Traditional Owners fighting Adani mine query Labor’s support for Native Title Bill
http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/traditional-owners-fighting-adani-mine-query-labors-support-for-native-title-bill/ “Responding to reports that Labor has come to an agreement with the Turnbull government which will see passage of the contentious Native Title Bill in the Senate next week, Traditional Owners fighting Adani’s mine are calling on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to outline what consultation has occurred with Indigenous people which makes his party satisfied the Bill should now become law.
“Shadow Minister Assisting for Resources, Mr Tim Hammond, is reported to have told a Perth resources conference today there was now a “settled position” with the Government and that the Opposition envisaged the bill would be passed next week.
“Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, says ““Labor made a bunch of noise about the failure of the Attorney General to conduct proper grassroots consultation with Aboriginal people on these important changes to native title laws.
““People deserve to hear from Labor what, if anything, has changed since mid May when it refused to vote for Adani’s Native Title Bill because consultation had been so shabby and amendments were all over the shop.
““Until Labor has been provided with evidence by the Turnbull government of appropriate consultation,
and the Senate has seen the Bill as proposed, it should refuse to back it,” Mr Burragubba said.
Senator Scott Ludlam asks some inconvenient questions on the cleanup of the Ranger uranium mine
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 23/05/2017 Estimates
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PORTFOLIO
Clean Energy Regulator
CHAIR: I welcome the Office of the Supervising Scientist.
Senator LUDLAM: I understand that ERA is in the process of starting to get on with closing the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu and have notified stakeholders—presumably including yourselves—that they are intending to vary the way that they are depositing the tailings back into pit 3, and that they are proposing to change from an aerial tailings deposition to subaqueous deposition. For the non-specialists, could you describe maybe in plain English the difference in technique they are proposing.
Mr Tayler : The previous tailings deposition methodology had tailings being dredged from the tailings dam and tailings coming from the mill being deposited onto a beach, essentially. The new methodology that ERA is proposing involves depositing tailings through water; hence the subaqueous versus subaerial. Essentially, it was being put onto a tailings beach; the new method will be depositing it through the water column itself.
Senator LUDLAM: Is the decommissioning of the mine being treated as a nuclear action under the EPBC Act?
Mr Tayler : No.
Senator LUDLAM: Can you describe for us why not?
Mr Tayler : I would prefer that questions specific to the EPBC Act were directed to the Environmental Standards Division, or we could take it on notice if that is okay.
Senator LUDLAM: I think that is fair enough. If you can take it on notice, but I guess the answer is not going to come from you, is it? I think we have already let these people go.
Mr Tayler : Yes, it is a legal point, and I would not want to comment on that in case I got it wrong.
Senator LUDLAM: That is fine. I understand there is an interception trench, which intersects the saline plume coming out from under the tailings storage facility. We have been asking your predecessors in this office for years about this. My understanding is that ERA is currently monitoring that plume of saline water. There is a certain amount of dewatering that is being done. How long is it expected that monitoring and dewatering operations would continue beyond 2020?
Mr Tayler : In relation to the seepage—
Senator LUDLAM: In 2026, I beg your pardon. In relation to the monitoring of that saline plume and the dewatering.
Mr Tayler : Specifically related to the tailings dam?
Senator LUDLAM: Yes.
Mr Tayler : That is not information that we currently have. It is on ERA’s work program to conduct some detailed groundwater modelling of the TSF footprint. The TSF will not be decommissioned for several years yet, so I could not give you a specific answer to that question at this time.
Senator LUDLAM: When is the expected decommissioning date for the tailings storage facility?
Mr Tayler : I would have to take that on notice for the exact date. I believe it was towards the end of the rehabilitation process, which would put it in the 2024-25 period, but I will confirm that for you.
Senator LUDLAM: I will tell you what the purpose of these questions is: we have a plume of saline water that ERA was a bit reluctant to concede even existed, seeping out from under the dam, carrying goodness knows what other processed chemicals and radionuclides and whatever with it. We have the company with interception trenches, possibly bores, trying to get a sense of how much water is falling out the bottom of the TSF. We have an interception trench which is allowing them to remove some of that water and presumably process it and clean it up. That is a very active process of maintenance. How long is it anticipated to last?
Mr Tayler : Yes, I understand the question. At this stage, I do not have sufficient information to answer that question.
