Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
and public sector services, followed after several years by withdrawal of a
substantial portion of these demands. The need to ramp-up community in-
frastructure stresses the capacity of local government and the social fabric
of the community. Communities that have viewed their prosperity as
dependent on a thriving agriculture may be concerned that CSG operations
threaten agricultural viability. Among the residents of impacted commu-
nities there will be some who are concerned about environmental as well
as infrastructural impacts, and some who perceive a loss of community self-
determination in the face of an economically powerful industry.
Given the intensity of planned CSG development in Queensland over the
next few years, particularly in the Surat Basin, extraordinary demands will be
made on rural infrastructure, housing and community services in health and
education. As a result, communities are likely to raise concerns about the
adequacy of infrastructure.
The dominant position of sub-surface rights provides few protections to
land holders. With conventional open-cut (i.e. surface) coal mining, mine
operators typically purchase the land at valuations well above commercial
value, a practice that tends to minimise disputes with property holders about
access. CSG operations are extensive and spatially distributed, discouraging
total acquisition of impacted land-holdings. Despite access agreements,
which compensate land owners for direct costs imposed by mining oper-
ations (with the amount of compensation determined by mediation in the
event of disagreement), and good neighbour agreements voluntarily offered
by CSG operators, some land holders remain resistant to co-existence with
CSG operations. Communities have at least two kinds of stake in these
conflicts: some residents will sympathise with land holders resisting co-
existence, and resolution of conflicts between surface and sub-surface rights
holders will not by itself assuage community concerns so long as there are
spill-over effects on the community. Community resistance has led to the
abandonment of at least one CSG development proposal in NSW (albeit by a
relatively marginal operator in the industry).
59
Citizens in several residential communities have been resisting co-exist-
ence with CSG industry development in Queensland and NSW.
38,60,61
The
New South Wales government, in response to rising public concern, recently
restricted CSG operations within two kilometres of residential areas or in-
dustry cluster areas.
62
Patterns of social and economic impact on communities appear to depend
on the size of the CSG project, community structure and history, and the
extent to which a non-resident work force is involved. The level of local
support for resource development including CSG is contingent upon
economic benefits and opportunities accruing at the community level.
63
The local or regional economic multiplier effect of expenditures by CSG
operators depends crucially on the extent of economic leakage, i.e. the
proportion of operators' and workers' expenditures that impact outside of
the immediate region. Smaller and less economically diverse regions tend to
experience greater leakage.
