Environmental vandals: the Abbott Government never learns from its mistakes

Geelong Star (Credit: ABC) 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) media releases tell a sad tale of lessons not learnt by the Abbott Government.

MISTAKE NO. 1 – allowing the super trawler to operate in Australian waters

Geelong Star meets AFMA requirements on arrival into Australia

Last updated 1 April 2015

Today (1 April 2015) officers from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) met and inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery, upon its arrival into the port of Albany, Western Australia.

Officers from AFMA’s Bycatch and Compliance units conducted a detailed inspection of the vessel. AFMA Compliance officers confirmed that the Geelong Star has met AFMA’s strict conditions for fishing vessels entering Australia and that the GPS-based vessel tracking system is fully operational.

AFMA General Manger of Fisheries Operations, Mr Peter Venslovas said that the vessel passed all AFMA’s requirements for a new fishing vessel entering Australia waters.

“AFMA Compliance officers routinely conduct inspections of all fishing vessels in Commonwealth fisheries to ensure that they comply with AFMA’s strict management arrangements. Today’s inspection of the Geelong Star is just the first in what will become a regular event for this vessel when operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery” said Mr Venslovas.

Assessment by AFMA Bycatch officers confirmed the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s requirements to minimise and monitor impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment. Their inspection included a detailed assessment of the vessel’s Marine Mammal Excluder Device and the seabird bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA.

An AFMA-approved Vessel Management Plan is required for all mid-water trawl vessels operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery and today’s inspection was a key step in AFMA’s process to finalise the necessary plan for the Geelong Star.

Vessel Management Plan conditions are in addition to, or re-inforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting obligations for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery. These detailed plans set out the individual vessel requirements to ensure fishing impacts on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial) are minimised.

The Vessel Management Plan for the Geelong Star will be published on the AFMA website once it has been finalised. The Vessel Management Plan is subject to change by AFMA at any time in response to new information about the fishing operations or the marine environment.

MISTAKE NO. 2 – imagining that bycatch would not become a vexing issue

AFMA inspect the Geelong Star

Last updated 2 April 2015

On 1 April 2015, AFMA Compliance and Bycatch Officers inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel recently nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

AFMA Compliance Officers confirmed the vessel met AFMA’s conditions for entry of fishing vessels to Australia and that AFMA’s tamper-proof, GPS-based vessel tracking system was correctly installed and fully operational.  The officers also collected detailed vessel information to assist them during future inspections to ensure compliance with AFMA’s catch limits and other management arrangements.

AFMA Bycatch Officers inspected the bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA including the marine mammal excluder and seabird scaring devices installed on the Geelong Star’s mid-water trawl gear.  The officers also undertook an assessment of the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s full suite of requirements to monitor and minimise impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment and gave an educational presentation to the vessel’s skippers and crew advising them of the requirements.

Following AFMA’s initial inspection of the vessel, it will now work with the company, vessel crew and bycatch experts to finalise the Vessel Management Plan (VMP).  This plan will set out the detailed operational requirements that minimise the impact of fishing operations on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial).  The conditions set out in the VMP are in addition to, or otherwise reinforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting conditions for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery must have an AFMA-approved VMP before commencing fishing operations.  Once finalised, AFMA will publish the VMP on our website.  Please note that the VMP is subject to change by AFMA at any time (even within a fishing trip) in response to new information about the fishing operations and/or the marine environment.

For more information read the FAQs for the Small Pelagic Fishery on the Small Pelagic Fishery page.

MISTAKE NO. 3 – Expecting a management plan to be effective re large marine animal bycatch for a factory ship expecting to catch up to 230 tonne a day in its small-fish nets with a 16,500 tonne quota limit

Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan

Last updated 22 April 2015

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery must have a vessel management plan approved by AFMA before they start fishing.  This is a legal requirement.

A vessel management plan is a comprehensive boat-specific plan to minimise the risk of interactions with protected species (e.g. seabirds, seals and dolphins). Vessel management plans contain both recommendations and mandatory measures that must be employed by the boat to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to minimise its impact on protected species.