Senator LUDLAM: In terms of a yes/no. Is that because you do not have it at the table or you do not think that knowledge exists at this time?
Mr Tayler : I do not think that knowledge exists at this time. We need ERA to complete some proposed groundwater modelling. That will model the movement of that plume. That will give some indication of how long that plume will take to move, how long it will take to dilute and what management, if any management, will be required. That work has not yet been undertaken.
Senator LUDLAM: It is 2017. How does the ERA not know that already? I have been asking about this for about eight years, and this was an issue way before I came along.
Mr Tayler : Operationally, I think the issue has been quite well managed. We can provide an update on that if that would be helpful. From a long-term closure sense, the focus has been on looking at the groundwater impacts from the pits. Further work is still required on quantifying exactly what is beneath the TSF and what that may look like in the future.
Senator LUDLAM: So they still do not really know what is coming out from underneath the dam?
Mr Tayler : In an operational sense, we know very well exactly what is moving now. How that will behave over the long term into the future is not yet quantified.
Senator LUDLAM: Could you provide us with an estimate of how much water is seeping out from under the TSF every year? We have had order of magnitude estimates going back a couple of years.
Mr Tayler : For the whole dam? I would have to take that on notice.
Senator LUDLAM: Thank you. What I am trying to find out is whether that process is still going to be underway beyond 2026 or if it is within the company’s work plan that it is all well and truly done.
ANSTO’s Dr Adi Paterson signed Australia up to New Nuclear club with NO Parliamentary discussion!
(Parliament Hansard) ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/0493150c-8738-423c-a856-9cb37d9e9073/toc_pdf/Economics%20Legislation%20Committee_2017_05_31_5131.pdf;fileType=application/pdf 31st May 2017,
ANSTO ……….
Senator LUDLAM: ……. Dr Paterson, we have become aware through the JSCOT process that in June 2016 you signed the 2005 Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. I have a couple of quick questions on this. Nuclear power reactors are actually prohibited in Australia under national law, so under what authority did you sign an agreement to promote research and development on nuclear reactors?
Dr Paterson: In signing that agreement, we had been through a process of discussion with the department and with the relevant ministers, indicating that, in order to retain appropriate knowledge about the future of nuclear power globally, it would be a virtuous outcome to join the Generation IV International Forum…….
It is the job of ANSTO not to provide advocacy for nuclear power in Australia but to provide knowledge that protects us from poor decisions and provides us with a seat at the table at the International Atomic Energy Agency, because we are—
Senator LUDLAM: We already have that. With great respect, we already have that seat.
Dr Paterson: Yes.
Senator LUDLAM: We did not have to sign the gen IV agreement to retain our seat at the IAEA.
Dr Paterson: It was one of my proudest moments as the CEO of ANSTO to sign that agreement, and we are now going through the treaty process. I think it is the right thing to do for Australia.
Senator LUDLAM: Were there any additional costs over and above participation? Dr Paterson: The cost of membership will be of the order of $100,000. We are drawing on the knowledge base and the work that we already do as ANSTO, so we will not be developing significant new program capabilities to do this. We have not asked government to fund that $100,000; we are absorbing it in our appropriation.
Senator LUDLAM: That is absorbed? Okay.
New South Wales Labor leader to debate NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro on nuclear power for the State
Mayor welcomes Labor vs Nats debate on nuclear power, Northern Star 5th Jun 2017: LISMORE mayor Isaac Smith has said he welcomed any debate on energy, following the news that NSW Labor leader Luke Foley had accepted a challenge by the NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro to engage in a debate nuclear power in NSW. Mr Foley suggested a public forum in Lismore as the venue for the debate…..
LISMORE mayor Isaac Smith has said he welcomed any debate on energy, following the news that NSW Labor leader Luke Foley had accepted a challenge by the NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro to engage in a debate nuclear power in NSW.
Mr Foley suggested a public forum in Lismore as the venue for the debate. In the letter, Mr Foley described nuclear power as “both risky and irresponsible” and said:
“While I most profoundly disagree that nuclear power is a serious option for our State, I accept your call for a debate and propose that we hold a public debate in Lismore to discuss the issues at stake.
“Lismore would be an appropriate location for such a debate as it is one of the most environmentally conscious communities in NSW.
