Gas, fracking: potential benefits to Aborigines enormous


p2298-shale-fracking-rigBy ERWIN CHLANDA
The amount of money Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory stand to get from the production of gas, most of it fracked, is absolutely staggering.
At a conservative estimate, and using an Origin Energy press release as a guide, 500 wells producing one million cubic feet of gas a day, and at the current price paid in Sydney, would generate $1.75b a year.
Assuming the statutory 10% mining royalty under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act will be adopted for gas, and extended to Native Title land, that would mean traditional owners and land councils in the NT, and Indigenous beneficiaries Australia wide, would be sharing $175m a year or $3.5b over two decades.
To that can be added a negotiated royalty of around 3%. Of course, production would take some years to get up to speed.
These estimates come from a well informed source speaking to the Alice Springs News Online on the condition of not being named.
The source says the flow rate might be twice or three times that – double or triple the value.
And the Giles government last year was talking about 1000 wells.
Meanwhile it seems clear that their mining veto would enable Aborigines to shut down much of the industry in the blink of an eye: Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act they have freehold ownership of 53% of the NT land mass where the veto can be exercised.
Over almost all the remainder, short of perhaps 3%, Native Title rights have either been declared or are able to be declared. Territory cattle stations are held under leases which are not immune to native title claims.
Gas exploration, fracking and production may be considered as significant impact under Native Title laws, and what effect that will have remains to be seen.
However, it is unlikely that the land councils will adopt a blanket policy on these issues and traditional owners will have the power to make decisions for or against gas extraction on a case by case basis.
At the meeting near Kalkaringi in August last year, held to honour Vincent Lingiari and the families who walked off Wave Hill Station in 1966, the following decisions on fracking were made:-
“The joint meeting of Northern Land Council (NLC) and the Central Land Council (CLC) supports the rights of traditional Aboriginal owners to make their own decisions about the use of their land and waters free from outside influence.
“It is important to ensure that traditional owners have all the relevant information. The land councils will continue to make sure this happens.
“We recognise that some Aboriginal people have concerns about hydraulic fracturing and do not want it to occur on their lands and waters.”
And this is the clincher: “But our job is to support and respect the decisions of traditional Aboriginal owners for the area in question.”
The row between Indigenous groups in the Barkly over the Jemena pipeline is likely to be an indicator of more to come: The money or the land, that will clearly become the question.
No doubt the anti fracking lobby will have its work cut out, facing the task of influencing hundreds of groups of TOs as exploration and production leases are applied for or re-activated, should the current fracking moratorium be lifted.
For the moment Arid Lands Environment Centre CEO Jimmy Cocking says: “We’ll ask the CLC for an opportunity to address traditional owners.”
It will also be interesting to see what the “evidence based” fracking inquiry will make of all that.


  1. Billion won’t replace the water and the land.
    Nobody will give a f*** about money when there won’t be any drinkable water left.
    All nobody will be able to live or even survive here!

  2. Several million litres of water to frack a well.
    The money won’t help if we run out of water.
    Apparently Yuendumu only has 18 months of water left, so no fracking out there.

  3. The supposedly well informed source that has provided the Alice Springs News Onlne with the incredibly high estimates of revenue has done so on the condition of not being named.
    Any source that refuses to have their name published lacks credibility.

  4. Claims that money generated by fracking would go to Aboriginal people are suspect.
    Most of it would go offshore, and Aboriginal people would be left with trashed country, poisoned water, and no way to stay on country.
    This would be a tragedy and a travesty.

  5. @ Bruce Francais: Don’t worry, we pick our well informed sources very carefully.
    Erwin Chlanda, Editor, Alice Springs News Online.

  6. @ Erwin. Seems to me that you’ve picked your well informed source from either a petro gas mining company, the CLP or a land council.

  7. Water in the Territory is more a precious commodity than gas. When the water runs out we will all be heading to town because we can’t drink gas.

  8. Money has to be weighed against the loss of innumerable amenities. “Benefites” will be illusory.

  9. Short term monetary gain … amount is tempting but irrelevant, versus total and permanent destruction to water supplies and negative effects to land. A no brainer really.

