# Coal and the Reef



## Glen48 (2 June 2012)

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]_Just hours ago UNESCO released their findings from their investigation into the Great Barrier Reef's World Heritage status and slammed the Australian government for mismanaging the Reef. The World Heritage authority expressed ‘‘extreme concern’’ about existing and future industrial expansion plans, warning the government they have eight months to lift their game before the Reef may be officially declared 'in danger.' The world's most important environmental protection body is now recommending an immediate halt to any new industrial expansion._
[/FONT]
 Do we accept shipping coal to which ever country is buying or stop shipping to save the reef  given we have no control over the standard of ships captains or their vessels and the weather the chances of a ship running a ground is high as the World sinks in to debt.

I guess the sale of coal will decline but it only takes one ship to do damage but if we don't sell how can the feds balance the budget and get re elected.


----------



## johenmo (2 June 2012)

It's a heart vs. wallet decision.  And if the reef, to all extent and purposes "dies", what effect will that have on fisheries of Australia?


----------



## CanOz (2 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> [FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]_Just hours ago UNESCO released their findings from their investigation into the Great Barrier Reef's World Heritage status and slammed the Australian government for mismanaging the Reef. The World Heritage authority expressed ‘‘extreme concern’’ about existing and future industrial expansion plans, warning the government they have eight months to lift their game before the Reef may be officially declared 'in danger.' The world's most important environmental protection body is now recommending an immediate halt to any new industrial expansion._
> [/FONT]
> Do we accept shipping coal to which ever country is buying or stop shipping to save the reef  given we have no control over the standard of ships captains or their vessels and the weather the chances of a ship running a ground is high as the World sinks in to debt.
> 
> I guess the sale of coal will decline but it only takes one ship to do damage but if we don't sell how can the feds balance the budget and get re elected.




Glen, you have been continually encouraged to provide links.....where is the link???


----------



## CanOz (2 June 2012)

Heres the link to the ABC story...

CanOz


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 June 2012)

So, we can risk a World Herritage Area for the sake of fossil fuels (coal) but there's no way in hell you'd be allowed to develop renewable resources in a way that affected a WHA (based on actual past actions of Labor governments to stop such things).

I guess that the coal industry has a fair bit of political clout. Either that or the perception is that the Reef doesn't have enough votes in key city seats attached to it.


----------



## CanOz (2 June 2012)

I honestly expected more from a government that claims to be sooo green...Especially with Bobby whats his face, isn't he like 'the jolly green giant'?


CanOz


----------



## numbercruncher (3 June 2012)

Make the Miners pay for all the damage - that should empty out thier bank accounts and encourage them to go to Siberia or somewhere ...... The cost of mining coal is becoming too great .....


Campbell Newman was on the news commenting , cant remeber exact words but in a nutshell said he would put the economy first ..... By that he meant coal - but it could be argued that over the long term the Reef would be a much better earner ....


----------



## joea (3 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> I honestly expected more from a government that claims to be sooo green...Especially with Bobby whats his face, isn't he like 'the jolly green giant'?
> CanOz




Yep! Shut down all planned shipment increases for the future, stall the Qld economy.
Well that should release a few workers to WA. well thought out gang.

The Premier makes one comment and he is "jumped on". No opportunity to have a concentrated look at the facts.
My question who propagated the reason behind the report?. Or did somebody wake up one morning, and say "well I will stall the economy in Qld. Australia this week."

Would not be Green retaliation to winning no seats in Queensland would it?.:
Well I will not be losing any sleep over an announcement that is announced on the weekend until I see a response
on "why, when, where and how".
joea


----------



## joea (3 June 2012)

http://www.australianmerchantnavy.c...6-call-for-great-barrier-reef-shipping-review
One would wonder if more pilots will be introduce to boats involved in coal shipping logistics.
joea


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

joea said:


> Yep! Shut down all planned shipment increases for the future, stall the Qld economy.
> Well that should release a few workers to WA. well thought out gang.
> 
> The Premier makes one comment and he is "jumped on". No opportunity to have a concentrated look at the facts.
> ...