“I profoundly disagree with your support for nuclear power as there is no secure solution to the problem of safely managing toxic radioactive waste that can be lethal for the next 500,000 years.”
“Labor proposes that the debate would be moderated by an impartial local North Coast media identity with questions from the audience.”
Mr Secord (NSW Labor) said the Nationals needed a mandate from the community on nuclear power and the community had a right to know about their plans.
“It is time the Nationals leader John Barilaro explained his position to the community and the North Coast would provide the perfect venue to do so,” Mr Secord said.
“Sadly, there is a cloak of secrecy surrounding the decisions by the State Liberal-National Government and the community has a right to know about the government’s intentions on nuclear power.
“I am also on the record expressing my concerns about nuclear power. In March 2012, I spoke against the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012 when the Liberals and Nationals overturned Labor’s long standing ban on uranium exploration in NSW.
“I believe that the North Coast views are clear. The community is against the expansion of nuclear power – and so is NSW Labor.
“Lismore would be a perfect location to debate this important issue. I look forward to helping to organise the debate between Mr Foley and Mr Barilaro.” https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/labor-accepts-nationals-challenge-to-debate-nuclea/3185820/
Frydenberg’s carbon capture and storage – it’s a joke, really
Frydenberg’s carbon capture pipe dream, The Saturday Paper Paul 
Bongiorno , 3 June 17
“…..it was with some bemusement that some of the old hacks who were on that trip greeted Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg’s announcement that he would remove the legislative prohibition on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to allow it to support investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS). The very optimistic minister said such technology could reduce emissions by up to 90 per cent.
This week Frydenberg pointed out that government has invested $590 million in CCS and said it is now being successfully employed in three overseas power plants. But a closer look shows the lessons learnt from those plants mean its use has already peaked. The proponents of these plants are on the record stating they won’t be investing in any more. Renewables entrepreneur Simon Holmes à Court told the ABC that exponential cost blowouts and disappointing results are the rule.
One plant visited by the energy minister – Petra Nova in Texas – cost $US1 billion. It’s touted as the world’s largest and most successful operation, yet it captures only about 6 per cent of the output of its adjacent power station. That’s “an incredibly low bang for buck”, concludes Holmes à Court. Another CCS plant targeted to cost $US2 billion will open three years late and with an incredible final bill of $US7.5 billion.
Holmes à Court agrees with Frydenberg that CCS has a role to play in cutting emissions in industrial processes such as cement or steel production. Carbon can be captured in these cases for about $15 to $30 a tonne. “So with a healthy carbon price, those projects make sense,” he says. And there’s the rub. The very government wanting to be a champion of CCS for industry is denying it any incentive to spend a cent pursuing it. It’s commercially cheaper to keep polluting. Industry may get away with that but finance markets are now pricing climate change into lending for major energy projects. Bloomberg New Energy Finance earlier this year costed CCS coal at $352 a megawatt hour, compared with wind and solar at between $61 and $140 megawatts an hour.
It’s little wonder that experts can’t see private industry investing in new coal-fired power stations without substantial government input. But none of this seems to deter the resources and Northern Australia minister, the Nationals’ Matt Canavan……..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2017/06/03/frydenbergs-carbon-capture-pipe-dream/14964120004723
Australians’ opposition to subsidising Adano coal project – ranges from 70 to 86 per cent
Frydenberg’s carbon capture pipe dream, The Saturday Paper Paul Bongiorno , 3 June 17 “….. no matter what voters think of the [Adani coal] project, they are overwhelmingly against any taxpayer funds bankrolling the Indian billionaire Gautam Adani. Research by the advocacy group GetUp! in marginal seats in Queensland and elsewhere has found resolute opposition to any government loan. Paul Oosting from GetUp! says opposition ranges from 70 to 86 per cent depending on the seat. He has mobilised dozens of his 350,000 members to make 50,000 scripted phone calls into marginal seats in Queensland and around the nation.It sort of worked with the Palaszczuk Labor government. Much to the delight of Adani, the premier organised a royalties pause. The miner will be given 60 years to pay the tax, although he will attract an interest charge for any delay. That puts all the risk on taxpayers if the project fails to perform as promised or Adani’s labyrinthine company structure for the mine collapses. With some companies registered in the Cayman Islands the existence of a lucrative escape hatch for Adani cannot be ruled out.
