OUR SAY: Nuclear move not for Coast, Sunshine Coast Daily by CRAIG WARHURST, 6th Jul 2018
CALLS from the Fairfax branch of the LNP to investigate nuclear power at their state conference in Brisbane this weekend does not sit well with me.
Three energy-related motions submitted to the convention from Federal MP Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch call for the Federal Government to adopt policies to support the building of new coal-fired power stations with the ability to deliver reliable and economic power, that the Federal Government reduce current subsidies paid to the renewable energy industry and that the feasibility of nuclear-powered energy generation is investigated.
While none of the ideas voted on at the LNP state conference are set in stone, I for one am concerned about any talk of a nuclear-powered Coast……
I have been a big supporter of Mr O’Brien; in a short time he has done a lot of good for the Coast, but I wouldn’t support a move for nuclear power here. The Sunshine Coast environment and population can’t be put at risk for cheap power. https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/nuclear-move-not-for-coast/3460344/
They are places to air outlandish ideas that give the lower party ranks some illusion of influence and to float pet notions. They are also the place to flog dead horses. And there can be few horses more dead than the idea of nuclear power in Australia.
But undaunted by history, Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch of the Liberal National Party will urge the Federal Government to consider a nuclear power industry when it takes the floor at the LNP’s state convention beginning today.
Fortunately, the decisions of the convention are not binding on the Government and, I suspect, the suggestion will be allowed to die a natural death.
The problem for the proponents of nuclear power is that we’ve been down this track before and not all that long ago. In fact, we’ve been talking about nuclear power since 1952 when then South Australian premier Thomas Playford confidently proposed that one be built on the shores of Spencer Gulf. The next and probably most serious proposal was to build one on Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay in 1969 but this idea went into meltdown when the locals got nervous and the unions got aggro.
Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch of the LNP will urge the Federal Government to consider nuclear power, despite the fact every party knows it could simply never happen. And so it went on over the decades, with the idea intermittently erupting like a dyspeptic belch and then subsiding. It got almost serious in 2006 when Prime Minister John Howard was starting to accept at the very least the idea of containing emissions even if climate change was a bridge too far. He launched what he called a “full-blooded debate” and commissioned a report by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski who reckoned we could have the first nuclear reactor in Australia (he meant power stations as we already have a reactor) in as soon as 10 years. The headline was that we could have 25 nuclear stations producing a third of Australia’s electricity by 2050.
What took the fizz out of the fission was just where these 25 reactors would be built.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd taunted Howard to name the sites but he refused to be drawn on specifics, leaving others to draw their own conclusions.
The four main criteria for the siting of nuclear power plants in Australian had generally been accepted as proximity to appropriate existing electricity infrastructure; proximity to major load centres (i.e. large centres of demand); proximity to transport infrastructure to facilitate the movement of nuclear fuel, waste and other relevant materials; and access to large quantities of water for cooling.
The Australia Institute took these criteria (plus a few others) and pinpointed 17 places that seemed to fit the bill. Seven of the prospective sites were in Queensland: Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island. (The Sunshine Coast sites are in the seat of Fairfax and Bribie is in Longman, where a crucial by-election is being fought and the LNP quite possibly could do without this distraction.)
The Australian Institute is routinely disparaged as “left leaning” but I saw nothing then or since to challenge its conclusions on prospective nuclear sites.
The earthquake and tsunami in the Miyagi prefecture in Japan sparked a nuclear disaster in 2011.
In 2006 the Institute reckoned about half of the population opposed nuclear energy and “two thirds say they could opposed a nuclear power plant in their local area’’. If the nuclear industry was still looking at the same backyards, it is reasonable to presume it would come up against the same public sentiment.
The other problem was that Switkowski concluded nuclear power was likely to be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than power from a new coal-fired plant.
Unless they have been major advances in nuclear technology in the past 12 years, that same formula would apply.
In 2006, Switkowski was able to breezily report: “Since Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, the nuclear industry has developed new reactor designs which are safer and more efficient.’’ Then along came Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
These are the sorts of things the old folk seeing out their days in the sun on Bribie have plenty of time to think about.
If the motion is debated seriously this weekend, proponents may be able to produce much in the way of supportive technical and financial evidence, even warming up the Switkowski report. But that will count for nothing when it comes to the Not In My Backyard syndrome and politicians of all shades know it.
Staff at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital’s nuclear medicine department get to work in the morning around the same time as a baker starts serving up hot bread.
