Qld accused of “indefensible and reckless” support of Carmichael coal mine

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Green groups say latest Queensland govt move to fast-track Carmichael coal mine development “indefensible” and “reckless.”

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In a move that has been labelled “indefensible” and “reckless” by green groups, the Queensland government has declared the massive Carmichael coal mine and port proposed for the state’s Galilee Basin as “critical infrastructure”, in an effort to fast-track its development.

adani-lines-up-1bn-for-australias-carmichael-coal-complex

State development minister Anthony Lynham said on Monday that the Labor Palaszczuk government had invoked special powers to help progress Adani’s $21 billion project, reinstating and expanding its “prescribed project” status to include its water infrastructure.

“This step bundles together major elements of the project for the first time — the mine, the 389-kilometre rail line, and the water infrastructure, including a pipeline, pumping stations and a dam upgrade,” he said. “This government is serious about having the Adani mine in operation, we want this to happen.”

Lynham said that since the Palaszczuk government had come into power in Queensland in early 2015, 22 key Commonwealth, state and local government approvals had been granted for Adani’s mine, rail and port facilities, and 29 key milestones reached.

“Adani has now obtained all the necessary primary approvals for its mine, rail and port project – and most importantly, I have granted the mining leases.”

But while governments of all colours appear to be rolling out the red carpet for the coal project, there are other hurdles it has yet to clear, not least of all economic ones, as coal looks more and more like a high-risk investment.

As John Quiggan wrote here last month, a long list of banks and other funding sources have announced they won’t touch the project, or have pulled out of existing finance arrangements.

“The list includes the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (formerly a big lender to Adani), NAB, the Queensland Treasury and global banks, including Standard Chartered (another former big lender), Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays, as well as BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale. The US and Korean Export-Import banks and the State Bank of India have been touted as possible sources, but appear to have backed away.”

Even Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate behind the project, has appeared to lose interest in its coal plans.

And just this week, the energy minister for India – the main market for the coal that would be dig up at Carmichael – called on the country’s power generators to cease coal imports if the nation was to come good on its “One Nation, One Grid, One Price” energy goal.

Speaking at the two-day Energy Conclave 2016 event, Piyush Goyal stressed that the government would hold a dialogue designed to wean private companies off their reliance on coal imports.

Carmichael has also faced serious legal challenges from environmental groups – the most recent of which was rejected by the Federal Court – who argue it will further damage the already compromised Great Barrier Reef and take a huge chunk out of the world’s rapidly diminishing carbon budget, at precisely the time we should be reining it right in.

According to a November 2015 report from The Australia Institute, digging up and burning the 2.3 billion tonnes of coal contained in the deposit at Queensland’s Galilee Basin would effectively cancel out the pledged annual emission reductions of Australia, and for New Zealand nearly 10 times over – and that was before Australia signed up to the Paris Climate agreement.

“The ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement are completely incompatible with opening up new fossil fuel projects,” said Greenpeace Australia Pacific reef campaigner, Shani Tager in a statement on Monday.galilee

“It’s absurd for Australia to give special privileges to a coal mine as the global agreement enters into force,” Tager said.

“Paving the way for Australia’s largest coal mine just after the reef has suffered the worst coral bleaching in its history is indefensible. A project of this size, scale and controversy needs proper scrutiny, not to be pushed blindly through the approval process.

“The Queensland government is supposed to be protecting the reef, but instead it’s pushing through coal mines that will endanger it.”

Australian Greens senator Larissa Waters said the government’s move was reckless and short-sighted, when it should be focusing on meeting its target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

“Instead, they’re prioritising a coal mine owned by an overseas company, that won’t pay any tax in Australia, that will generate a fraction of the jobs that it originally claimed, and it will threaten the Great Barrier Reef and the jobs it provides,” she said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

48 Comments
  1. Chris Fraser 2 years ago

    The QLD government does seem to be off on some strange adventure, abusing climate laws. None of this gels with India’s determination to provide more renewable , produce more coal locally, and the plunging cost of energy.

  2. howardpatr 2 years ago

    The Queensland Government and Frydenberg and Turnbull might well turn to the ABCs Chris Uhlmann for support for their respective cases.