Vessel management plans can be updated to ensure they take into account on-the-water experience and the latest developments in techniques to reduce interactions with protected species.

The Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan was updated on 22 April 2015. View the updated Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan.

MISTAKE NO. 5 – not posting an Australian Fisheries Management Authority media release on its website alerting the Australian public to the fact that during its first fishing voyage the Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. killed four protected dolphins and two protected seals in Geelong Star’s nets

ABC NEWS 28 April 2015: Tasmanian Government refuses to publicly denounce operation of factory trawler Geelong Star

                                                                                                                                         

MISTAKE NO. 6 – not admitting that allowing this super trawler to continue to operate is a political and environmental error

Geelong Star – operational update

Last updated 2 May 2015

Statement 2 May 2015

AFMA has been advised of four further dolphin mortalities from fishing by the Geelong Star, the vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Ltd to fish in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The mortalities occurred in one shot during the vessel’s second trip. AFMA has also been advised of two fur seal mortalities during the vessel’s second trip.

Consistent with the requirements of all vessels fishing in Commonwealth waters, the Geelong Star must report any interaction with protected species, including marine mammals like dolphins, fur seals or Australian sea lions.

AFMA takes any marine mammal mortalities seriously. We are disappointed that these additional dolphin and seal mortalities have occurred.

AFMA understands the Geelong Star is voluntarily returning to port because of the dolphin mortalities for a full review of its marine mammal exclusion equipment. AFMA will participate in the review to determine how to minimise further marine mammal interactions. The vessel will also be inspected by AFMA officers when it arrives in port to ensure all catch documentation is in order.

MISTAKE NO. 7 – a weak response from the Federal Minister for the Environment and Liberal Member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, who did not post a ministerial media release on the subject and only made a statement on 3 May 2015 to journalists saying that he would write a letter or two

ABC News 3 May 2014 Greg Hunt condemns factory trawler Geelong Star's dolphin deaths as 'unacceptable and outrageous'

Protecting The Leard Forest: one of the many reasons why Environmental Defenders Office NSW is a vital asset in relation to good governance & safeguarding both community interest and the natural environment

Lock The Gate Alliance media release:

Legal Action Launched to Stop Clearing in Leard Forest

Posted by Jane Hammond on June 06, 2014

The Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) has today launched legal action in court to stop the clearing of Leard State Forest for the controversial Maules Creek Coal Mine, near Narrabri in north-west NSW.

The Council has commenced civil enforcement proceedings against Whitehaven Coal in the NSW Land and Environment Court. 

It is represented by the environmental law experts EDO NSW.  

MCCC is seeking an injunction to stop the operational clearing of Leard State Forest on the grounds that Whitehaven is in breach of its development consent by clearing the forest during winter when animals, including threatened species, are hibernating.  

A breach of a development consent contravenes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

Maules Creek Community Council spokesperson, farmer Phil Laird, said: “We have launched a legal case today because we believe the winter clearing that is occurring in the forest is a breach of NSW planning and environment laws. 

"We believe the clearing is unlawful, and we are seeking to have the case heard quickly so that no more irreparable damage is done to this unique forest environment and the animals that live in it.

"As a local community, we feel that we have been forced to take this action because the NSW Government has failed in its responsibility to uphold the law and protect the environment of NSW" he said. 

Further comment: Phil Laird 0428 712 622

EDO contact Jon Walter 0404 647 842

UPDATE

From Mining Australia 12 June 2014:

Environmentalists are claiming a win against Whitehaven Coal after the miner agreed to stop clearing the Leard State Forest after a hearing in the Land and Environment Court.

The Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) sought an injunction to halt the miner’s operational work in the forest, near Narrabri in north-west NSW.

The group, represented by environmental law experts, EDO NSW,claim Whitehaven is in breach of its development consent by clearing the forest during winter when animals, including threatened species, are hibernating.  