  10. @ Bruce Francais posted April 6, 2017 at 6:59am:
    Hi Bruce,
    Of course I am not going to tell you where the source came from, because protecting our sources is one of the obligations we have as journalists.
    I reject your implied assertion that there are categories of people who should be denied the freedom of speech.
    Meanwhile why don’t you specify which – if any – of the facts and statements in the report do not stack up, in your view, and provide proof for any assertions you may be making.
    That would serve our readers much better than unsubstantiated generalisations.
    I’m looking forward to considering for publication any coherent response you may be providing.
    Kind regards, Erwin Chlanda, Editor, Alice Springs News Online.

  11. The figures look right.
    The statutory 10% mining royalty under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is very generous, probably unequalled anywhere in the world.
    Compare with PNG, eg the world class PNG LNG Project.
    A royalty benefit of 2% is provided by the State to landowners, ie tax payers fund this benefit.
    $2.7% free equity participating interest to project area landowners and local level governments.
    Landowners and provincial governments can buy-into indirect PNG LNG equity.

  12. How would these royalties be distributed? Will NLC and CLC keep a percentage? Will we contininue to see people living in impoverished conditions as they have done so with all previous onshore gas and mining royalties to date?

  13. Geez, looks like balanced reporting isn’t welcome among the anti-fracking crew.
    Who would have thought that kind of response would be forthcoming from a group of people with nothing other than a belief that fracking is bad.
    Not only are they all learned scientists and experts in the process, but they’re all very high functioning economists as well. What a laugh.
    Still waiting for something resembling evidence from the ringleaders in the other thread.
    Based on the responses in here, I’d be a fool to be expecting anything other than repetition of the same unfounded statements.

  14. @ Bruce F: So what you are suggesting is that fear mongering bullshit from the loony left is somehow more believable than comments from industry sources, the Editor or the CLP.
    I beg to differ, mate!
    The absolute garbage trotted out, under assumed names more than likely, by the one green organisation, every time conventional and non-conventional gas exploration and its use and transport is raised.
    Insulting fear mongering overstatement with complete disregard for the truth no intention of listening to any well-made points, just pure bare faced propaganda.
    Which of course points to a well-funded campaign aimed at knocking out the gas industry with scant regard for the simply enormous impact that such a result would have on our nation’s economy.
    What are those consequences?
    Well, loss of royalties is certainly one of them, but we stand to lose on a much grander scale than that!
    Almost immediately in fact, we’ve already seen the first instalment, that would be the loss of GST revenue to the Territory which in turn means the loss of many jobs and government funding which in turn will further exacerbate the revenue problem.
    Further to that, as the gas shortage begins to hit major industry, we will see on a national Level a further rapid decline in jobs and revenue!
    Yes, these are the consequences!
    Consequences that must be weighed against the possible gains for our community. Those gains would include royalties, several thousand jobs in the Territory alone while saving countless jobs elsewhere helping to keep electricity cost down until we can switch to reliable renewables, helping our nation’s economy and in return our GST revenue!
    The present campaign against the kind of fracking proposed in the Territory consists of a load of either false or grossly exaggerated propaganda.
    Making claims about enormous chemical and water use that are devoid of facts and designed to create fear, you’ve seen more water run through town in the creek over the past months than many thousands of fracked holes would use! On top of that, water is a renewable resource. Every drop of water ever used is still here on earth the campaigners simply want you to believe we are running out. We are not!
    As for the hundreds of tons of chemical used for a fracked hole, what they pump into the hole consists mostly of water mixed with sand together with smaller amounts of chemicals, that you can look up online, to create a liquid viscious enough to suspend and carry the sand into the cracks created by pressurising the hole.
    After Fracking, has taken place this sludge, bar the wedged sand particles, is pumped out in some cases to be reused. There are very strict protocols around this waste if not reused the water is evaporated off, not lost, and the residue collected for storage.
    Is there risk?
    Of course, there is risk!
    There is risk with everything we do, driving cars, flying planes pouring, oil products onto the earth to make roads. We dig enormous holes kilometres into the earth searching for minerals, we carry truckloads of lethal chemicals and explosives right through the middle of our towns and cities on a daily basis.
    Many of these things are vastly more risky than conventional and non-conventional fracking.
    The discussion weighing up the risks needs to take on a wider and more balanced perspective keeping in mind that large parts of the states which provide our GST revenue are already fracked and are probably going to take a very dim view of the NT staying frack free at their expense.
    And of course, we need to weigh what we stand to gain, against those risks, that is why we need good information not senseless hysterical propaganda aimed at pushing the lunatic fringe’s doomsday agenda.