But instead of kneading dough and priming ovens, the labcoat-clad workers manufacture medicines that diagnose and treat cancer.
It’s a delicate operation with rigorous quality control and testing protocols that start deep in the bowels of the hospital behind several layers of thick concrete.
A vault with walls more than a metre thick houses a particle accelerator called a cyclotron.
“It creates a proton beam which bombards oxygen-18 water and turns it into fluorine-18. That’s what we attach to those pharmaceuticals,” Dr Marissa Bartlett, manager of the Radiopharmaceutical Centre of Excellence, said.
The cyclotron is switched on at 4:00am every day to make a new batch of radiopharmaceuticals for lifesaving treatments and therapies.
“We make products that are taken up by cancer cells, so when a patient goes under the [PET] scanner the doctors can see pictures and images of where the cancer cells are,” Dr Bartlett told ABC Radio Brisbane’s Katherine Feeney.
“One of the therapies some patients who have cancer can have is a radionuclide therapy, which goes to the cancer cells and uses radiation to kill those cells.”
There’s no hazmat suits in sight — they’re not needed in a lab largely devoid of dangerous chemicals — but Dr Bartlett said lab workers were protected from radiation by a series of lead, lead-glass and concrete shields.
“When the cyclotron is on it generates very large amounts of radiation so it would be extremely dangerous to be anywhere near it when it’s on,” she said.
“In order to have it on campus we have it inside a concrete room. The walls of that room are thicker than I am tall.”
Medicines go direct to patients
Even though Dr Bartlett described the nuclear medicine department as an “obscure little branch” of hospital operations, many Queenslanders would come into contact with the radiopharmaceuticals it produced.
The Cancer Council of Queensland estimates nearly 27,000 people receive a cancer diagnosis each year.
“One of the things that makes this an amazing place to work is that you literally walk past the patients to get to the lab,” Dr Bartlett said.
“They might get news they really don’t want or maybe they’re coming back to see how their cancer is progressing or responding to treatment.
“We’re very aware of the patients who are lining up every day to get the products we make.”
And what happens to any radioactive materials that aren’t used?
“Everything we make has a very short half-life, so we basically store it until it decays away,” Dr Bartlett said.
“Then it’s completely cold and you wouldn’t know that it had been radioactive.”
‘We the leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners.
We are the Traditional Owners of the land where mining giant Adani want to build the Carmichael coal mine.
‘Our people have said no four times to a miserly land deal offered by Adani in exchange for the destruction of our homelands. We have been opposing Adani and holding them off since 2012.
‘Our resistance has nothing to do with dollars. No amount of money or promises from a deceitful corporation can stop us standing strong in defence of Wangan and Jagalingou lands and waters and sacred sites.
‘But Adani are ruthless. They have used the dirtiest tactics to undermine our right to say no, and manufacture a phony “Indigenous Land Use Agreement”.
‘Right now we’re fighting against Adani’s shoddy tactics and their sham “agreement” in court.
The judge could hand down a decision any day now. But it won’t end there.
‘Can you sign our petition to stand with us against Adani?
‘We are willing to fight Adani all the way to the High Court to protect our environment and sacred sites.
We are working for a positive future for our people on our country. We won’t stand by and watch its destruction for coal.
‘Adani are relentlessly pressuring the Queensland government to clear our Native Title rights out of the way — and as the clock ticks and Adani gets more desperate, it will only intensify.
‘So we need to show Adani and our Governments that they can’t fake or force our consent.
‘We have never given our consent to Adani to destroy our country, and we never will.
Our land is our living law; we are connected to it through our ancestors and our culture. Without it we will cease to exist as a people.
‘Our people have been leading a courageous fight against a cashed-up mining giant with politicians in its pockets, and top end of town lawyers to argue away its collusion, bad faith and dishonesty.
‘We’re calling time on this. It’s time for Adani to walk away.
‘Sign our petition to tell Adani No means No. ‘Adani can’t keep bullying us, or pretending they have our consent. Consent is written in our hearts and minds, and the truth is we have said no. Time and again.. ‘And we shouldn’t have to keep saying it. Adani haven’t been able to put money on the table for this project or even say when they’ll start digging. They’ve given nothing to our people, or to the people of Queensland and Australia, except a bunch of false promises. The smart money and honest commentators know Adani’s Carmichael mine is going nowhere.