It said the clearing is unlawful and contravenes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A full case on this matter will be heard by the court in September and the MCCC wanted the clearing, underway to make way for the Maules Creek mine, halted until then.

Before a decision was made by the court on Thursday, Whitehaven agreed to stop its clearing activity.

MCCC spokesman and Maules Creek mine farmer Phil Laird said he was delighted at Whitehaven’s decision.

“This outcome today is a huge relief for the Maules Creek community and everyone that loves the wildlife of Leard State Forest. The slaughter of hibernating bats and other animals over winter was an outrage that has been rightly stopped today” Laird said.

“This outcome today sends a strong message to coal mining companies across NSW and to the NSW Government – if they will not enforce the law, then the community is prepared to step up and do it themselves.

“We appreciate the action taken by Whitehaven today and we will be preparing to vigorously pursue the full legal challenge.”….

NSW Government currently canvassing support for commercial netting of Pine, Bonville, Boambee and Newports estuary creeks

Boambee Creek mouth at Cchange Adventure

NSW Baird Coalition Government’s proposed Reform Program For NSW Commercial Fishing:

Estuary General Fishery

Number of meshing nets 

 If managing the meshing share classes by the number of meshing and flathead nets, a meshing endorsement holder would be able to use one meshing net (or flathead net where relevant) up to a maximum length of 725 metres for every 125 meshing shares. A shareholding of 250 shares would allow the endorsement holder to use two meshing nets (or flathead nets where relevant) with a maximum length of 725 metres for each net. 

Length of meshing nets 

 If managing the meshing share classes by the maximum meshing and flathead net length, a meshing endorsement holder would be able to use up to a maximum of 725 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant) for every 125 meshing shares. A shareholding of 250 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 1,450 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant). Alternatively, one share could equate to 5.8 metres of meshing net. A share holding of 125 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 725 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant). A shareholding of 150 shares would entitle the endorsement holder to use up to a maximum of 870 metres of meshing net (or flathead net where relevant), and so on.

All submission forms are due back by 8am Monday 19th May 2014 and forms for those who are not commercial fishers can be download here.

The Coffs Coast Advocate 8 May 2014:

A proposal to net large swathes of local creeks is ringing alarm bells among local users of the estuaries.

Sawtell resident and avid canoeist Rod Edwards said the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is currently canvassing support for the commercial netting of the Pine, Bonville, Boambee and Newports creeks.

He said the proposals in relation to the Pine and Bonville Creeks would be for netting to be allowed within the boundaries of the Bongil Bongil National Park for all species of fish as well as prawns.

Rod said the use of massive nets would be permitted, with the use of a method known as splashing allowed between sunset and sunrise from June to August.

"The proposal is to allow nets of a staggering 400m in length to be used," Rod said.

"This will decimate fish stocks and the amenity of recreational fishers.

"More importantly, it is within the National Park entirely for Pine Creek and east of the Highway for Bonville Creek. Native bird populations within the National Park which feed and are protected under current legislation will be directly affected if this proposal is allowed to be approved."….

Coffs Harbour City Council:

The Boambee/Newports Estuary has a roughly rectangular shape catchment area of approximately 49 km². It extends about 8 km from the coast with a coastal floodplain of approximately 3 km wide. It consists of three main tributaries: the largest being Newports Creek in the north; Boambee Creek is next largest and drains the middle portion of the catchment; and Cordwells Creek the smaller of the catchments drains the south. The Boambee/Newports Estuary is permanently open to the ocean and has no artificial entrance training works, as it is naturally trained by Boambee Headland on the southern side.

A new unconventional gas threat on the horizon for New South Wales?

On 9 September 2008 the Newcastle Herald reported on the proposal for a NSW in situ coal gasification project which was finally rejected in 2010:

Energie Future has applied under the Commonwealth Offshore Minerals Act for four mineral exploration licences that cover a total of 5940 square kilometres from Stockton Bight to Stanwell Park.