  3. Ken Dyer 2 years ago

    Absolute bloody stupidity. What service to the people of North Queensland. Down South, roads and railways are being constructed, new suburbs are blooming north of Brisbane.
    What do the Queensland Government offer North Queensland? A bloody financial white coal mine elephant that Adani themselves, not to mention the banks, are shying away from, a non existent rail line that has been already written off by Aurizon, and a port that will pollute the Great Barrier Reef. The people of North Queensland are being sold a non existent solution. Shame on the Queensland Government and the Federal Government for their support of such a non existent fairy tale. Where are the real jobs to come from? Not from a non existent bloody coal mine, that’s for sure.

    North Queensland has some of the most dependable wind in Australia – the trade winds.

    http://www.climatekelpie.com.au/understand-climate/weather-and-climate-drivers/queensland#TradeWinds

    That is the basis for a home grown industry – windfarms to harness the North Queensland trade winds. Not some dirty polluting coal mine in the middle of nowhere.
    How about it – Palaszczuk?

    • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

      Wrong on so many levels. There are better winds in SA and VIC. Don’t forget you have a great dividing range in that location. The better alternative is solar, with the highest radiance, but anyway, that has nothing to do with the Carmichael mine. Solar and some wind projects are and will go ahead in North QLD, plus we can still have some coal mines. Time will tell if Adani abandon this project, however the destruction of the GBR will accelerate by the coal import replacement strategy in India, burning vastly inferior coal in inefficient power stations.

      • Geoff 2 years ago

        Your right about sun radiance in the QLD. In fact 96% of Australia is covered in it. What Adani should really be doing is deploying solar in QLD (like they already are in India and on a massive scale) and selling the energy to Indonesia via HVDC. Be far cheaper to deploy and I doubt funding would be an issue.

        • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

          I would think that 100% of Australia gets sun radiance, however north QLD gets more and it has the grid that connects to the NEM. Sorry but HVDC to Indonesia is not realistic. Indonesia has copious amounts of coal and thermal power stations. They don’t need energy from Australia. Adani already has a solar project in Queensland.

  4. NB 2 years ago

    Can someone explain to me how India producing its own coal to meet its own energy needs can be a net benefit to the environment?

    • Brunel 2 years ago

      You would avoid burning diesel to ship the coal from QLD to India.

      • NB 2 years ago

        thats it?

        I would go through the process of explaining how that might be offset by the fact that Indian coal is miles away from the power stations & also needs transport, but its getting late and…oh alright then!

        Also (on average) Indian coal is awful stuff. When i was there last Coal India had just sold a coal block (one of many) to a company in Madhya Pradesh. It was under about 200m of Deccan Trap volcanics, It was high ash, and high inherent ash that will not wash out, it was also high in native sulphur. The best they could do was about 30% ash with a low (utterly uneconomic without significant subsidy) yield. This was many years ago and one would guess this was the good stuff!! The neighboring underground mine was a bord and pillar operation and i’m not kidding – 40% of the panels had either combusted and/or collapsed and were closed off. Blokes dead? yup. Geotech, geology and engineering reasons why understood? Nope. Blokes still down there right now? You betcha! Thats ok though right because it will STOP THE GALILEE MINES! RAAARRRRRRRRRRR!

        I digress

        It costs a lot more to both to the producer and the environment to generate each kwh of electricity this way. its just daft.
        Look up coal ‘Value-in-use studies’ its a concept in the coal industry that is in its infancy, however its something that the greens should be shouting from the rooftops, because it employs actual industry tests and expertise on specific coal deposits to determine which coal actually produces the best value power in any given location (lets say Indian seaboard) It takes into account cost of productions, coal quality, efficiency and suitability for the power station, ongoing maintenance, ash disposal costs, and yes, costs to the environment (albeit on a regional pollution level). I can’t provide these documents as they are proprietary and or so expensive that i can’t afford them :)), but have a guess how the Galilee coals stack up…go on have a guess…

        Also a lot of this coal will end up in China, Vietnam, Japan, etc etc, not just India. These a more premium thermal markets because they either have ‘better’ domestic thermal so only import the good stuff, or only import coal full stop. In this instance a washed Galilee basin coal at say 12% ash would be a much better value proposition than (for example) many HV/Gunnedah coals, which sit significantly higher on the cost curve with older infrastructure and, in many cases, higher ash. These coals have to freight further than the Galilee coals will. They also have better farmland down there. You hear the minerals council of NSW shouting support for the Galilee? No me neither.