Ominously, Indian newspapers are reporting Adani is under pressure to sell its Australian assets. The Reserve Bank of India is worried about a looming debt crisis and is pressuring banks to demand repayment of loans worth billions of dollars. The influential Hindu newspaper noted that the Standard Chartered Bank recalled loans of $2.5 billion from Adani and that “global lenders have backed out from funding the $US10 billion coalmine development project. State Bank of India also declined to offer a loan despite signing an MoU [memorandum of understanding] to fund the group with $1 billion”. What all of this means for Adani’s bid to get a concessional billion-dollar loan from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is not yet known. It should make it highly unlikely, but given the zealotry of Canavan and his leader Barnaby Joyce for the project such concerns are a mere bagatelle.
Again we have seen Turnbull’s need for pragmatic appeasement of the conservatives in his ranks undermine his brand on the environment and climate change. It probably goes a long way to explain why again in this week’s opinion polls he is still deep in negative territory for approval of his performance and Labor’s lead looks entrenched.
The resignation of Dr Peter Hendy from the inner sanctum of the prime minister’s offices is being read by some in the Liberal Party as a sign the government’s days are numbered. The economist, long-time Liberal apparatchik and former MP is planning to hang up his shingle as a consultant. “He wants to cash in on his contacts while they are still in power,” was one explanation. Another was: “Peter’s been around a long time and knows when a vote is cemented in.”
On that view Hendy is not waiting to see if the handful of pro-Adani seats in Queensland will be enough to save the federal government. Its chances are up in smoke and out the chimney – like the Beijing carbon capture pilot project. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2017/06/03/frydenbergs-carbon-capture-pipe-dream/14964120004723
Donald Trump is more honest about climate inaction than Malcolm Turnbull is
Brisbane Times Richard Denniss, 2 June 17 There is a depressing honesty about Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It stands in stark contrast to the hypocrisy of Malcolm Turnbull’s big talk on climate change, which is accompanied by a $1 billion subsidy for the enormous new Adani coal mine. At least Trump is doing what he said he would do.
Trump shows his contempt for the world’s problems by withdrawing from a global agreement on the basis that he doesn’t think it’s in his nation’s interest, while Turnbull shows his contempt by remaining in that same agreement while funding the construction of a new coal mine that will still operate in 2080. Which is worse?
The “business case” for Turnbull’s coal line from the Adani mine to the Great Barrier Reef is that five other major coal mines will also be built in the Galilee basin. In the words of Resources Minister Matt Canavan, “what I’d expect to see, with the federal government wanting to open the Galilee basin, is that the rail line’s open access that other mines can use it and that we can, by building, connecting up a new coal basin in our country, create wealth, not just in one individual project but right across the board, that’s what we’d like to see”. Combined with the Adani mine, the other mines Canavan referred to would together produce 300 million tonnes of coal a year.
To put Turnbull’s coal expansion plans into context, Australia is already the world’s largest coal exporter. At 388 million tonnes in 2015-16, we have a larger share of the traded coal market than Saudi Arabia has of the world oil market. And the Australian government hopes to facilitate a doubling of our coal exports.
Think about that. Australia is a signatory to an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero in 33 years’ time. And Turnbull wants to subsidise the opening-up of a new coal basin in the hope that it will export an extra 300 million tonnes of coal a year. …….http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/donald-trump-is-more-honest-about-climate-inaction-than-malcolm-turnbull-20170602-gwj4nj.html
Adani will profit from APPROVAL for coal mine expansion, even if the project does not go ahead
Malcolm Turnbull is considering spending almost $1 billion of his $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund on one project: a loan to a company controlled by the Adani family to enable it to build a 400 kilometre railway to get the coal to a deep water port near the Great Barrier Reef. By definition, such a loan wouldn’t be needed if the railway was commercially viable, which raises a disturbing question: if the railway isn’t viable, what about the mines it would rely on for business?
“One of the most profitable activities in Australia is the magical act of getting things rezoned, and that’s just as true for the mining industry.”
If Adani gets environmental approvals and a licence to mine, the value of its asset will have soared whether or not it actually mines. It could even onsell the asset without mining.
Even better, if it did onsell the project, it could maintain ownership of the railway, without which the next owners couldn’t get the coal to port.