  15. @ Erwin and Steve: Thanks for the response Erwin. I am fully aware that journalists must respect the confidentiality of their sources.
    I am certainly not suggesting that some people should be denied freedom of speech but I stand by my claim that anonymous sources tend to lack credibility.
    I realise that many people are compromised on certain issues and unable to speak freely. This is particularly the case in the NT with our high percentage of public servants.
    Origin Energy and the anonymous source appear to me to be suggesting pie in the sky type royalty figures for Indigenous land holders.
    The article suggests that Indigenous beneficiaries with their 13% of royalty revenue will earn up to in excess of $13b over two decades. With the Honourable Adam Giles saying that the number of wells may go from 500 to 1000, presumably the royalty reveune figure will also double.
    Steve Brown is now in on the act with his wild accusations about people he refers to as loonies.
    Has he stopped to consider that he must be talking about the vast percentage of Territorians?

  16. The rabid right dumps on the loony left for spouting propaganda while trotting out the BS that there is a gas shortage.
    Meanwhile Australia is exporting huge amounts of gas overseas.
    There is no gas shortage – we have an abundance. It’s propaganda trying to convince us we need to mine more so these companies can continue to export increasing amounts of gas in order to increase the profits of multinationals.
    And remember these companies only interest is in profit. No concern for the communities or the damage they leave behind.

  17. @ Steve Brown: Calling persons apposed to fracking loonies does not add anything to your view point. I think both sides have good cases to make with no doubt if even half of the theorised potential was realised and prices stayed high then the NT and local landholders be they pastoralists or native title holders stand to benefit substantially.
    However the gas is not going anywhere so I do not see what the urgency is. One report said this resource would last 200 years. If we damage water resources and then have to find a new resource anyway we have been short sighted.
    The renewable resources are rapidly becoming competitive and likely within 10 years will make any decision now to exploit gas seem very short sighted.
    Secondly mining and burning gas will add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and add to the global warming problem. This is something we should avoid at all cost.
    A four year moratorium is a small price to pay. It should be 10.

  18. Fracturing rock provides a very short term operational well – months not years, not 20 years.
    Government loves spending billions on pipelines. After a coupla billion we have Mereenie connected to Darwin and soon Isa.
    Who funds connecting the next 500 wells and 8000 km of pipe? Pipe dreaming.
    It is an elementary error to raise the topic of veto given the narrow window. Some traditional owners have a veto right.
    They can exercise this prior to exploration. Most TOs have consented to exploration and foregone this right.

  19. @ Bruce: I keep reading about this “vast percentage of Territorians” and yet it really isn’t represented in any ordinary congregation of people that I’ve experienced.
    But then, I’m just an ordinary Territorian, not passionate towards either side, but certainly thirsty for knowledge, but all there appears to be is empty propaganda from the likes of yourself and your cohorts.