        Galilee coal just wins on so many levels. its just a stepping stone on the path to a clean energy utopia, which by the way i am genuinely all for…in due course, when it actually makes economic sense.

        Its late. Time for bed. I’m sure I’ve convinced you and your friends 🙂

        • FIFO69 2 years ago

          Mate, no use trying to convince half of these greenies. The response of “You would avoid burning diesel to ship the coal from QLD to India” is typical.

          They are a simple bunch. They know coal produces CO2 emissions, its black and yukky and it is responsible for “killing the reef”… Better go protest it, don’t want it in my back yard..

  5. Russell 2 years ago

    “Speaking at the two-day Energy Conclave 2016 event, Piyush Goyal stressed that the government would hold a dialogue designed to wean private companies off their reliance on coal imports.”
    Superficially this may look like they are decreasing coal generation. I suspect that they are not. The move is possibly to develop more of the local coal which I believe is lower quality than QLD coal so is likely to generate more toxic pollutants and ash than ours. Worth checking out I think.
    Whilst, I don’t think the Carmichael mine will go ahead, having a fair chunk of that $21B and the coal royalties would be nice for QLD as it can’t get its budget under control.

    • FIFO69 2 years ago

      Exactly right Russell. India will be burning 300Mtpa of coal. Domestic coal.

      Indias coal quality is rubbish.

      If Carmichael mine gets killed on environmental grounds it will be a shame because the coal that will be burnt locally in India with create greater CO2 emissions and result in greater impacts to the reef.

      The Greenies don’t think understand this point… They are just looking simplistically/ideologically for the silver bullet, kill Carmichael mine, save the reef…

      The reality is that global warming is a global issue and must be addressed incrementally at all levels and sectors to increase efficiencies.

  6. JIm 2 years ago

    It now seems rather silly to have branded the LNP as the COALition, as if coal-mania was confined to conservative parties, when the ALP is capable of making such disastrous decisions.

    • NB 2 years ago

      Perhaps they just get into power – sit down properly, look at the numbers, realise behind closed doors that they all stack up, and get behind the project because its what is best for the state.

  7. Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

    So many untruths in this article, where do you start! I guess the most brazen one is that it needs proper scrutiny and not to be blindly pushed through, so what has 6 years of lawfare been about!? Green groups have attacked this project from every angle and mainstream governments of the left and right have continued to support it. It is a Labor state government who is reclassifying it as critical infrastructure. I don’t believe the word Labor Party was mentioned once in the whole article. CBA remains one of the largest lenders to the coal sector. The price of thermal coal from Australia has increased 88% in the last few months. Besides being shipped past the GBR, there is no direct threat to the reef. There has never been spillage of coal onto the reef. India still proposes to increase its own coal production from current 500 million tonnes per annum to 1.5 billion, that is right billions of tonnes per annum. The real threat to the reef is India and its coal import replacement strategy. The Green Groups should devote their energies to stopping what India is doing. The Paris Cop21 gives India, China and other developing emitters a free ride to massively increase emissions. This Adani project will pay billions of dollars into the Australian economy and generate billions of dollars of taxes and Royalties for decades to come. If the commentators are so sure that it is a dead project and uneconomic why the constant hysteria about it?

    • Ken Dyer 2 years ago

      There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who is clearly a troll. If you published under your real name then your comments might be worth considering, otherwise you have no credibility at all.

      • NB 2 years ago

        Why do you want to know his name “Ken”? What difference does it make? Why anyone ‘off message’ would post their real name on an anti coal site is beyond me. Some of you guys are so devoid of reason, if you posted your name while appearing to be pro coal (or pro development in general i guess) i’d not be surprised to hear of genuine believable threats. Molotov watermelons rolled through the front door perhaps?