‘But still our rights are at extreme risk. The Queensland Government could yield to this corrupt polluting corporation and “legally” rip up our Native Title, just so they can say they have their final “approval”.
‘We continue to hold the line and have many tens of thousands of supporters in Australia
and around the world, but we need more. We need to build a more powerful movement,
standing in solidarity with us, to take on Adani’s wealth, political influence and dirty tricks.
‘Sign our petition to support our fight against Adani.
‘We are in the fight of our lives. Adani have shown a relentless determination to use unjust legal maneouvres to trample our rights. But this fight is bigger than Adani. It’s about the rights that all Aboriginal people have to say no to dirty extractive industries that profit from our traditional homelands. It’s about our right under international law to be free from discrimination, and to choose our own economic future.
‘We have a vision for our people that’s sustainable. We want economic independence, and to make a future on our country that is respectful of the land and uplifting for our people.
We want to invest in solar energy and other new clean enterprises. We don’t want scraps from a corrupt corporation looking to profit from the permanent destruction of our culture, or meagre handouts and low paid dirty jobs that require us to give up our human rights.
Adani to pay for Isaac council staff working on Carmichael mine activities, ABC News 28 May 18 , ByJosh RobertsonandEmilia Terzon
Adani will bankroll the jobs of local government staff tasked with assessing activities around its Queensland mine proposal — a deal anti-corruption campaigners say raises “serious questions” about independent oversight.
The Indian mining giant has struck an unusual deal to pay up to $1.15 million in wages, housing and vehicle costs for four Isaac Regional Council employees to deal with the “extraordinary workload” created by the Carmichael coal project.
Anti-corruption think tank Transparency International Australia called the scenario unprecedented, saying it would raise questions about the independence of council decisions and perceptions of conflict of interest.
But the council said the staff were under its direction and not controlled by Adani.
It said it was protecting ratepayers from bearing costs for a transnational corporation.
A council resolution last October stated that negotiations with Adani led to the company committing to “fund certain positions within council … to address the extraordinary workloads generated for council by the Adani projects”.
According to council minutes, jobs for an executive and legal support officer, a senior engineering manager and two field officers would be “fully funded (including labour and other on-costs, housing and vehicle costs) by Adani”.
‘Potential for conflict of interest’
Transparency International chief executive Serena Lillywhite said the arrangement raised “real questions around the perception or the potential for a conflict of interest, and for undue industry influence, and certainly questions around the independence of decisions being made by the council”.
She said it took the risk of regulatory capture to “a whole new level”.
“When you have a situation whereby people who are employed by the council but are in fact being paid for by Adani to undertake responsibilities and tasks — such as legal support and compliance with contractual arrangements, engineering support to check whether or not there is compliance with standards regarding engineering or environmental aspects — it does create some real concerns.
“You can understand how at best there would be a perception that there is not an arm’s-length arrangement between the council and the company.”
………No other council has similar arrangement
However, a spokeswoman for the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) said it was not aware of any other such arrangement between a council and a company where funding was tied to jobs involving oversight of the company’s activities.
Adani losses prompt mining company to shift away from imported coal, Guardian, Ben Smee , 7 May 18, Results show Carmichael mine in Queensland no longer a viable proposition, analysts say
Adani’s coal-fired power business has reported more heavy losses, prompting the Indian conglomerate to announce it would shift away from using expensive imported coal.
Analysts say the fourth-quarter financial results for Adani Power, a subsidiary of the Adani group, showed the proposed Carmichael mega-mine in Queensland was no longer a viable proposition.
Remarkably in the context of the Carmichael project, the billionaire Adani Groupboss, Gautam Adani, acknowledged in a statement that the cost of importing coal to India had contributed to Adani Power’s struggles.
“We expect to receive [domestic coal] for the Tiroda and Kawai plants in the near future, which will help reduce fuel costs and improve profitability of these projects,” he said.
“Under-recovery of fuel costs for Mundra project have impacted its financial viability, and we are in dialogue with key stakeholders for an early solution.”
When the Carmichael coal project was first proposed, Adani was pushing a “pit to plug” operational model under which it would mine coal to use at its own generators, making profits through efficiencies and cutting out middlemen.
The Mundra power plant, which operates on imported coal, was the planned destination for the spoils from the Carmichael project. After Mundra fell into financial trouble, Adani attempted unsuccessfully to sell the plant. It has not operated since February.