Patriarch Gautam Adani has put ownership of the railway (the one that would be financed by the Commonwealth) into a separate private company owned by the family in the Cayman Islands. Should the publicly listed company that owns the mine go bust and have to sell, the mine’s new owners would still have to keep paying him.
Mine games. Why Adani is banking on the unbankable http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/mine-games-why-adani-is-banking-on-the-unbankable-20170531-gwgzvb.html Peter Martin 2 June 17,
You would think Adani would have gone away by now.
The giant Indian conglomerate can’t get a loan for its proposed $22 billion Queensland coal mine from an Australian bank, it can’t seem to get one from an Indian bank, the mine would be so big it would depress the world coal price, and the Indian government plans to phase out coal imports altogether.
In documents released to Fairfax Media under freedom of information laws, the Queensland Treasury as good as described the project as “unbankable”.
What is being proposed is breathtaking: a series of coal mines 60 kilometres long. If scrunched together they would be 40 kilometres long and 10 kilometres wide – an area bigger than Paris, much bigger than Sydney Harbour.
It would be the biggest coal mine in Australia and the biggest export coal mine in the world. It and the neighbours in the Galilee Basin that would open up when the railway went through would double our export capacity. It’s more than important enough for the Australian government to take a serious interest in. Continue reading
Adani to make $billions out of rail line, NOT coal mine – Pauline Hanson is right
Pauline Hanson has told the Turnbull government to build the billion-dollar Galilee Basin coal line itself, announcing she would oppose a “foreign multi-national” from owning the crucial infrastructure.The rail corridor, which would run from the central Queensland coal basin to the Abbot Point port on the state’s coast, has been deemed a key feature of Indian mining company Adani moving forward with its project.
But the One Nation leader, who has maintained support for the mining project itself, said she had asked Resources Minister Matt Canavan to build the line “as a piece of national infrastructure”.
“This approved rail corridor will eventually connect to the national line, so it should be owned by the Australian people, not a foreign multi-national,” she said in a statement.
“This railway could make the Australian people hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Adani are here to build a coal mine, not a gold mine.
“This is a railroad that should belong to the people. We should build it, own it, control it and make sure no future government can give it away.”
The rail corridor is seen as a crucial piece of infrastructure in opening the Galilee Basin up to mining, with both GVK Hancock and Clive Palmer’s Waratah Coal having earmarked projects in the region……http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pauline-hanson-says-no-to-adani-train-line-20170601-gwia3r.html
Dispelling the myth that the Queensland economy actually needs the Adani coal mine
The myth that Adani coal is boom or bust for Queensland economy, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 29 May 2017 There are a whole bunch of reasons why the Adani coal mine does not make sense: for the environment, the climate and on basic economics.
The latest results from Adani Power, revealing over the weekend a $US954 million loss ($A1.3 billion) for the last financial year, its fifth loss in a row, and a growing preference for domestic over imported coal, not to mention the endless delays and requests for government support, underline the fact that the project makes no financial sense.
And we know that on environmental and climate grounds, it makes no sense either. Rescuers minister Matt Canavan counts Adani’s benefits on the basis that the mine will last 60 years. That timeframe assumes that the world will not act on climate change.
Another myth that refuses to go away, and seems to be prosecuted by everyone from the Coalition, to the state Labor government and to the local councils, is that the Queensland economy depends on Adani and its Carmichael mine for jobs and investment, and that the region’s economy would be devastated if the mine didn’t go ahead.
It is simply not true. For a start, the inflated figures being pedalled by those state and federal politicians – the claim of 10,000 jobs – have been debunked by Adani itself, and its more modest investment plans now suggest maybe one-tenth of that, at best.
And perhaps those politicians should have a look around and see what else is happening in the region. It is really quite stunning: some 4,200MW of large-scale wind and solar projects, all of them in central to northern Queensland, and billions of dollars worth of other projects in the pipeline, including biofuels and even a battery gigafactory in Townsville.
The list of already committed projects, compiled by a private consortium known as Future North, include world leading solar resources, world leading solar and storage projects, a world-leading solar-wind-storage hybrid project, and a unique solar and pumped hydro plant proposed for the old Kidston gold mine.
Together, they represent investment of more than $7 billion and jobs of more than 3,200. And as a bonus, they will deliver electricity at an average cost of around $80/MWh, possibly less. Already, it is cheaper than the price of the Queensland grid in the first half of the year – and the low price will be locked in for 25 years.
