
We are so close http://goo.gl/peOs6
Coal Seam Gas Concerns
DRAMATIC footage of a foamy discharge from a coal seam gas well in south western Sydney has added to concerns around the controversial industry.
The video, filmed by a Greens member of the New South Wales parliament, appears to show an unidentified foamy chemical mix being forcefully expelled from the well.
Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham, who filmed the video expressed concern about the location of nearby housing and water facilities and called on the NSW Government to investigate the incident.
The incident came amongst growing opposition in Australia to the controversial industry, which uses a broad mix of chemicals to force gas up from within underground coal seams.
For Buckingham and others concerned about the environmental impacts, especially of pollutants, from the coal seam gas industry, the discharge provides further impetus to question existing practices.
In parliament, Buckingham’s questions to Duncan Gay, who represents the Energy and Resources Minister in the Upper House, were met with obfustication.
Gay responded to Buckingham’s request for a government inquiry into the industry by stating: “the Government provides a number of attractive incentives to encourage exploration, development and utilisation of the coal seam gas industry” and promised to refer to “refer the question to the relevant Minister.”
Community groups in areas such as the NSW Southern Highlands have embarked on vocal campaigns opposing coal seam gas extraction.
Hume Coal, a joint venture between Korean steel-maker POSCO and Australian-owned Cockatoo Coal, is conducting exploratory activities around the Southern Highlands town of Sutton Forest.
Hume’s activities are being closely monitored and scrutinised by the Southern Highlands Coal Action Group (SCAG’s), whose “Shoo Cockatoo” campaign has crystalised local opposition to the project.
SCAG’s activities are also being closely monitored - by Hume Coal.
The company noted strong community opposition in their Review of Environmental (REF) factors prepared for the NSW Government as part of the exploration application.
They gave an account of SCAG’s history, and noted the group’s primary concern related to future mining activities, not to exploration.
The REF says community concerns “subsidence damage, dust and noise from surface facilities, damage to the aquifers and water supply catchment, changes in the character of the area and property values.”
Coal seam gas mining is not the only source of anxiety. As the Hume Coal REF notes, objections to the Sutton Forest activities “largely revolve around future mining”.
Such mining is likely to include long wall extraction of hard coking coal for export.
The community’s fears are not unfounded. A 2008 NSW Government inquiry into the impact of mining on natural features of the Southern Coalfield found there is every likelihood of surface damage when mining occurs.
The report notes, “With few exceptions, at depths of cover greater than about 200 m coal cannot be mined economically by any mining method without causing some degree of surface subsidence”.
Hume Coal’s REF shows the Wongawilli Coal Seam lies at a depth of almost 200 metres, indicating a strong probability of effects such as surface subsidence.
The report also states “non-conventional subsidence effects (including valley closure, upsidence and regional far-field horizontal displacement) regularly occur” in the Southern Coalfield.
In the Illawarra region, which also has a long history of coal mining activities, an estimated 3000 people recently participated in a beach-side protest against coal seam gas proposals.
That protest was sparked by plans by mining company Apex Energy to drill 15 exploratory boreholes in their search for coal seam gas.
Apex’s preliminary environmental assessment, prepared for the NSW Government in 2007, shows an exploratory lease covering most of the Illawarra region north of Lake Illawarra.
Community group Stop CSG Illawarra has expressed concern on the impact of these wells, and resultant mining operations, on the quality of water, food and amenity in their region.
The group also suggest significant environmental impacts of coal seam mining, a contention supported by a determination of the NSW Scientific Committee, which is established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act.
In recommending protection for Coastal Upland Swamp environments, which are abundant throughout the Illawarra (and the Apex Energy licence area), the committee notes coal seam gas mining is likely to have “significant environmental impacts on hydrological and ecological functions of Coastal Upland Swamp”.
The recently-elected NSW Coalition Government has imposed a 60-day moratorium on new exploration licences for coal seam gas, which started on May 21.
The moratorium was imposed to allow the Government to develop a new strategic land-use policy.
However, the freeze has no effect on existing licences, as residents in the Southern Highlands discovered when Hume Coal began their exploration hours before the moratorium was announced.
Coal seam gas concerns stoked by foamy discharge
ARL vs NRL
I just received this email from someone who often sends me these kinds of emails. Many of them are funny. They brighten your day up. But, then, many are just like this one. Have a read of it and see my comments at the bottom.