  20. @ Steve Brown: So nice when those who are concerned with the rapid development of unconventional shale gas across the NT are labeled loony left and all the rest.
    Are those who support the shale gas industry really that strapped for answers that they have to continuously revert to name calling and petty insults?
    I would suggest that perhaps you take the time to read the ACOLA Report “Engineering Energy: Unconventional Gas Production – A study of shale gas in Australia.”
    It is often referred to by the petroleum industry as the proof that the industry can go ahead safely. The truth is, this report highlights the need to acknowledge and identify all areas of risk the unconventional shale gas industry presents, in order to begin developing a protective regulatory framework.
    How are risks supposed to be identified if we only listen to the misinformation and cherry-picked lines that portray a wonderful and safe this industry.
    You doubt water requirements of the unconventional shale gas industry?
    Unlike conventional and CSG wells, shale requires fracturing to release the gas from source rock, 100% of the time. Historical well records in the US, from where we must draw most data due to the infant stages of this industry in Australia, show a rapid decline in gas flows within a short timeframe and therefore requires refracting on average three times throughout each well’s lifespan.
    Due to depth and length, the average horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured shale well requires around 30,000,000 litres of water per treatment.
    Of this 40-80% is returned to the surface. Along with fracking chemicals, this water carries with it excessive salt.
    The brine is upward of five to seven times saltier than seawater.
    Along with it is carried to the surface, heavy metals, volatile organics and naturally occurring radioactive materials.
    The ACOLA report states that the presence of harmful chemicals and elements in produce water will limit treatment and reuse possibilities.
    Currently there is no water treatment facility suitable in the NT, and the large volumes of produce water has to captured, stored and then trucked to Queensland. This is essentially mining and removing water from the natural system.
    The CSIRO has given indication that mining, and in particular the petroleum industry, be bought in under the Water Act to ensure aquifers are not over extracted.
    Already water levels around Alice and in other parts of the NT are dropping faster than aquifers can recharge. And no formal study has taken place into the effects on groundwater of massive and rapid drawdown.
    Due to the nature of shale wells, new wells are bought online quickly. Unlike a conventional gasfield that can take decades to develop to full potential, the ramp up to full production of an unconventional gasfield is rapid.
    In simple comparison East Mereenie had 43 wells drilled between 1964 and 2004.
    West Mereenie, 20 wells drilled between 1964 and 2014.
    Palm Valley, 14 wells drilled between 1965 and 1995.
    Whereas the Eagle Ford Shale play (USA) has to date 22 active fields.
    Eagle Ford 1 field was drilled and fractured 2,204 times … in a period of five years.
    The Briscoe Ranch field currently has 914 producing unconventional wells, drilled within the same period.
    Due to the fast nature of unconventional gasfield development, the construction phase is relatively short lived. The detrimental effects of such rapid boom and bust scenario is demonstrated quite plainly in the Chinchilla / Roma Queensland CSG scenario.
    Considering the high degree of technical and specialised skills required in unconventional gas extraction industry, the majority of longer termed jobs will be filled by FIFO workers.
    Once gas flow has reduced to a point that re-fracturing becomes commercially non viable, the well is killed off and abandoned.
    The surface is subject to restoration to an ‘acceptable level’ as described in current regulations, the company receives their environmental bond and walk away wiping their hands of the 52,000 projected well numbers.
    We have already seen what happens to petroleum wells after they have been sitting idle and abandoned for a number of decades … you might want to take a look at the Anacoora / McDills / Dakota wells of south east NT and the result of corrosion and collapse of well integrity. The extent of damage and inter aquifer contamination was never properly identified, and the rehabilitation of these wells came at a cost to the Australian and NT tax payer.
    The nature of these shale wells exposes them to higher risk of integrity failure, and are under attack from corrosives both internally and externally.
    Eventually these wells will lead to the creation of migration pathways for contaminants into groundwater, and through to surface and atmosphere.
    The threat caused by abandoned wells is recognised by scientific bodies in the UK, with recomendations calling for perpetual monitoring of groundwater and air quality around wells to give early detection of any failure of integrity so that it can be rectified. This of course would have to continue eternally, and should not come at a cost to public purse.
    But, by pointing these facts out, that can be easily backed with science, opens the door for further insults and attack from those who push the develop at all cost agenda.
    The NT needs development for sure, but it needs to be understood that putting economy before environment is a very risky game to play, for without a healthy environment, there will be no economy.

  21. Has H20 been imbibing something stronger that Spring Valley crystal clear in suggesting that all is hunky dory with plenty of domestic gas supplies at cheap affordable local consumptuon prices?
    As Manuel would say “Que, Meester Fawlty?” That is what the current crisis is all about. Governments selling off our supplies to foreign concerns – then buying it back and selling it to us mug punters at a far higher cost than we should be charged for our own natural resource.
    It is not rocket science. There is a shortage for us; and yes, as a result we are being ripped off when we should not be.
    As the Meerkat ad on tellie sez: “Simple!”

  22. @ Harold: The majority of Territorians are opposed to fracking so the congregations of people you are talking about must be pretty small.
    You may be thirsty for knowledge at the moment but future generations of Territorians will be thirsty for water if aquifers are contaminated.
    Needless to say there will be some pretty thirsty livestock around.
    If you’re still around, you and blokes like Steve Brown will rue the day that you took no notice of what you dismiss as empty propaganda and bullshit from the loony left.