Some are already going ahead, courtesy of some targeted support from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corp, or in the case of Sun Metals’ 116MW solar plant near Townsville, in a bid to cut electricity costs and underpin the expansion of the local zinc refinery.
Another 3,000 jobs and $4 billion of investment are on the cards from half a dozen of biofuel projects that are also in the pipeline, and another 2,000 direct jobs and 5,000 indirect jobs could emerge if the consortium led by Boston Energy and Innovation, and supported by US giant Eastman Kodak, goes ahead with a battery storage gigafactory in Queensland.
“Townsville and the region are sitting on a gold mine of opportunities,” Oliver Yates, the former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a spokesman for Future North, told RenewEconomy on Friday in our Energy Insiders podcast.
Yates says the mixture of solar, wind, storage, hydro, biofuels and manufacturing makes the region ideally placed to be “the centre of action” in Australia’s energy transition.
“The opportunities that they have dwarf anything that they could get (from coal) … tese are sunrise industries. That town gets subject to a lot of pork barreling and nothing ever happens. And no one talked much about solar and wind …. and yet it is happening.
“They are siting in the land of opportunity. It’s the only place in Queensland that has got wind, it’s the got best solar resources, and best water resources. Townsville should be the centre of action.”
The projects include the soon-to-be completed Lakeland solar and storage facility, the massive wind, solar and storage facility at the Kennedy Energy park, the Kidston solar and hydro hybrid plant, large wind farms such as Emerald and Forsyth and others, and a host of large-scale solar farms proposed by Pacific Hydro, Esco Pacific, Eco Energy World, FRV, Windlab, Overland, Edify and others.
Future North is proposing a North Queensland Company should be created – with a minimal amount of government seed funding – to ensure that these projects come to pass.
“We believe there is a massive opportunity for North Queensland to become an economic powerhouse across a range of industries,” a new document says, adding that it is not a choice between new and old industries, but recognises the abundant land, water and sun it has for the many future sunrise industries.
Still, many in the Coalition are locked into those sunset industries. …….
as the Adani results over the weekend reveal, the company is now looking at using domestic coal supplies for its massive Mundra mega-coal plant. India is focused on reducing imports of coal, and also encouraging a domestic solar manufacturing base as part of its ambitious renewable energy targets.
Little wonder that Adani is looking for third parties, including governments, to underwrite the cost, and bear the risk, of long-dated infrastructure such as rails and ports.
“It is an admission that (Adani Power) can’t afford expensive imported coal from Carmichael,” IEEFA’s Tim Buckley wrote in an analysis of the results on Monday.
And there are yet more developments that point to a bleak picture for coal in Asia, including the cancellation of 14 coal projects in India, and the announced closure of coal plants in South Korea.
And that is why Future North wants to jump in now, to ensure that the pipeline of wind and solar projects gets the finance from the private sector it is looking for…..http://reneweconomy.com.au/the-myth-that-adani-coal-is-boom-or-bust-for-queensland-economy-39757/
Australia’s government beholden to the fossil fuel industries, now want carbon capture and storage to be subsidised as “clean” energy
Coalition tries to push CEFC into carbon capture and storage,REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 30 May 2017
In its latest attempt to prop up Australia’s fossil fuel industry, the Turnbull government says it will seek to remove restrictions that prevent the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation from supporting investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
The move was announced by energy minister Josh Frydenberg on Tuesday, in what he painted as a “technology-neutral, non ideological” approach to national energy policy.
In a statement, Frydenberg said that CCS was cited by both the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as critically important for the world to meet its emission reductions targets.
But both those citations carry heavy caveats – only if the technology works, and only if the costs fall significantly. So far, there has been little evidence of either, with less than a handful of CCS projects actually capturing emissions from power generators and at great expense, despite years of investment.
The Coalition has waged a war against renewable energy since its election in 2013, canning the carbon price, seeking to abolish and then cut the 2020 renewable energy target, and seeking at various points to close both the CEFC and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, before slashing ARENA’s funding. Continue reading
Queensland govt dumps support for $1 billion rail loan to Adani
Adani’s coal mine dealt fresh blow as Queensland shunts $1 billion rail loan role, Brisbane Times, Peter Hannam 28 May 17,
Prospects for the controversial Adani coal mine have dimmed further after the Queensland government said it wanted no role in any federal loan to support the project.