8 March 2018
‘At a smoking ceremony outside Queensland Parliament today the Wangan & Jagalingou Family Council
called on the Queensland government to rule out extinguishing W&J Native Title for Adani,
the week before a crucial Wangan & Jagalingou Council’s Federal Court case commences.
High quality stills and vision can be made available.
‘Spokesperson Adrian Burragubba said,
“The Queensland Government has the power to extinguish our Native Title,
but they don’t have to go down this path.
Premier Palaszczuk should rule out ever extinguishing our native title for Adani.
‘“We are demanding a meeting with the Premier to explain why there is
no consent from us for Adani’s dirty land deal,
why the Queensland Government should remove its support for the Adani’s sham ILUA,
stop opposing W&J Traditional Owners in the courts
and not extinguish our native title.
‘“Adani’s destructive mine has no part in our future and would tear the heart out of our ancestral lands.
Premier Palaszczuk must pledge to not extinguish our native title for a deal with Adani. [1]
‘“We are determined to prevent our land being taken without our consent
and to protect our country and sacred places from destruction,
for an empty promise of jobs and some trinkets.
‘“We have never given consent to this mine or the surrender of our land rights
and have voted to reject a deal with Adani four times since 2012.
We will not rest until this destructive proposal is abandoned..
‘“A clear majority of Queenslanders are with us and
do not support the government pushing ahead with Adani’s mine
without the consent of Traditional Owners. [2] … ‘ wanganjagalingou.com.au/traditional-owners-opposing-adani-hold-smoking-ceremony-at-qld-parl-call-on-premier-not-to-extinguish-native-title/ wanganjagalingou.com.au/category/latest-news/
Queensland’s premier has talked up gas and renewable energy when asked about the Adani coal mine, on her first day back from a trade mission to the United States.
Federal Labor Leader Bill Shorten this week cast further doubt on Adani’s ability to raise funding for the project and whether a future Labor government would support the project.
Annastacia Palaszczuk on Friday said she hadn’t spoken to Mr Shorten since returning from the US, but reiterated the $16.5 billion mine had to stand up by itself without taxpayer money.
“There are other resource industries investing in Queensland, the gas industry is investing in Queensland, we have $20 billion worth of renewable energy on our books,” Ms Palaszczuk told reporters in Brisbane
“I hope a lot of resource company’s projects go ahead, but money talks, and the money is talking by investing in renewables.”
Ms Palaszczuk deflected questions about the proposed coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, instead pointing to interest from US investors in her government’s 50 per cent renewable energy target.
The premier said she had also met with the CEOs of a number of gas companies in the US as part of her government’s push to use gas as a transition fuel between coal and renewables.
Anti-Adani documentary screening axed for safety reasons, not politics, council says, ABC News, 21 Feb 18 ByJosh RobertsonPublic safety concerns, not politics, were behind the axing of the screening of a documentary on the Stop Adani protest movement, a north Queensland council says.
Townsville City Council’s talks with police about “emerging community tensions” in the debate around the Carmichael mine project prompted its move to halt the screening at one of its public venues a week out, according to its chief executive Adele Young.
It follows the arrest of a man in Townsville on Monday night for allegedly assaulting anti-Adani protesters, reported threats to activist Ben Pennings, and a controversy that engulfed federal MP George Christensen on Sunday over his apparent online taunt to environmentalists while posing with a gun.
However, the North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC) insists the council did not mention safety concerns when it first revealed its decision to scrap the booking agreement last Thursday.
The environmental group had already paid to hold a local premiere of the Nell Schofield film, A Mighty Force, at Townsville’s Old Magistrates Court on February 22, along with simultaneous screenings in other cities.
President of the NQCC, Wendy Tubman, said a council officer told the group in a phone call that her supervisor had instructed her to cancel the booking as council had deemed the film “political”.
Ms Tubman told the ABC it was an “outrageous” situation and the NQCC had then written to the mayor, Jenny Hill, to say it had legal advice that the booking agreement was “valid and binding”…….
Council move ‘a real worry’
State Greens MP Michael Berkman said that “whichever way you interpret the Townsville City Council’s actions here, it seems pretty rotten”.
“If they can’t be confident that community members are able to safely attend a film screening at the council venue, that’s a real worry,” he told the ABC.”What’s perhaps more concerning is if council is deliberately stifling community engagement and censoring any backlash around Adani, especially when they’ve come under fire for their dodgy $18 million funding of Adani’s airstrip.”………..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/council-denies-politics-behind-axing-of-stop-adani-documentary/9468218
There should be no extinguishment of Native Title without our consent
‘The W&J Council received its most recent mandate at a meeting of the W&J claim group on 2 December 2017.