  23. As I have shown in “Wake Up Time” with many examples, one of the main reasons why the gap between Aboriginal and other Australians is big and growing, is the existence of a royalties maze.
    An obscure network of mining companies, government and Indigenous organisations donating and collecting tremendous amounts of money without achieving results on ground.
    The mines pay their way to get mining rights, and the money evaporates in this maze of corporations, land councils, government bodies and clever individuals, without making any significant difference for most people living in remote communities.
    The issue raised by Erwin Chlanda in this article will – no doubt – make the existing social, economic, education and health problems even bigger.
    It is time for a complete overhaul, if not abandoning, of the royalties maze.

  24. @ Richard: You might want to discard those rose coloured glasses occasionally, Mate.
    Our economy is struggling, many are either already out of work or facing that rather bleak prospect.
    Large cuts to public service Jobs have been mooted. It is necessary to take every employment opportunity that comes our way.
    @ Bruce: The “Loony left” comment is aimed squarely at the propaganda being put about as fact. There is no scientific of factual basis to it, no interest in rational discussion. Its only intention to confuse and create fear.
    When the anti-frackers put a petition to put before council they managed to gain the support of around 2% of the population.
    That leaves a whopping 98% who either support the gas industry, don’t care or are undecided, which of course is why I would like to see some rational, factual discussion round the subject.
    @ The lefty. Yes we do have lots of gas, all of it very shortsightedly contracted to off-shore interests!
    Who do you suppose was in government when that happened in the Territory?
    I personally am disgusted by the shortsightedness of that. I am greatly concerned that we appear to have no national institution overseeing the nation’s energy needs, both short and long term.
    Even a person like myself, who has spent a lifetime in free enterprise, understands that there are some things governments must do.
    I am sure every Australian had some kind of expectation that somewhere there was a government agency looking after the nation’s interests and putting those interests first. Apparently not, just a blind trust in a mish mash of large international businesses supposedly controlled by the “market”!
    That I believe is what’s known as a free for all, no responsibility attached. This is something that must change here and now! Government must secure new supplies as they come on line.
    Sadly, unless we are prepared to cancel legitimate contracts, there is nothing we can do about the existing gas short of buying it at exorbitant prices.
    So, Lefties, unless we get new supplies of gas very soon I guess we are going back to coal.
    Wait, maybe that was the whole intention. They do say follow the money, kinda makes you wonder where all those anti fracking funds came from, doesn’t it.

  25. @ Charmaine Roth: Saline water is now deadly non-recyclable waste! Funny, somewhere in this publication is an article about digging out 100% salt for people to eat!
    Natural radioactive waste exists throughout the environment and is measurable in many things like bricks and granite tiles or flying on an aircraft.
    Rusting steel casing on bore holes, disused holes, are easily dealt with by filling with concrete.
    Once this is done they pose no more risk through leaching / penetration than the natural rock formations.
    We’ve had several earthquakes in recent times all of which caused cracking between various layers of the earth and its aquifers and on a scale vastly more in excess of any tiny man-made fractures from fracking.
    As for the bore numbers and the water usage figures … they’re not stats because they don’t relate to any reality.
    You forget to mention the time over which the usage occurs. Why is this important? Because over time the necessary water can be captured in small dams, or it can be non potable water, or saline water which occurs naturally almost everywhere we have aquifers.
    Good water that is drawn from aquifers will recharge just like dams over time.
    When you add up your figures you make it sound like it’s all happening at once, and when you add to that an enormously exaggerated number of holes.
    This creates unnecessary unwarranted fear in the community.
    Much of your comment highlights issues occurring in and around the industry over time which have already been addressed by direct action or regulation or both.