Energie spokesman Rick Somerton told The Herald that his company wanted to extract energy from seabed coal in a process called gasification.

However, in 2014 the NSW Coalition Government still lists in situ underground coal gasification (UCG) as a clean coal technology.

The UCG process involves using air or oxygen to ignite coal while it is still in the coal seam to produce gas. This process produces waste water/chemical by-products as well as a commercial gas often primarily composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane.

To date there appears to have been only four or five UCG pilot projects in eastern Australia. None have been in New South Wales. Three have been involved in serious environmental breaches.

In Chinchilla, Queensland, Linc Energy Ltd is decommissioning its UCG plant following a 2013 investigation by the state environmental agency.

According to ABC News on 16 April 2014:

Linc Energy is facing four charges of "wilfully and unlawfully" causing serious harm, each of which carries a fine of more than $450,000 or five years' jail…

The ABC understands one of the charges relates to a so-called overburden fracture, a crack in the layers of rock and soil that sit above the coal seam.

In some cases this can lead to the escape of gases into the air or allow groundwater into the cavity.

The Australian Financial Review on 24 September 2013 stated:

Cougar Energy [now known as Moreton Resource Pty Ltd] has been fined $75,000 for releasing a cancer causing chemical into groundwater at its coal seam gas trial project in Queensland.

The company's $550 million underground coal gasification (UCG) trial at Kingaroy was shut down by the Queensland government in January 2011 after the cancer causing chemical benzene was found in nearby bores.

Prosecutor Alan MacSporran QC told Brisbane Magistrates Court on Tuesday that Cougar had failed to install a production well in line with agreed environmental conditions and later released benzene into the local groundwater.

Mr MacSporran said Cougar also failed to notify authorities about the benzene release as soon as reasonably practicable.

Cougar pled guilty to three counts of contravening conditions of an environmental authority for a licence earlier in 2013….

Queensland Government media statement 6 December 2012:

Carbon Energy, which has a plant located between Dalby and Chinchilla, was fined $60,000 and its executive officer, Andrew Dash, was fined $2,000 for breaching their environmental conditions [by releasing contaminated water] and failing to notify the department….

Carbon was also ordered to pay $40,000 in legal and investigative costs.

Mr Powell said the company was charged following an investigation in 2010.

ABC News 8 July 2011:

The Queensland Government has dropped a controversial gas project in the state's south.

The underground coal gasification pilot in the South Burnett region has been shut down permanently after an investigation found it posed an unacceptable risk to underground water near the site.

Locals are relieved and are warning communities near other pilot projects to be vigilant.

Cougar Energy's underground coal gasification project is based at Kingaroy - a rich agricultural region in southern Queensland.

Terry Wall from Queensland's Department of Environment and Resource Management says the project was temporarily closed last year when traces of cancer-causing chemicals were found in water bores at the site.

"We found readings of chemicals, of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene and xylene, known as BTEX chemicals. The most one of concern there was benzene," he said.

The Kingaroy project is one of three underground coal gasification testing plants in Queensland.

The State Government approved the plants to explore the viability of the new technology, which converts coal to gas using heat and chemicals.

But after the Kingaroy site was found to be contaminated, Cougar Energy was asked to explain and provide plans to prevent it happening again.

Mr Wall says the department was not convinced by Cougar's explanation.

He says the site has been shut down and the company must come up with a plan to nurse it back to health.

"To ensure that the groundwater actually is rehabilitated to its normal state and that equipment and other activities are removed from the site and the site is actually put back to its appropriate state," he said….

Does no-one in the entire Abbott Cabinet have a grasp on reality?

Below are the opening paragraphs of a joint media release by The Hon. Greg Hunt MP, Federal Minister for the Environment and The Hon. Andrew Powell MP, Queensland Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on 1 February 2014 – just days after Australia learned that approval had been given to dump dredge spoil from the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion into the Great Barrier Reef marine park area. I can only believe that Mr. Hunt has parted company with reality.