In a statement on Saturday, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said that “consistent with our election commitments, cabinet has determined that any [Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility] loan needs to be between the federal government and Adani”.
If the NAIF does provide funds for the 388 kilometre, $1 billion-plus rail link to support the proposed Carmichael mine, it will do so without the support of the state government. The NAIF’s guidelines say loans should “align” with a state’s needs.”If [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull wants to spend his money in this way, that’s his decision,” a source said, requesting anonymity.
David Barnden, a lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia, said Queensland’s move appeared to block any NAIF loan to Adani under the current laws.”The Commonwealth’s legal power to fund projects through the NAIF is granted by a constitutional power for the provision of financial assistance to the states,” Mr Barnden said.
“If Queensland is not a part of any agreement for NAIF funding, then, in our view, Adani’s railway line cannot receive NAIF concessional loans under the current legal framework.”The NAIF abstention comes a day after the state government called a snap cabinet meeting to settle on the royalty plan to be offered to the Indian-owned miner. Adani says it will consider the plan.
Fairfax understands the cabinet agreed on a capped payment for the first six years of $5 million annually. Any delayed payments would be made up in later years with interest.While touted as a $16.5 billion project – excluding the railway and port expansion – the mine is looking increasingly less ambitious, if it gets built at all. Rather than 60 million tonnes, annual output is likely to be much less than the “mega” scale promoted, and a price tag is closer to $4 billion at least for the start.Ms Palaszczuk defended the royalty plan on Saturday, saying there was no “holiday” and that Adani would have to pay “every cent … in full”.By avoiding involvement in the NAIF loan, the government will argue it has kept its pre-election promise not to provide financial support for the mine. ……
Environment groups have applauded Queensland’s decision to avoid serving as a go-between for the NAIF funds.”Today Queensland Labor are holding firm to their promise at the last election not to throw taxpayer funds at Adani’s coal rail line, by refusing to hand over money from Senator Canavan’s slush fund,” GetUp national director Paul Oosting said.”The pressure is now on the federal government to put an end to special treatment for the megamine, and stand with Australians to say no to Adani.” http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/adanis-coal-mine-dealt-fresh-blow-as-queensland-shunts-1-billion-rail-loan-role-20170527-gweiuj.html
Conflict of interest in federal government bodies considering $billion loan to Adani coal company
Adani: Government body board members considering rail loan ‘linked to companies who may benefit’ Mark Willacy and Alexandra Blucher, ABC News 29 May 17, Conflict of interest concerns have been raised about two board members of federal government bodies involved in the consideration of a billion-dollar loan to Indian mining giant Adani.
Adani is seeking the loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) for a rail line linking its proposed Carmichael coal mine to the port of Abbot Point in north Queensland.
Green group Environmental Justice Australia said the two board members had connections to Queensland mining companies that could benefit financially if the Adani mine is approved and as such have a potential conflict of interest.
They have written to the NAIF and to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Efic), the government credit agency, which is helping to evaluate the loan.
Environmental Justice Australia said Annabelle Chaplain was a board member of Efic but also a director of Downer EDI, which has a $2 billion commercial arrangement with Adani.
It also said Karla Way-McPhail was a NAIF board member as well as being the chief executive of two companies that do work in the mining industry. One is Undamine Industries, which hires out labour and machinery to support mining operations.
The second is Coal Train Australia, a mining training company based in central Queensland.
Efic board member Ms Chaplain is listed as an independent non-executive director of Downer EDI, whose $2 billion arrangement is to conduct drilling, blasting and coal haulage at the Carmichael Mine, if it goes ahead.
According to Downer EDI’s last annual report, Ms Chaplain held 74,000 shares in the company, putting her stake at more than $450,000. Downer EDI chief executive Grant Fenn told The Australian Financial Review last year the company was a “supporter” of the Adani mine and that the Indian giant was “a very large potential customer”.
‘Clear connections’ to companies that could gain from loan
Environmental Justice Australia said both Ms Way-McPhail and Ms Chaplain had clear connections to companies that could benefit financially if the Adani project was approved.