The letter informed the Government that the W&J claim group opposes the Adani Mining Pty Ltd project because of the damage that it will cause to the culture, and the lands and waters,
of the Wangan and Jagalingou People.
‘W&J council also oppose the registered Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) with Adani Mining Pty Ltd
purported to be authorised by the Wangan and Jagalingou People
in controversial circumstances (“the Adani ILUA”).
Killing Country (Part 5): Native Title Colonialism, Racism And Mining For Manufactured Consent, New Matilda By Morgan Briggon
In the final of a five-part series on the battle by the Wangan and Jagalingou people of Central Queensland to halt the construction of the Carmichael coal mine by Indian mining giant Adani, Dr Morgan Brigg explains the problems with a native title system that continues to dispossess and disempower Australia’s First Peoples.
Wangan and Jagalingou people are the traditional owners of a vast swathe of Central-Western Queensland that is critical for the proposed Adani Carmichael mine, including a 2,750-hectare area over which native title rights must be extinguished for Adani to convert the land to freehold tenure for the infrastructure for mine operations.
The Wangan and Jagalingou are native title applicants with a prima facie claim to their lands, but the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Family Council (W&J) are not following the establishment script of playing along with mining interests. Instead, they are vehemently resisting the proposed Adani Carmichael mine, including through native title law.
The fact that their rejection of Adani through four claim group meetings is not an open-and-shut case which sends the miners packing goes to the heart of what native title is and how it works in Australia
……… At the heart of the matter is that the native title regime is not a strong vehicle for the pursuit of Indigenous rights, including because it does not enable a veto, the possibility of which is the only true test of whether it can be said that free, prior and informed consent has been given. As W&J say, ‘no means no’.
Instead, native title facilitates the interests of state and capital by manufacturing consent through processes stacked against Indigenous people and backed up by the option of compulsory state acquisition of land.
The Australian establishment is accustomed to a highly inequitable approach to race politics. But the immorality of such legal deprivation is readily recognised on the world stage. The racially discriminatory nature of native title has previously been called out by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and as the W&J’s recent submission to the CERD states, “a consultation process that conforms to international law is almost impossible under Australian law”.
Despite having the odds stacked against them, W&J are challenging Australia’s native title system and the notion that compliance with colonial-derived law and the imperatives of industrial projects is the way forward for Indigenous people……..
Manufacturing Consent, Denying Traditional Owners
Wangan and Jagalingou people rejected Adani’s proposals in December 2012 and October 2014. However, Adani went to the NNTT in 2013 and 2015, the Tribunal allowed the mining leases to be granted over the rejections of the claim group, and the Queensland Government duly complied. This is the most direct way in which native title facilitates the denial rather than the protection of Aboriginal rights.
There was no consent, and no requirement on Adani to continue to negotiate, or to accept a refusal.
In addition, and against Wangan and Jagalingou decisions in 2012 and 2014, QSNTS has continued to facilitate Adani’s ongoing efforts to seek agreement, through an ILUA, to the surrender of native title rights in up to 2,750 hectares of land that are necessary for infrastructure critical to the mine. QSNTS declined to in any way facilitate a ‘self-determined’ meeting of the claim group that was run in March 2016 – a meeting that once again rejected an ILUA with Adani, as well as any further dealings with them. They also refused to attend, or share the notice of the most recent claim group meetings in December 2017 – meetings to address the progress of the native title claim. These meetings also revisited, and as it turned out, de-authorised the ILUA that Adani was seeking to have registered………..
Meanwhile, the Queensland Government has remained silent in public while consistently joining court actions on the side of Adani, and actively facilitating the mine through the actions of the Coordinator-General. In this way, they prosecute an out-dated resource-intensive developmentalism at the expense of Indigenous rights, without publically saying that they oppose Indigenous rights.
As noted in a previous article in this series, “The ILUA process, in effect, enables the State Government to abrogate its responsibilities to mining companies in negotiations with Traditional Owners, despite the obvious unequal access to power and information that shapes both negotiation processes and their outcomes”.
However, depending on the outcome of the upcoming court case, the Queensland Government may be called upon to more explicitly deny the rights of Indigenous people as enabled by the native title regime.