        • Ken Dyer 2 years ago

          NB, anyone who uses the name “Neo Lib Yes”, (Meaning: Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.), has to be living in the past, therefore their views are outdated and do not take into account what is happening now. Having said that, alternate views are always welcome provided they are factual, and not confected nonsense about white elephants like the Adani coal mine. One should perhaps make reference to articles such as these:
          https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market-growth-to-2020.html
          and these
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-18/galilee-basin-projects-unlikely-to-go-ahead/7042526

          Unfortunately, people like Neo Lib tend to get led around by the nose by the government. It is as if they have lost the ability to think and research for themselves, but prefer a diet served up by shock jocks and right wing politicians. Fortunately for us, the world is moving on despite the lack of leadership by our elected leaders.

          http://theconversation.com/turnbulls-misgivings-on-renewables-overlook-economic-and-financial-realities

          • NB 2 years ago

            I do understand that there are plenty of articles against coal and that are pro-renewables, and don’t think i am against renewables for one second. My problem with statements like your around “alternate views are always welcome provided they are factual, and not confected nonsense about white elephants like the Adani coal mine”, are that they completely ignore the simple fact that enormously expensive feasibility studies have been completed on several of these projects which show, in a quite silly level of detail and taking into account an array of alternate scenarios and cost assumptions, that the projects are economic. If they completed these studies (which, as i’m sure you would understand are completed in a very dry-eyed sense, where no blue-sky views are really in the mix – as per the requirement of lending institutions), and the studies concluded that they are sub-economic or borderline, then Adani, GVK, etc etc would be miles away by now.

            For my view i would love to see the Galilee basin go ahead, on the condition that the water issues are well looked after. I would like to see coal as a part of the overall energy mix decline, and mostly i would like to see the greens step up and acknowledge that India burning its own substandard coal is not a good reason (from and environmental standpoint) to argue against Galilee coal, which is cheaper, higher energy, lower ash and requires significantly less rail!! To argue this is to demonstrate that the NIMBY attitude prevails and on the basis of reducing carbon output globally, makes little to no sense.

          • Ken Dyer 2 years ago

            The simple facts that predicates against the Adani mine ever going ahead are economic, regardless whether it would be nice to have, or its coal is better than India’s or not.
            https://theconversation.com/adani-should-bow-out-gracefully-from-its-carmichael-coal-mine-64608
            Here is yet another indicator that it is simply uneconomic
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-03/coal-india-s-output-drops-second-month-amid-weaker-power-demand
            Even Adani is seeing the writing on the wall and are investing in renewable energy projects in Australia
            http://holdfast.global/press-releases/ieefa-downsized-delayed-yet-again-and-still-unbankable/

            I stand by my white elephant (or should that be black?) comment.

          • NB 2 years ago

            i’ll address your articles one by one.

            1/ https://theconversation.com/adani-should-bow-out-gracefully-from-its-carmichael-coal-mine-64608
            I’m not even going to give this article the dignity of a detailed reply. The second headline in black says ‘coal price waning’, followed by a statement that the coal price has gone up 30%. Not sustainable? Why not? because china has cut production for sub-economic mines? what happens when sub-economic mines in Indo and Australia go under too? The Galilee cost of production is not (i repeat not) sub economic. this article just smells a little bit of anti-coal desperation.

            2/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-03/coal-india-s-output-drops-second-month-amid-weaker-power-demand

            Your article contains this graph to explain how coal demand in India is falling on a 2 month basis.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2bb03e5ab0b2c6ea992ee920ef661f14607a9ee8d4adcb39ab49c4398750d082.png

            How can you argue that this graph shows a structural decline in coal demand and keep a straight face? It shows a cyclical demand which is steadily increasing year on year. In any case, for every one mans opinion there is another:
            https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/08032016/outlook-for-indian-coal-demand-remains-strong-2016-364/

            also this graph was taken from the IEA India Energy Outlook document.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e92b9e9db8fc7687ed58c1e35551b9dc84bfe9731ee6428a02f11f089b640c3.png
            If India, China and SE Asia are to meet their 21st century energy requirements, then its an energy free-for-all. coal, nuclear, renewables, hydro, burning poo, lighting cows farts etc. if you can turn it into a kw economically your in the game!

