Buckingham claimed the $2500 per well annual payment the former Eastern Star Gas, which has since been gobbled up by Santos, paid Forests NSW in the Pilliga forest was a pittance compared to the estimated revenue of about $800,000 per well there.

He claimed the pilot operations in the Pilliga had resulted in massive amounts of clearing, large tracts of dead trees where CSG water had spilled, unlined wastewater ponds, large evaporation ponds and leaking infrastructure.

"Santos plans to turn an important nature reserve into a heavy industrial zone but pay virtually nothing to the community," Buckingham said, adding taxpayers were further ripped-off by a five-year tax holiday for gas production in the state.

His comments come after Narrabri resident Tony Pickard told the ABC CSG water had leaked from a dam in the Pilliga, resulting in dead trees and pools of "black water".

So do these comments hold water?

At first glance, $2500 in annual access payments does sound awfully small when compared to estimated revenues of $800,000.

However, one must consider the $800,000 per annum is revenue and not profit.

Besides the cost of production and royalties (even if they only apply five years down the track) on production, companies still have to pay company tax on top of that - and that is not taking into account the jobs created and benefits to the community all CSG and resource companies commit to.

So to argue CSG is ripping off taxpayers just on basis of land access payments is disingenuous at best.

What about the claims Buckingham made about damage to the Pilliga?

Buckingham's photo library on popular image sharing site Flickr, particularly the eighth and ninth pages, appears pretty damning.

But these pictures are few and far between and I question the age of the photos and the context in which they were taken, an issue which sometimes seems all too common with statements the Greens make.

When queried on the issue, a Santos spokesperson declined to comment on the details of ESG's agreement with Forest NSW, adding the company was still reviewing all aspects of ESG's operations following its acquisition in November last year.

He also reinforced a point I made earlier, saying should Santos develop its NSW CSG business, it could pay the state government royalties in excess of $150 million a year over more than 20 years, which when combined with the ramp-up period needed for CSG projects to really get going, makes the five-year royalties holiday kind of moot in my books.

At the end, neither the Greens' nor Santos' stances are new and all the latest stoush means is the debate over CSG will continue.

What the end result of it will be, I wouldn't care to hazard a guess but I will note this - the companies carrying out CSG operations have a lot more to lose by misrepresenting any facts or cutting any corners.

You can also be sure their opponents will pick up any mistake - no matter how small - and turn it into a club to beat the industry with.

The opposite simply isn't true.