Compulsory Acquisition and the Continuation of Colonial Violence
Should the objections of the W&J to the Adani ILUA process be upheld in the March 2018 court case, and if potential further Adani efforts to seek an ILUA are unsuccessful, the Queensland Government can compulsorily acquire the 2,750 hectares that Adani seeks. This action, which would be initiated through the Coordinator-General and require a decision of the Governor in Council, would see the state extinguish the native title rights of Wangan and Jagalingou people.
………W&J stand on the conflict-ridden frontier of these issues in real time where powerful forces – the state, miners, big money, and the established media – seek to overcome Aboriginal resistance that operates through the ‘right to say no’ that inspires older and rising generations of Aboriginal rights leaders.The W&J are pushing the limits of native title to prosecute their rights while opposing Adani’s proposed mine and making claims through Aboriginal law on their own terms. In doing so they are helping to show how native title is manifestly inadequate.
Farmers in distress as devastating drought enters its sixth year The Australian, RICK MORTON, Social Affairs reporter, Sydney @SquigglyRick
Almost five years after drought was last officially declared in Queensland, two-thirds of the state, or 120 million hectares, is in the grip of a dry so long and grinding that many who can afford to have forgotten it even exists.
At the end of last year, 35 council areas in the state remained wholly drought declared — some since April in 2013 — affecting thousands of beef and sheep stations, farms and other agricultural businesses.
Take Audrey Stone, a beef cattle property in Queensland’s central-west. It would be easy, owner Brett Wehl says, to sit back and believe it is the driest place on the continent.
The Wehl family homestead, about 40km northwest of Barcaldine, sits among a flat moonscape filled only with choking acacia bushes and tumbleweeds. The 6070ha property has run about 1000 head of cattle in the past but there are just 20 on it now.
Others have it worse, some have it better, but playing that game will drive a person mad, Mr Wehl says.
At the end of last year, precisely two-thirds of Queensland remained drought-declared with much of this officially in drought for four years and counting.
The state government has handed out $140m in drought assistance in that time. The proportion of the state affected has fallen from 87 per cent at the beginning of last year but thousands of farmers and graziers are still in its grip.
The Numbers Don’t Stack Up: W&J’s Rights on the Chopping Block for Adani’s ‘Non Viable’ Project, New Matilda, By John Quigginon Adani Changes its Plans
In the context of shifting policy settings and coal markets, Adani has changed its plans. The original Adani proposal involved production of 60 million tonnes of coal from W&J Country in the Galilee Basin, and with an expected life of 90 years.
This was at first downgraded to 40 million tonnes of coal by 2022, with an expected life of 60 years, and then further reduced to 25 million tonnes of coal.
This revised so-called ‘Stage 1’ project would defer expansion of the Abbot Point terminal, alongside establishment of an initial, smaller mine.
Given the very unlikely possibility that coal will actually be in demand for electricity generation beyond 2050, the difference in duration is immaterial. However, these reductions in scale do have important implications for the viability of the rail line.
Capital investment for the life of the original mine project was expected to total US $21.5 billion. This total figure continues to be regularly cited, despite the significant downsizing that has since occurred.
Adani has, to date, invested approximately US $3.5 billion in this project, of which approximately US $2.1 billion financed the purchase of the Abbot Point T1 coal terminal. The remainder was associated with the acquisition of the Carmichael mine site.
A large portion of Adani’s total investment is what economists like to call ‘sunk’: that is, it is investment that would be written off if the Carmichael mine project failed to proceed. The only terms in which Adani could recoup these funds was if it could find a buyer for its assets. Adani’s unwillingness to write off such a large investment is likely one reason it has persisted with the project.
But the Numbers Don’t Stack Up
With its new scaled down project proposal, alongside global coal price fluctuations and the very real market access challenges in India, and elsewhere, just how do Adani’s numbers stack up?
Let’s start with estimates on the sale price for Carmichael coal.
As of October 2017, the price of Australian thermal coal was approximately $US97/tonne. Futures markets predict a decline in this price over coming years. Reflecting this trend, the futures price for delivery in February 2020, a possible start date for shipments from the project, is $US81/tonne.
However, Tim Buckley of IEEFA has estimated that the lower quality of the Carmichael mine’s coal output will result in a 30 per cent discount in revenue per tonne.
On this basis, the price of coal from the Carmichael mine – assuming exports begin in 2020 – will deliver just $A74 tonne.