            3/ http://holdfast.global/press-releases/ieefa-downsized-delayed-yet-again-and-still-unbankable/

            THis articvle just cherry picks the parts of the actual statements that were made. “Its 25mtpa so it doesn’t have the economies of scale any more so it remains unbankable”, says Tim Buckley. But Adani are looking at a starting tonnage of 25mtpa, and ramping up. Quite honestly all of the numbers ever bandied about by the IEEFA are always garbage. just spun to reflect the worst possible scenario with no attention paid to what is likely to occur.

            “IEEFA would also note the low energy, high ash thermal coal of Carmichael”. Its not often i just call something complete garbage, but this is just propaganda material that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. Tim Buckley needs to go away and complete both an (a) Geology (b) Mining engineering and (c) minerals processing qualification before he can make these statements. There are differences between resources and reserves. What can be reported as a coal resource under the JORC code and recently updated coal guidelines is a fairly broad church, and the resources can be reported as a whole, in which case Adani’s numbers do not look great on paper, or they can be reported on a seam basis, which shows a different story, that there are large thick cleaner seams which will either go through as bypass coal, with no need to be washed, or perhaps de-stoned in pit using no water to get them to specification, or washed in a CHPP. what is important is the reserve numbers, the product specifications (there may be more than one) and the overall product yield. These numbers Tim Buckley has absolutely no idea about (neither will he give them any airtime because they are not particularly bad!) and as such his opinion on this matter is worth nothing.

            Its good that coal India is focusing on increasing Indian coal production over foreign coal. Makes you wonder then why they have also formed several joint ventures specifically to acquire foreign met/thermal coal for use in India?
            http://icvl.in/patners.php?tag=ntpc

            these partnerships were set up in 2010, and amongst other things were specifically tasked with going out and shoring up supplies of coal for the future in India. Lots of money spent on projects. you think they want a return on that? …

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            Tim Buckley and the IEEFA are paid for by the anti coal groups. Anything they produce is nothing but anti coal propaganda. Sometimes I think it is a waste of time commenting in here, as people like Ken have a righteous belief that coal is bad and must be stopped. Most don’t even know the difference between met and thermal coal.

          • Ken Dyer 2 years ago

            Did you not read Buckley’s article? Doesn’t matter who wrote it, the Adani project was conceived in 2010. Six years later, it has downgraded the project. India has so much locally produced coal the power stations cant burn it fast enough.
            http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/sep/28/Coal-Ministry-shelve-plans-to-auction-of-coal-blocks-1523874.html
            Ask yourself why Adani is pushing more and more resources into renewables, not coal.

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            Locally produced coal in India is poor quality and cannot be fed into super critical power stations which is why Adani has been trying to secure a source of supply for 6 years. The Indian government has policies and makes statements, however if they are truly self sufficient then why is coal India doing deals with South Africa to source thermal coal? As recently as 28 August. Look it up.

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            Do you read anything else other than anticoal propaganda articles? Tim Buckley is paid by anti coal groups.

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            Your premise here is wrong in that why would Adani and GVK spend billions on the Galilee projects based on incorrect feasibility studies? They always stated that they wanted to have the coal in production and export for 2017 and now you can see that with no new developments occurring, other than via coal India, with inferior coal, the price of better quality coal is now increasing. Both Adani and GVK had a long term plan to secure supplies, however this is now under question due to the delays created by the enviromental lawfare. Even if they start development in early 2017, the coal will not be exported until 2019/2020. As stated above by John, Indian coal is mostly on the Eastern seaboard of India and has to be shipped to power stations in the west. It is typically very poor quality coal and is not even suitable for the super critical stations that Adani is building. In essence the scuttling of the Carmichael project will only exacerbate emissions from India and if you like, do even more damage to the GBR.

          • john 2 years ago

            Ken
            if i remember correctly the Galilee Coal calorific value is about 6000 or less against Newcastle Hard Black at 7500 the Indian coal is from 3400 to 5400 so it is a little bit better quality however not first class.
            The problem as i see it is $70 plus per tonne to cover costs and that does not look like being able to be sustained.
            The Indian coal is priced between $34 and $54 a tonne from memory pardon if not correct at this time.

