Environment
Potential red faces in Tasmania deal
Kenneth Davidson The Age
If consummated, the contract would be the largest in Tasmanias history. For instance, if a price of $300 a megalitre for 1000 gigalitres is established, the return to the Government would be $300 million a year. No wonder David Bartlett has been running cold on the Gunns pulp mill deal. Apart from its environmental negatives, the royalties from Gunns from the destruction of Tasmanias pristine forests for woodchipping is $23 million. It is believed the proposed royalties from pulp do not reflect the real value of the resource. It would seem obvious that an agreement to sell water by the Bartlett Government could do far more for state development and job creation than the pulp mill project because there would be similar benefits in the construction phase and far more money for investment from royalties. Tasmania would, in effect, become a resource-rich state overnight.
THE ONLY way the Murray can be taken off death row is to release immediately 400 gigalitres of water from the Darling reserved for NSW irrigators.
And, providing the division of the Alexandrina is done now, this would require an annual flow of 200 gigalitres in the future.
The idea that this can be done by improved irrigation is a cruel lie. The water to save the irrigators and provide the environmental flows that will save the lower Murray and the 90% of SA that depends on water piped from the lower Murray must come from outside the Murray-Darling-Goulburn basin.
In effect the water must come from Tasmania. Water from Tasmania can be piped to Melbourne and Melbourne’s water from Gippsland can be diverted to the Murray via a short tunnel through the Great Divide and then into the Goulburn.
For reasons that cannot be rationally explained, the Victorian and federal governments have set their face against this solution for bogus reasons that cannot stand analysis.
For instance, the pipeline cost will be $12 billion (the people prepared to put their money up for the pipeline say the cost is less than $3 billion) and Tasmania is against the sale because it would undermine the islands water security (the water sold would be 0.8% of Hydro Tasmanias run-off into the ocean after the water has generated electricity).
The positions taken on behalf of their governments by Senator Penny Wong and Tim Holding to the effect that the Bartlett Government in Tasmania is reluctant to sell surplus water on a scale and a price necessary to make the pipeline financially viable is wrong.
For the past four weeks the Tasmanian Government has been negotiating with a consortium to contract up to 1000 gigalitres for the project.
At this stage the negotiations are centred on the price and the length of the contract. The parties are close to an agreement in principle.
If consummated, the contract would be the largest in Tasmanias history. For instance, if a price of $300 a megalitre for 1000 gigalitres is established, the return to the Government would be $300 million a year.
No wonder David Bartlett has been running cold on the Gunns pulp mill deal. Apart from its environmental negatives, the royalties from Gunns from the destruction of Tasmanias pristine forests for woodchipping is $23 million. It is believed the proposed royalties from pulp do not reflect the real value of the resource.
It would seem obvious that an agreement to sell water by the Bartlett Government could do far more for state development and job creation than the pulp mill project because there would be similar benefits in the construction phase and far more money for investment from royalties. Tasmania would, in effect, become a resource-rich state overnight.
Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review
Gunns’ claim that it has “complied with all environmental requirements” has been rejected by the Australian Government. Gunns executive chairman John Gay claimed in early July 2008 that the company is in talks with financiers and expects to begin construction of its Tasmanian pulp mill in November. Environment Minister Peter Garrett says that Gunns still has 12 out of 16 “modules” still awaiting approval. Gunns backed Gay’s claims in response, and stated that it is awaiting government permits following approval of all social and environmental factors at state and federal level.
Distributed by News Bites. © Lexis-Nexis
And …
07 Jul 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | John Breusch
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has rejected claims by Gunns that it has jumped all environmental hurdles for its controversial pulp mill in northern Tasmania, saying the company needs more approvals before it can build the $2 billion plant.
And …
GUNNS has flagged using a joint venture, potentially with Chinese pulp customers, to help finance its proposed $2 billion Tasmanian pulp mill.
“The company has opened the door for a joint venture,” said pulp and paper industry analyst Robert Eastment.
Equity partners would most likely come from Europe or Asia. “If they are from Europe, they would be pulp producers looking to diversify; if they’re from Asia, they would most likely be Chinese purchasers of pulp.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23966384-5006788,00.html