But what will it cost to produce?
In its original analysis, Adani – based on advice from McCullough Robertson in January 2015 – estimated costs of US $38.70/tonne, although other analyses suggest the cost may be higher. Significantly, this figure does not include the costs of rail transport and ship loading. And of course, such figures fail to capture the environmental costs of Adani’s proposed mega mine nor do they measure the irreplaceable loss of Country for Traditional Owners if this mine were to proceed.
Putting these ‘externalities’ aside, this suggests a cost of A $50/tonne in 2015, or $A55, updating for inflation at an annual rate of 2 per cent.
Based on these figures, the price for Carmichael coal – net of all operational costs – would be approximately $10/tonne. If royalties were paid at the standard rate, the net return would be just $3/tonne. That’s a very small return for the destruction of Country and walk over of Traditional Owners rights………..
If It’s Not Viable, Why Would the Project Proceed?
The analysis above shows that, even under highly favourable assumptions, the Adani Carmichael project will be unable to generate sufficient returns to cover interest at commercial rates, or to repay capital to lenders and investors.
This analysis therefore raises the question; why does Adani Enterprises choose to proceed with such a project?
Three possible answers present themselves.
The first is that Adani does not in fact intend to proceed with the project in the near future. Rather, the project is being kept alive with relatively modest expenditure to avoid writing off the large amounts already invested, and to maintain an option in the hope that ‘something will turn up’, such as an unexpected and sustained increase in the price Adani can realize for coal.
A second hypothesis is that the complexity of the Adani corporate structure is such that Adani could construct the proposed rail line almost entirely with public funds provided on concessional terms, then hope that other coal mines in the Basin would render it profitable.
The apparent transfer of ownership of the rail project to an Adani-controlled company in the Cayman Islands supports this idea.
A third possibility, is that by making continuous new demands on governments for concessions of various kinds, Adani will eventually be able to blame government policy for the project’s failure, and on this basis extract compensation. If this is the strategy, it has so far been foiled by the abject compliance of governments at all levels.
The Adani mine-rail-port project is not commercially viable, even under the most optimistic assumptions. That Adani has failed to achieve final close reflects the dubious economics on which this project is based
While much remains obscure, it is clear that any public funds advanced to the project – a project that does not have the consent of the Traditional Owners – will be at high risk of loss.
There is no future for exploitative developmentalism. The economy of the future will depend on sustainable management of resources, a task in which Indigenous communities must play a central role.
This follows the general (though not universal) recognition of the principle, following the Mabo decision, that Indigenous people have the right to play a role in determining the appropriate use of their land.
But this is not simply a nice ideal that will come about through sensible public policy development. This is a brutal contest for land and resources that started with colonisation.
Adani scraps $2bn deal to outsource Carmichael coalmine operation
Decision to end Downer EDI agreement follows Palaszczuk government’s blocking of federal loan for the Queensland project, Guardian, 19 Dec 17, Adani has blamed the Queensland government’s decision to kill off a taxpayer-funded loan for its decision to ditch a $2 billion agreement with a major contractor.
But the Indian miner says it remains committed to building its controversial Carmichael coalmine and the decision to part ways with Downer EDI has no bearing on that.
Adani had intended to outsource the operation of its Carmichael mine to Downer under an agreement that was worth $2bn at the time of its announcement in 2014, but now says it will run the mine itself.
It made pointed references to the Palaszczuk government’s loan veto and the need to keep production costs down in announcing the “mutual” split with Downer……
Anti-Adani protesters, who have targeted Downer over its involvement in the project, say it’s a welcome blow.
“Downer walking away from Adani is the biggest nail in the coffin for the Carmichael mine thus far. Adani are unlikely to find another Australian company willing to risk building and operating such a controversial mine,” Galilee Blockade spokesman Ben Pennings said.
“Adani have never operated a mine of this scale and have absolutely no experience operating mines in Australia.”
The very first act of Queensland’s newly re-elected Labor government was to make good on its election promise to veto a loan to Adani of up to $1bn from the federal Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund (Naif).
The government has said it backs the mine and wants the jobs it will create, but also says the project must be viable without taxpayer funds, including federal funds.
Annastacia Palaszczuk to officially veto Adani railway loan after swearing in
Letter confirming veto will be sent to Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal National party elects new leadership team, Guardian, Amy Remeikis, 12 Dec 17, The Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, will move to officially veto any loan to the Indian mining company Adani from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, as soon as she and her new government are sworn into office.