“We understand NAIF is considering proposals by an [Adani company] and Aurizon Holdings Ltd for Galilee Basin rail projects that would cart thermal coal to the Great Barrier Reef Coast,” Environmental Justice Australia wrote in its letter to both government bodies.
“There is a perception that Ms Way-McPhail could gain an advantage if either project were to proceed.”
Efic told the ABC Ms Chaplain was unavailable for interview…….
The NAIF has been accused of excessive secrecy over the operation of its board and the board’s deliberations. The ABC reported earlier this year the NAIF rejected a freedom of information request for the dates and locations of its upcoming board meetings. The NAIF chief executive said the “disclosure of the dates of board meetings could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the NAIF’s operations” by creating media attention and protest activity……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/conflict-of-interest-concerns-over-adani-rail-loan/8564368
Australia’s major political parties face national campaign against Adani coal mine project
Federal Labor feels the heat over Adani, and Coalition is sweating too, Guardian, Katharine Murphy, 26 May 17
The biggest environmental campaign seen in Australia since the 80s is causing bumps in the road for both sides of politics When it comes to the Adani Carmichael coalmine, the spotlight this week has been trained on Queensland as the state government battled an internal split on whether to give the project a royalties holiday. There have also been murmurings in Canberra, where Labor MPs are starting to express public opposition to a project many have been privately wringing their hands about.
But to fathom the next phase in the political battle against the project, we need to train our eyes a bit further south.
Over this past week in Victoria, the Greens have launched a new fundraising drive to produce placards which will begin appearing shortly around the electorates of Melbourne, Batman, Wills and Melbourne Ports.
The placards have a simple message, easily consumed from a passing car or tram. They say: Stop Labor’s Adani Mine. It won’t stop with some signage. The Greens are planning to door knock the inner urban electorates where they now slug it out with Labor in hand-to-hand combat during federal elections.
While a couple of Labor MPs, David Feeney and Peter Khalil, have got out ahead of the new onslaught by outing themselves as opponents of Adani, the Greens are telling their supporters the objective is to force the federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, to rule out supporting the Adani coalmine…..
The anti-Adani effort links in to coordinated global efforts by the environment movement to stop new coalmines. #StopAdani (and the associated activities) is the environmental movement’s equivalent of a multinational corporation – with Queensland the local frontline of a global, anti-coal offensive……
One Liberal said to me forcefully this week when I asked how Adani was playing out on home turf: “Christ, I wish it would just go away.”
One Labor figure puts the problem for his party this way: “It is talismanic. It’s the litmus test. Adani has become shorthand for ‘are you serious about climate change?’.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/27/federal-labor-feels-the-heat-over-adani-and-coalition-is-sweating-too
Queensland cabinet has decided not to grant a royalty holiday for the Adani Carmichael mine.
Palaszczuk rules out royalty holiday for Adani http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/palaszczuk-rules-out-royalty-holiday-for-adani-20170526-gwe937.html Felicity Caldwell, 27 May 17
Queensland cabinet has decided not to grant a royalty holiday for the Adani Carmichael mine.
It comes after ongoing reports of tension between the Left and Right factions in the Palaszczuk cabinet over royalties for the Adani mine. Adani released a statement on Friday evening following news of the unanimous decision.
“Adani Australia will give urgent consideration of state cabinet’s decision tonight on a royalties arrangement for the $16.5 billion Carmichael coal mine project.” “Adani will analyse the details when they have been formally provided (and) confirms again that it will pay every cent of royalties to the state as was always the case.”
Ministers were called to a cabinet meeting on Friday afternoon to make a decision on the issue. In a brief statement released at 5.29pm on Friday, Ms Palaszczuk said state cabinet had “unanimously agreed to a new policy approach for the future development of the Galilee and Surat Basins and the North West Mineral Province”.
“Under this new policy, the Adani Carmichael mine will pay every cent of royalties in full,” Ms Palaszczuk said. “There will be no royalty holiday for the Adani Carmichael mine.”
On Monday, May 22, Adani announced it would postpone its final investment decision on the $21 billion central Queensland project after learning the cabinet did not make a ruling on royalties.
Earlier this week, Ms Palaszczuk told journalists that cabinet would meet as usual on Monday, May 29. She did not flag the unexpected Friday afternoon meet-up. More details would be released in “due course”, Ms Palaszczuk said.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 