36 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is? AFL? NRL?
Give up yet? .…. . Scroll down
Neither,
it’s the 535 members of the AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT in CANBERRA
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year, designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You’ve got to pass this one on!
Well, no, I haven’t got to pass this on. Mostly, because it is completely wrong and foolish. There are only 226 members of the Australian parliament (150 in the House of Reps and 76 in the Senate). But guess what? In the United States, there are 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators, for a total of 535 in that parliament.
I can’t vouch for the validity or otherwise of the other numbers in this email, but if it has that one - the punchline - so wrong, I wouldn’t count on anything else being correct.
This type of email is whats wrong with the internet.
Why Bob Carr is Sadly Mistaken
In a recent post on his often-rambling blog, former NSW Premier Bob Carr begs for preferences from those intending to vote for the Greens on March 26. Carr tries to scare voters into delivering their preferences to Labor after the Greens by invoking the threats of a demonic far right parliamentary consortium of the Coalition, the Shooter’s Party and the Christian Democrats.
He also outlines what he perceives as Labor’s environmental successes from the last four years. Such successes seem to particularly include locking up thousands of hectares of forests. They are worthy achievements, but, unfortunately for Carr, do not amount to what they seem. Carr conveniently ignores the nasty, symbiotic relationship between the Shooters’ Party and Labor over the past four years. This relationship has lead to environmental degradation and harm. His poxy memory extends to the “bullets for votes” deal detailed by The Australian. In that particular article, the paper ruminated on Labor’s decision to allow excision of more than a thousand fire-prone hectares from a State Park to create a giant new regional shooting centre on the site of an existing small local rifle range. The relationship between Labor and the Shooters’ Party is further discussed by this Sydney Morning Herald article - one of many - about a bill proposing to allow hunting in National Parks. It leads: “Hunters will be allowed to shoot animals in national parks for the first time under a deal offered to the Shooters’ Party by the NSW Government.”
It is unfortunate that Mr Carr, despite his intellect and experience, is so obsessed with re-election of his failing government (and I believe it is still very much his government despite his retirement) that he can simply forget history in penning this particular blog.
When big media are no longer the biggest
Terry Flew and others have argued that old-world global media companies such as News Corporation, Disney and Time Warner are intrinsically part of, even drivers of, globalisation processes (2007: 71). They have used media companies that primarily trade in traditional media (such as television, printed newspapers, radio broadcasts and outdoor advertising) to make complex arguments about the infiltration of globalisation processes by the media in general and portray globalisation as a series of processes most easily understood through the prism of the internationalisation of such companies and their media products.
However, these arguments seem to ignore the very existence of prominent media companies that have only come into existence because of globalising influences. Corporations such as Google and Facebook would not exist if not for the internet, which itself is a major characteristic of the era of globalisation. To establish whether Google is indeed a media company, we must only look to their self-proclaimed quest, which is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (Google 2010). By organising “the world’s information” and disseminating it, the company is also mediating that information. If we take a media organisation as being one that mediates and disseminates information across vast communication networks, Google is one of the purest examples.
Furthermore, as well as organising and sharing existing information, Google actively contributes to information production. It’s video-sharing site YouTube is probably the most famous example of this, but Blogger and the Google News services are others. While Google News repackages information produced by others, the ways it is viewed and organised via Google properties demonstrates a productive process. Similarly, Facebook is predicated around creating and sharing information across user networks. Primarily, the information shared on Facebook and many other social networks is relatively personal in nature and intended for a relatively limited audience (the very public nature of such disclosures is a matter for another blog). Nonetheless, it is created by users (who are effectively creating content on behalf of the corporation) and disseminated by the existing structures of the network.
In any discussion of media corporations and globalisation, it is foolish to ignore the very real impact of very large* media companies that are, by their nature, products of globalisation and clearly contribute a significant amount of media content to the internet.
* Google is larger than NewsCorp, as shown in Google finance figures for the two. (Google Finance 2010a; Google 2010b).
References:
Flew, T. 2007, ‘Globalization and global media corporations’, in Understanding Global Media, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp66-97.