After almost two weeks of vote-counting, Labor was declared the winner of the 25 November poll on Friday, returning to parliament with a majority for the first time under Palaszczuk’s leadership.
A letter confirming the Adani veto, which marked a turning point in Labor’s campaign, will be sent to the prime minister immediately after Queensland’s governor swears in the new state government on Tuesday……
The move to veto the Naif loan has frustrated the federal government, particularly the minister for resources and northern Australia, Matt Canavan, who last week told News Corp the Queensland government decision was motivated by “xenophobia” and “racisim”, comments Bill Shorten’s office labelled “unhinged”…….
Read the brief summaries of submissions – 55 anti-nuclear, 41 pro nuclear (13 confidential) , with links to each full submission published on this Antinuclear website.
Niepraschk, Anica. (Submission No 29) Anica Niepraschk calls on the government to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations for nuclear dumping. Ms Niepraschk investigated international processes for site selection, finding that co-location with an existing nuclear facility [i.e. Lucas Heights] is the best option. She questions the genuineness of the community consultation, emphasises the opposition of indigenous people. In her attached report, she points out the undemocratic nature of the National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) selecting sites in States, despite all States having laws prohibiting this
Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA).(No 42) Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association (ATLA)is the peak body for all matters relating to land, culture, heritage, language and native title for Adnyamathanha people. ATLA has consistently and publicly opposed the dump plan and several times voted against it. Primarily, ATLA opposed the dump because it would destroy the environment and with that the cultural and spiritual values of their people. ATLA is in partnership with IBA to purchase the Wilpena Pound Resort. (And this is an argument that might more readily be understood by stupid white males). The Flinders Ranges, a world-class destination of beauty – will be ruined as a tourist destination, and employing mainly Aboriginal people, if the area becomes the place for a radioactive waste dump. Indigenous opposition to the plan has been disregarded: ATLA was not even approached until the project entered phase 2. The government has suspended federal environmental and Aboriginal heritage protections. The process is headed for the Federal government overriding the Aboriginal Heritage Act of South Australia.
Greg Bannon (sub no 85) demolishes the case for Kimba/Hawker nuclear waste dump, in a trenchant Submission. He backs up his argument with references, in 13 attachments. Here I will merely quote some important points: “This is a National issue and a National problem. Small, remote communities, whether at Kimba, the Flinders Ranges or anywhere else, should never be expected to make the decision alone to accept the toxic by-products of one industry’s lifetime production.” “Nuclear Medicine: It was impressed on the community that a primary reason for the NRWMF is the need to dispose of Australia’s radioactive medical waste. DIIS is the only official source of information, some of which implies that procedures such as CAT scans, X-Rays, and cancer treatments require the use of radioactive isotopes. Plain scans, X-Rays and a vast majority of cancer treatments do not use such isotopes.” “It is a genuine and valid concern that ILRW may become stranded at this facility for any number of reasons.”“ILRW has been the “elephant in the room” from the Day 1 of this process. The emphasis has been on Low Level Radioactive Waste and, even today, people in our community say “it is a low level waste dump”.Bannon gives reasons – flooding, seimic activity – why Barndioota should never have made it to the short list
Fergusson, Dave. A Quorn resident disgusted (No 106) at the hypocritical nuclear waste dump site process by Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science. In a refreshingly personal story, Fergusson lambasts the land nomination of Wallerberdina Station by Ex-Senator Mr Grant Chapman. He exposes the hypocritical sales pitch by the Dept to an uninformed rural community. Fergusson was evicted from Hawker Community Development Board (HCDB)and Barndioota consultative Committee (BCC)meetings – for asking difficult questions, and for being an outsider – a Quorn resident. He exposes the hypocrisy of promises about jobs created by the nuclear waste dumping
August 9 – Adelaide–Campaign Launch: Disarm SA Universities – disconnect them from weapons industry Exeter Hotel 246 Rundle Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000
See our page: Submissions on Radioactive Waste Code 2018/ Submissions published by ARPANSA are overwhelmingly critical, and in opposition to the Federal nuclear dump plan for rural South Australia. [not to be confused with the current SENATE INQUIRY Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.]
Almost five years after drought was last officially declared in Queensland, two-thirds of the state, or 120 million hectares, is in the grip of a dry so long and grinding that many who can afford to have forgotten it even exists.
