of community responses to coal seam gas development in Chinchilla and Tara, Queensland

Makki¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australian coal seam gas (CSG) industry has grown rapidly from around 1,000 CSG wells in 2009 to more than 6,500 wells in 2014. Exploration and development has occurred in the predominantly agricultural areas of Queensland's Western Downs. The crossover of these two competing industries, agriculture and CSG, has placed the rural west under a great deal of socioeconomic and environmental pressure and led to significant controversy. The rural subdivisions of Tara perceived in the media and simplistically labelled as a conflict driven by the environmental impacts of CSG is far more complex. The root causes of this conflict run deeper. Rather than using an environmental lens, this research rather takes a social identity perspective, which has yielded counterintuitive findings. The study reveals that the conflict dramatically emerged because the CSG industry became enmeshed in the stigmatised identity of ‗Blockies', as the residents of ‗Blocks' within the Tara subdivisions are called. I also elucidate the fact that the stigmatised Blockies' failure to sustain this conflict ultimately led to its transformation. The anti-CSG ‗Blockies' took issue with CSG as a mean to manage, dissolve, and negotiate the stigma attached with the label ‗Blockie' that socially excluded, discriminated, and marked them as devalued since the subdivisions were established in 1980s. Behind the nexus between the Tara subdivision-based anti-CSG groups and the Lock the Gate movement, no shared encoded meanings or objectives exist. The Blockies' convergence with the movement was merely commensal in nature, which thus provided the rejected self with a positive reference point and a moral argument for being evaluated through the movement's identity.iii

show abstract

“…These impacts could be significant. Huth et al (2014), found that approximately 90% of the area under CSG development is on grazing land and that CSG mining leases have been approved for tenements covering over 24,000 km 2 of the Surat Basin. A major issue is that some leases are found on high value cropping and irrigation land and these areas offer more resistance to CSG development because of conflicting land use priorities.…”

Section: Csg and Csw Production Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneficial use of coal seam water and enterprise transition for case study farms, Chinchilla district, Queensland

Monckton¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New water sources are rarely available in Australia for irrigation. It is even rarer for this to be offered to potential users for little or no cost. However, this is the case with coal seam water (CSW). CSW is produced as a by-product of gas extraction. Availability of this water is possible because coal seam gas (CSG) companies operating in Queensland are obliged to treat and dispose of this normally salty water. The cost of this treatment is considerable and yet the companies have not sought to recover these costs. There is no available data on why the companies have chosen a particular option within a range of options available for the disposal of CSW. The provision of this water was unprecedented to potential users. Accordingly, there was no precedent for its adoption.Given that treated CSW is available for use in agriculture, a key question must include how irrigators can best use it. This may mean making decisions about using it for irrigation in their current dryland production system. The thesis is particularly aimed at discovering the economic benefits from the use of this water for irrigation and what are the motivations of different users to incorporate this water into their production systems. However, the overall purpose of this thesis is to discover how much water is being made available for beneficial use generally, where and for what purpose. The thesis also aims to provide alternative options for the use and distribution of this water for maximum economic, social and environmental benefit.The research for this thesis partly uses cost-benefit methodology for case study farms which utilise input data from economic modelling and from farm interview data provided by affected landholders and industry expert commentators. The study area chosen was Chinchilla, Queensland where most of the State's CSW is available for irrigation. Here it was found that there were 36 landholders receiving this water. Fourteen of these were willing to be interviewed. In addition, there were 9 other landholders and 13 industry experts interviewed.The acceptance and use of CSW by landholders was not universal. At the outset, potential irrigators needed to meet a certain set of conditions before they were in a position to accept and utilise CSW. The first condition was physical proximity to a treatment facility; 2 the second was the ability to meet the supply contract conditions. The third was a willingness to accept the supply risks with an untested and unknown water source. Many potential irrigators did meet these conditions. Despite this, many still chose not to use this water. The reasons for this were complex and related to a combination of economic, social and environmental considerations.The interview material was designed to obtain first-hand information about the reasons why landholders would use or refuse this water. For all landholders, incorporation of CSW into their production system was influenced by their individual outlook and circumstances.One key deciding factor for users was the profit potential a...

show abstract

Farmers’ perceptions of coexistence between agriculture and a large scale coal seam gas development

Cited by 23 publications

References 18 publications

Economic Synergies from Tighter Agri-Business and Coal Seam Gas Integration

Economic Synergies from Tighter Agri-Business and Coal Seam Gas Integration

Coal seam gas development and community conflict: a comparative study of community responses to coal seam gas development in Chinchilla and Tara, Queensland

Beneficial use of coal seam water and enterprise transition for case study farms, Chinchilla district, Queensland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About