Google, 2010, Corporate information, accessed online 01/09/10, available: http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/corporate
Google Finance 2010a, Financial Statements for Google Inc, accessed online 01/09/10, accessed http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii
Google Finance 2010b, Financial Statements for News Corporation, accessed online 01/09/10, available: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:NWSA&fstype=ii

Surround and Conquer
When I tire of politics and media, I blog on sport over at The Big Tip. My first article there was posted on January 2. It discusses what the NRL must consider in expansion attempts. Also, if it is the most viewed article in the next few days, I score a neat $200. So, if you’re interested or just feel like helping me out, take a look at ‘Surround and Conquer’.
Decline in Rural Media
Australia’s population is mostly cloistered into densely populated east coast cities and surrounding areas such as the Sydney basin, Melbourne and South East Queensland (including Brisbane and the Gold Coast). Yet, despite the statistical affinity for urban and suburban life, our national character (if it can be defined) remains rooted in ideas of rurality and the bush. This self-concept was further reinforced by the (admittedly rare) occurence of rural issues taking centre stage in the recent federal election, and especially during the post-election scramble to form government, where three rural independents seemed the key to power. But amongst that outburst of regional sentiment, and within the picture of general journalistic decay, little attention has been paid to how modern stories of Australia’s rural character are constructed and carried in the media. University of Canberra media and communications lecturer Jason Wilson argues in an academic piece that decline in rural media has preceded the present ‘crisis’ in metropolitan and national mainstream media publications. On the ABC’s The Drum, Wilson responded more forcefully to comments of former Fairfax chief Brian McCarthy, who had suggested that his Rural Press division would suffer from the ABC’s attempts to stimulate more rural media production through ABC Open. Wilson’s comments included the following broadside:
Rural Press has done very little with online offerings across its stable, and certainly has shown no signs of wanting to act as a curator of community-derived content, as ABC Open is proposing to do. The average Rural Press site contains a stripped back version of the daily newspaper’s content (so as not to disincentivise purchase of the paper copy) and a rudimentary comment facility. There’s nothing to suggest that Rural Press wants to lead regional communities into a greater engagement with participatory newsmaking
Wilson’s comments here were made in the context of discussing the ABC’s role in the Australian media landscape, but they point to a broader concern about rural media in general. It is a concern I share. In my hometown, I have seen the local newspaper face cutback after cutback to the space available to local stories in favour of advertising. From my brief in-office experience, these reductions were forced from the top by ever-tightening corporate budgets. At the same time, few stories were placed online and Rural Press made no apparent effort to create or facilitate participatory newsmaking within the community. Instead, the company seems intent on controlling its own market share, in contrast to worldwide trends in journalism and news in general. Wilson notes the tendency to assume rural and regional media will be filled by consumer-created content, especially as facilitated by the NBN:
The digital future… here forecasts a spontaneous, bottom-up localism, where citizens will come together to produce news and public affairs content that the mainstream media no longer provide.
However, he questions the merit in this assumption. Instead, rural communities may need stimulation and encouragement beyond technological changes to begin actively producing local stories. Regional communities could do well from adopting a community news approach, where local content is owned and produced by local people, but the development of this would require significant investment, both in finances and time, from those same local people. Until then, the decline of regional mainstream media may continue unabated with almost no adequate replacement.
The Open World - by Facebook and Google
The corporate culture of tech giants Facebook and Google has occasionally come in for close scrutiny. Both have had storms of controversy over changes to the way information was handled or presented on their sites (info on a Facebook blunder here and Google’s numerous mistakes here). But so far, both have always weathered the storms, sailing (almost) uninterrupted through the outrage of the media, the public, and even government action. To Google and Facebook, their goals justify the outrage and they have traditionally worked through the most major controversies by apologising, fixing and explaining whatever the problem was. For both companies, their insistence on pushing the privacy boundary can be linked to their corporate culture and vision. Both companies profess a desire for an open and connected society. Google’s vision is more focused on data:
Google’s mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Facebook, being the ultimate network of people, is about
Making the world more open and connected.
Between them, Facebook and Google control a staggering amount of the world’s internet traffic and personal information. Given their stated penchant for an open flow of information, we should not be surprised when they push against privacy boundaries. Writing in defense of Facebook, well-known tech writer Ben Parr argued it is not and should not be up to Facebook (or, for that matter, Google) to protect information we would rather keep hidden. Instead, users ought not post such information. Facebook and Google are both embracing and urging the move toward and open society by doggedly pursuing their objectives. They are upfront about their goals, even if the detail is sometimes a little hazy, as Parr notes.