The Australian and Queensland Governments have today released the 2014 State Party Report on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area which highlights the significant progress being made to improve the management, health and protection of this amazing iconic area.

This progress report has been delivered to the World Heritage Committee meeting currently underway and demonstrates unequivocally the Australian and Queensland Governments’ commitment to better managing and protecting this natural wonder.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt said getting the management and protection of the reef right is a top priority for the Abbott government.

“The Government is implementing important initiatives such as our Reef 2050 Plan, Reef Trust, and funding vital projects such as Crown of Thorns Starfish eradication and the Gladstone Healthy Harbours Partnership”, he said.

“The federal Government is working closely with Queensland to help protect this Australian icon for future generations.

“The report shows that the Great Barrier Reef’s outstanding universal value and integrity remain largely intact and Australia has made substantial progress and commitment in responding to the requests of the World Heritage Committee.

“In close cooperation with the Queensland Government, we are boosting the conservation of the Reef through a range of approaches both on land and in the marine environment.

“This includes carrying out the comprehensive strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef, an ongoing commitment to the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and continuing strict protection under national environment laws.....

* Photograph of The Great Barrier Reef found at Australian Geographic

Something for NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell to remember while making plans to permanently open marine reserves to fishers

Not every recreational fisher is a saint. More than a few are like this..............

Clarence Valley Review 29 January 2014:

Illegally caught Blue Groper that were discovered by fisheries officers, and resulted in a conviction in Maclean Local Court. Pic: courtesy Department of Primary Industries.

Spearing NSW’s official state fish has resulted in fines and professional costs of $3,660 plus additional court costs, after a man was convicted in Maclean Local Court this month for killing six Blue Groper.
Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Director of Fisheries Compliance, Glenn Tritton, said the Blue Groper was made the official state fish emblem of NSW in 1998.
“It is extremely disappointing to see this type of blatant disregard for the rules especially when Blue Groper have been protected from spear fishing for nearly 45 years,” Mr Tritton said....

Anyone witnessing any illegal fishing activity is urged to contact their local fisheries office immediately or to call Fishers Watch on 1800 043 536.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald 14 January 2014:

More than 200 marine scientists have called on the O'Farrell government to reinstate a ban on recreational fishing in coastal waters with high conservation values.

Last March the government introduced what it said was a temporary lifting of restrictions on shore-based line fishing at beaches and headlands in six marine parks with no-take sanctuaries pending an assessment of the impact.

The scientists, worried that the government may be about to make the "amnesty" permanent, issued a joint-statement calling for the reinstatement of protected zones "in keeping with well-established and proven scientific practice".

NSW has six multiple-use marine parks, including Cape Byron, Solitary Islands, Port Stephens-Great Lakes, Jervis Bay, Batemans Bay and Lord Howe Island. They account for about 7 per cent of NSW's state waters, and extend 3 nautical miles (5.5 kilometres) from shore.

"These are the exact habitats probably being affected the most by recreational fishing," said Will Figueira, a marine ecologist at the University of Sydney, and one of the scientists leading the petition.

Dr Figueira said the public often underestimated the impact of on-shore fishing

"Removing animals is not natural," he said. "When you sum it up, it's a quite large number of animals that are being removed."

The March decision was controversial because it appeared to be linked to winning support from the Shooters and Fishers Party for unrelated bills on public sector wages. Scientists say the decision for a temporary lifting of the ban was also unaccompanied by efforts to establish a baseline to study the impact on eco-systems.......