  26. I wasn’t aware the the NT Land Rights Act had a 10% statutory royalty and would appreciate any readers who know to confirm or clarify this.
    @ Charmaine Roth: You seem to have done your homework on this. I started my career as a well-site geologist in conventional oil and gas exploration, so am not able to comment with any conviction on modern unconventional gas production.
    Having seen air photos of a “fracking” gas field, the well spacing seems small and I find it hard to imagine each well producing one MMCFD of gas over a sustained period, certainly not shallow low cost wells.
    Any chance you can enlighten us on well spacing, depth, and rate and duration of production in a typical field?
    @ Steve Brown: love the typos! A “vicious” liquid (viscous) in your earlier comment, and “leeching” in your latest. Are they perhaps Freudian Slips?
    It is also my understanding royalties are based on “profit” rather than gross value of product. Reminds me of the joke where an accountant is asked “what is our profit?” and replies “what would you like it to be?”
    Price-transference and tax minimization by multinationals and locals alike is alive and well in Australia. Our very own Prime Minister has a stash in the Cayman Islands, and the wife of a former Prime Minister was running an international jobs provider business.
    The “fracking” industry reeks of slash and burn, not unlike the mono-culture of sugar cane a few centuries ago, and current palm oil production.
    I have trouble making a clear distinction in my mind between these investors and captains of industry and – say – bank robbers or drug dealers (not to mention the alcohol sellers in the NT).
    As for the bonanza supposedly awaiting Aboriginal Australia, there is a meteorological term Virga – it is rain which doesn’t reach the ground, the Warlpiri have a word for it.
    @ Jaap Vogel: “Ik ben het 100% eens met je dat de verdeeling van dat geld niet helemaal deugt”
    (I agree with you entirely (100%) that the way that money (royalties) is distributed leaves a lot to be desired.)
    [Hi Frank, Thank you for pointing out the typos in Steve Brown’s comments. I corrected them. Erwin Chlanda, Editor.]

  27. @ Steve: I’m not a Leftie nor a Greenie. I’m a traditional right wing voter. However, I am pleased to say that unlike yourself I am not so damn far to the right that I blindly follow a party that has lost touch with reality and is out of touch with the people.

  28. @ Frank Baarda: Thank you for raising the issue of a “statutory 10% mining royalty under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act” in our report above.
    Royalty payments are enshrined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This makes them a statutory requirement.
    The Central Land Council (CLC) gives an explanation of this part of the Act under the headings “Mining” and “Royalty or Land Use Money”.
    The oldest major oil and gas venture in this region to be affected by the Act is Mereenie, initially opened up by Magellan and Oilmin.
    The field, 250 km west of Alice Springs, was discovered in 1963, has gone through several changes of control and ownership, and is still in operation.
    All this makes Mereenie a precedent likely to be considered in current and future gas deals on Aboriginal land in theTerritory – the subject of this report.
    The term “statutory royalties” was used frequently in local reporting, including some produced by me for newspapers and national television.
    It has also been used in academic papers: An example is the discussion paper in 1984 (eight years after the passing of the Act) by J C Altman, of the Australian National University’s Department of Political and Social Research School of Pacific Studies, and N Peterson, entitled “The Case for Aboriginal Access to Mining Royalties under Land Rights Legislation”.
    Table 1 on page 9, entitled “Mining agreements on Aboriginal land: Statutory and negotiated royalty rates (ad valorem)” for 1981 and 1982: Magellan, statutory royalty 10%, negotiated royalty 1.5%. It also quotes details for six other companies.
    I understand that the royalty amount paid to traditional owners has remained the same as the field changed ownership several times although companies we asked said the amount is confidential.
    Ahead of publishing the report we sent emails to major players, requesting information, including the CLC.
    We suggested that the “likely situation” would be “a 10% statutory royalty plus a negotiated royalty” to be paid by gas producers.
    But the CLC replied only to one question in our email, whether or not it had a policy on fracking, saying no, it didn’t.
    Stand by for more in this compelling saga about gas, fracking and billions of dollars.
    Erwin Chlanda, Editor.

  29. @ Bruce Francais: Yawn.
    Same old rubbish, still not answering to direct questions and deploying the same old diversionary tactics.
    Unsubstantiated claims, both about the science and the support for the vocal minority that is the anti-fracking mob.
    “Most Territorians”, you continue to make me laugh, you actually believe this. Good on you, you have very strong beliefs.
    Belief – “an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”

  30. It will start with one or two Aboriginal communities allowing the fracking on their land, getting rich, and throwing off their welfare shackles.
    Surrounding communities will see their neighbours get rich, while they continue to live in poverty under the council and government systems.
    Soon they’ll turn to the oil and gas companies, open up their land to oil, gas, and mineral extraction.
    They won’t need us anymore and will finally be free, economically and politically. Free at last.

  31. Thanks you to Charmaine Roth, (Posted April 7, 2017 at 3:33 pm) for a very useful contribution to this discussion.
    One comment to RayB (Posted April 21, 2017 at 8:38 pm): You are naïve, and have no idea of the facts relating to key aspects of this issue, but that obviously doesn’t prevent you from indulging in simplistic analysis and broadcasting your nonsense around.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here