          • NB 2 years ago

            John

            where did your $70/t come from and are you referring to Galilee coal or Indian coal? If its Galilee coal one can only assume your $70 value came from Tim Buckley or the Easter Bunny, both carry a similar weight when it comes to objective representation of the facts around coal.

            Also what basis are you reporting for your coal calorific values? You must refer to the NAR value (net as received) which is the calorific value on delivery to the power station, Inclusive of added water. The numbers you are referring to are far too high and are probably more indicative of air dried values, which are a lab standard. NAR values need a bit of work to determine, including lab ultimate analysis on representative coal and also a decent understanding of coal rank and total moisture.

          • john 2 years ago

            $70 Plus would be the break even value for the project

          • NB 2 years ago

            How have you worked out a $70 break even value? Even if you had the Alpha/Adani feasibility studies in front of you so many aspects of them are out of date. Break even values are determined by revenue and costs. you do not know Adani’s FOB costs so how can you even attempt to throw a break even value about?

          • john 2 years ago

            The last time i looked freight for bulk cargo east seaboard to India was $12.50 a tonne.
            Mine at $12.50 is not a high figure.
            Rail for this distance is low figure.
            Port $2.50 is low.
            Ship at $12.50 is reasonable.
            Interest on loan that is hard to nail down but i think using 2% is being conservative.
            I do not think as an investor I would be putting money into this project.

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            John, FOB price means freight is not included. So the price of coal is sold FOB pmt. You don’t need to calculate the freight into the cost. The current spot thermal coal price is USD78.95 which equals AUD104.21. They also will own the mine, the rail, the ports at both ends, the ships and the super critical thermal power station. Adani has consistently said that they can deliver the coal FOB for under AUD50, so there is currently a big margin.

          • john 2 years ago

            OK
            I am listening.

            I included freight because that is what the end user is going to get the product for.
            FOB means free on board if i remember correctly.

            If they can mine rail load ships and freight for under $50 a tonne they are brilliant.

            Delete the cost of freight from that figure so they can mine rail load ships for less that $40 a tonne

          • NB 2 years ago

            It warms the cockles of my black mining heart to know that assumptions around the ‘unbankable’ Carmichael mine are that is has >$70 costs. I assume that this comes from the GVK statement years ago that says US$55 costs, which (now i’m not making any assumptions around competence here), was a bit odd because their costs are in AUD and the coal is sold in USD. Lets assume that was a balls-up and their costs are $55 (AUD). Adani has stated that their costs are lowest decile at best, and lowest quartile at worst. this puts it somewhere between $38 (aud) and $55 (au) Lets give him the benefit of the doubt for now because, well you know… he knows his project and everyone else does not, and assume he’s correct in these cost curve assumptions. I have, as you might have guessed by now, some industry experience, and i think about $43 (au) is about where it will land.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f01048dd11dc90d0326e795185c87723df29bb449646f6852a27d8487e5907c3.png

            The graph above shows spot coal prices for Newcastle benchmark coal (6000kcal/kg NAR).

            Lets assume it will be somewhere in between – lets assume on average $47.50. At no stage through the coal price downturn in 2012, would the Adani coal have lost money on a (e.g) 5500 kcal/kg (NAR) coal product. Every single tonne would have turned a profit. That is before you take into account the finiancial implication of Adani owning and managing the port and power station. Lets work through it. The mine – owned by Adani, pays the port and rail costs to itself, and then sells the coal to itself and then sells the power to the grid. I don’t know what this does to the overall financial model, but it cannot be bad and possibly means that their real costs are even lower when all of this is taken into account.

          • john 2 years ago

            Old mate I also work in the industry.
            My figures are conservative.
            mine $12.50
            rail $25.00
            Port $2.50
            ship $12.50
            interest $26.25
            total $78.75

            Cost to rail 180 km to Hay Point historical price $16 a tonne I have used $25 for 380 km.
            Port $2.50 is low at this time some figures are above $3.00
            The mine figure i think is on the low side considering the logistical costs they will face.

          • NB 2 years ago

            That’s excellent. Good work John. The mind boggles at what your bearish cost estimates would look like.

            I just hope for the Industries sake you’re a dump truck driver and not a mining consultant.