US Government-funded Australia Pacific LNG & Queensland Curtis projects at heart of American lawsuit to protect the Great Barrier Reef

For Immediate Release, October 7, 2013 Contact:  Sarah Uhlemann, Center for Biological Diversity, + 1 (206) 327-2344 Teri Shore, Turtle Island Restoration Network, + 1 (707) 934-7081 Doug Norlen, Pacific Environment, + 1 (202) 465-1650 Lawsuit Challenges Second, Massive U.S.-Funded Fossil Fuel Project in Australia's Great Barrier Reef $5 Billion in U.S. Funding Threatens Endangered Sea Turtles, Dugongs SAN FRANCISCO— Conservation groups amended an existing lawsuit today to challenge U.S. funding for a second fossil fuel production and transport facility located inside Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The U.S. Export-Import Bank has now committed nearly $5 billion in loans to support construction and operation of the two massive liquefied natural gas facilities. Located next to each other on Curtis Island near Gladstone in Queensland, the projects threaten sea turtles, dugongs and many other rare and protected marine species, as well as the world-famous Great Barrier Reef itself. “The U.S. federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These liquefied natural gas projects will be deadly to wildlife and will only serve to export our deeply unhealthy fossil fuel addiction.” The Export-Import Bank, a U.S. federal agency that funds international projects to promote U.S. exports, provided a $3 billion loan in May 2012 for the Australia Pacific LNG project, and in December 2012, the bank loaned an additional $1.8 billion for the Queensland Curtis LNG project. Both are located on mostly undeveloped Curtis Island, near sea turtle nesting beaches, a national park and a community of families that live there year-round. The Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network and Pacific Environment sued over the Australia Pacific project last December. Today’s filing amends that lawsuit to include the Queensland Curtis project. "When I flew over Curtis Island recently I was shocked to see the devastation of the marine habitat and sediment plumes discoloring the coastal waters for miles," said Teri Shore, program director for Turtle Island Restoration Network. "I met concerned residents who are heartbroken over the number of dead sea turtles, dolphins and dugongs washing up on shore like never before due to the disruption and pollution from these massive fossil fuel projects." Sea turtles, dugongs and their habitat in the Great Barrier Reef are threatened by both direct and indirect impacts of industrialization, such as dredging, vessel strikes, fuel and oil spills and water pollution. Ship strikes alone killed 45 turtles in Gladstone Harbor in the two years after LNG-project construction began, compared with an average of two a year in the past decade. “Ex-Im Bank has a long history of committing billions of dollars in public financing to environmentally destructive projects abroad,” said Doug Norlen, policy director with Pacific Environment. “But funding two devastating fossil fuel projects in a world heritage area? It’s a new low.” The two U.S.-funded projects will include drilling 16,000 coal-seam gas wells in interior Queensland using controversial “fracking” techniques, digging nearly 500 miles of gas pipelines, and constructing two separate natural gas processing facilities and export terminals. To provide access to sites, the projects require dredging a new shipping lane in the adjacent harbor and destruction of sensitive seagrass beds. Increased tanker traffic will eventually ship the fuel across the Great Barrier Reef to ports in Asia and around the world. The Great Barrier Reef was given World Heritage status to preserve its remarkable natural beauty, coral reefs, and rare dugong and sea turtle habitat. The two liquid natural gas plants will be located within this World Heritage Area’s boundaries. UNESCO, the international body charged with overseeing implementation of the World Heritage Convention, expressed “extreme concern” over the projects’ impacts on the reef. In 2013 UNESCO threatened to add the reef to the “In Danger” list, a designation made when activities of a host country or outside entities threaten a world heritage area. The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2012 in the Northern District of California and amended today, asserts violations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, which implements American obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The case raises the unresolved legal issue of whether the Endangered Species Act applies to U.S. agency actions taken outside of U.S. borders. ###

District Court For The Northern District Of California: First Amended Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief can be read here.

Metgasco Limited admits it's going to drill into NSW North Coast aquifers

I understand the concerns, and I know we're talking about drilling through aquifers to reach the gas, but everyone can be confident any future operations will be managed in a prudent, careful manner...[Metgasco Limited Chairman Nick Health, The Daily Examiner,19 September 2013]

Rather strangely the APN Parliament House Press Gallery journalist Daniel Burdon, who wrote the article, did not explore Metgasco’s open admission of an intent to pierce underground water storages and potentially contaminate or destroy these water reserves.

If he is going to report on the Northern Rivers he needs to actually research the issues. Such a shallow piece will win him no respect locally.