          • john 2 years ago

            Well no not a dump truck driver.
            However please give me your breakup of cost to substantiate the project.
            I can give you actually reports of mine costs rail costs port and ship cost.

          • NB 2 years ago

            All of that stuff is proprietary information John. What your saying is you’re going to ‘give me actually’ a feasibility study or a financial model. I on the other hand have no intention of either referencing them directly or providing them. My costs directly reflect the approximate positions on the cost curve based on Adani’s recent statements.

            Your cost breakdown is, lets face it, pulled out of your ass.
            Also your rail costs need to reflect standard guage against narrow guage. That along with the fact that you call Newcastle benchmark coal “Newcastle Hard Black”, leaves me with some doubt that you know what you are on about.

          • john 2 years ago

            Yes i agree if they go to Standard Gauge but i doubt it.
            However reducing the cost to rail shall we say by 25% ;lets see how the outcomes are.
            mine $12.50
            rail $18.75
            Port $2.50
            ship $12.50
            interest $20.00
            total $66.25

            Still pretty high old mate.
            Mind there is no way they can rail it for that price.

          • NB 2 years ago

            Of course they can’t John…of course they can’t.

          • Ken Dyer 2 years ago

            Gday John. Adani themselves have estimated the cost per tonne is $87.
            The price for Australian coal is currently $72.90 a tonne down from $91 in 2012.
            https://ycharts.com/indicators/australia_coal_price
            It steadily declined to about $50 in April but has risen since the. However, this price for thermal coal is not expected to last and will drop again. Simple arithmetic tells me that Adani coal, if they can ever get it out of the ground, and rail it to Abbott Point then ship it is still over $15 a tonne in the red.
            Apparently, the Adani mine at peak would produce 60,000,000 tonnes per year. Based on those 2016 figures, the mine would run at a loss of $900,000,000, let’s just call it a billion dollars a year. Right now, Adani’s balance sheet is pretty poor, and this exercise will only make it poorer.

          • NB 2 years ago

            I think you two are making deranged numbers up to suit your story, and you think i am doing the same, so as i see it we have reached a stalemate. T’was a pleasure sparring with you and i suppose time will tell won’t it?

          • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

            Wrong. I comment in here because most of the punters like Ken are led around by the nose by the anti coal propagandists. Bloomberg and IEEFA are two that spring to mind. The comments I make are not personal and are based on fact, unlike Ken and now it would appear you.

      • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

        Yes you guys always devolve to name calling. Why not argue the facts? Why would I invite further personal attacks from the real trolls on the web? And this is not supposed to be an anti anything site, but a pro renewables. However it is taken over by the anti coal brigade.

  8. Geoff 2 years ago

    Seems that the QLD government are driving this white elephant now and not the other way round. Really can someone please tell me how stupid this government can get?

    • Neo Lib Yes 2 years ago

      Pretty smart actually, even for a Labor government, simple fact is they need the money from coal royalties, jobs and investment spending. A coal mine in Queensland will mean diddly squat to world emissions. What you should be trying to do is prevent India and other developing nations from building new coal fired thermal power stations that will burn the coal in the first place.

    • Miles Harding 2 years ago

      Fine collection of coal trolls here today.

      It’s more a dogma sled than a white elephant.

      It beggers belief that any sane government could going full steam ahead on this project at the same time their supposed customers are all promising to desert them. It can’t be a story that will end well for Queensland, with the taxpayer left to pick up the tab for their foolish government.

      It has been my observation that a lot of politicians will grimly hold onto a belief, particualrly one they were banking on to get them out of the manure, long after it is generally recognised to be rubbish.
      In answer to your question: You ain’t seen nothin yet! The public purse hasn’t yet been used to guarantee this folly that none of the banks are willing to touch.

  9. Miles Harding 2 years ago

    One positve outcome of this reckless enthusiasm shown by the state government is that all the regulatory excuses are now out of the way and the project can be left to founder on financial rocks. The proponents will have nobody, but themselves to blame for disregarding reality.

    Thes doesn’t mean that they won’t build it, just that all concerned will lose their shirts, including the hapless taxpayer who will undoubtedly pick up the tab for this idiotic venture.

Comments are closed.