Agree joea,

The day no green/leftie wakes up and says " who can I boss around today or spoil their chance for a better future than mine " is the day that I will eat my hat.

They are pathetic, predictable and boringly wrong, and out of kilter with the rest of australia.

gg


----------



## Julia (3 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree joea,
> 
> The day no green/leftie wakes up and says " who can I boss around today or spoil their chance for a better future than mine " is the day that I will eat my hat.
> 
> ...



+1.


----------



## rumpole (3 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree joea,
> 
> The day no green/leftie wakes up and says " who can I boss around today or spoil their chance for a better future than mine " is the day that I will eat my hat.
> 
> ...




So you don't care about the thousands of people, businesses and communities that depend on fishing and tourism around the reef ?

Add up the pittance that would be temporarily received from any mining around the reef vs the ongoing benefits of aquaculture and tourism,  mining around the reef is a pretty poor deal, considering our reserves of coal elsewhere, and the fact that China is trying to beat us down on the coal prices anyway.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 June 2012)

(many)Share holders of mining companies give not a toss about anything but the size of their dividend is the impression that is projected to anyone who reads between the lines.


----------



## CanOz (3 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> So you don't care about the thousands of people, businesses and communities that depend on fishing and tourism around the reef ?
> 
> Add up the pittance that would be temporarily received from any mining around the reef vs the ongoing benefits of aquaculture and tourism,  mining around the reef is a pretty poor deal, considering our reserves of coal elsewhere, and the fact that China is trying to beat us down on the coal prices anyway.




Someone correct me if i am wrong but i think the problem lies with the shipping lanes, shipping the product from the mainland through the reef's channels.

I also find it amazing that everyone thinks just because you speak up and want to protect a national treasure you must stop all activities that harm it. Why not consider that the two could exist together. How do we know that the shipping companies are not being inconsiderate of the rules and regs associated with shipping around the reef?

Anyway, perhaps as Joea says, its a bit early to jump to conclusions. The report needs to be digested and some debate occur as to the best win/win solution for all.

CanOz


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> Someone correct me if i am wrong but i think the problem lies with the shipping lanes, shipping the product from the mainland through the reef's channels.
> 
> I also find it amazing that everyone thinks just because you speak up and want to protect a national treasure you must stop all activities that harm it. Why not consider that the two could exist together. How do we know that the shipping companies are not being inconsiderate of the rules and regs associated with shipping around the reef?
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## rumpole (3 June 2012)

> Someone correct me if i am wrong but i think the problem lies with the shipping lanes, shipping the product from the mainland through the reef's channels.




Exxon Valdez ?

Increased number of ships in that area lead to increased risk of environmental damage.


----------



## Calliope (3 June 2012)

> UNESCO says the ‘‘in danger’’ status could be applied if the federal government does not give the world heritage committee evidence of substantial progress before February 1 next year




First of all we should tell the United Nations to butt out. If they are so keen on interfering in other countries' affairs they should start in Syria where the *people* are already on the endangered list.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> First of all we should tell the United Nations to butt out. If they are so keen on interfering in other countries' affairs they should start in Syria where the *people* are already on the endangered list.





There is clearly alot more people than Great Barrier reefs - bit over the top to think a few people are more important than an entire ecosystem.

But yes the UN should occupy Syria asap and sort them pesky buggers out.


----------



## Glen48 (3 June 2012)

Sound like the ship building business Korea were turning out a  ship every 3 weeks  then the crunch came but it was to late to stop the building now we have a surplus of them, China is stocking piling, cancelling contracts and putting orders on hold for iron ore so  you have to assume the demand for coal will pull back as well, maybe Gina and Clive have jumped the gun as well as the few bucks the QLD taxpayer will be on the hook for.


----------



## johenmo (3 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> Someone correct me if i am wrong but i think the problem lies with the shipping lanes, shipping the product from the mainland through the reef's channels.
> 
> I also find it amazing that everyone thinks just because you speak up and want to protect a national treasure you must stop all activities that harm it. Why not consider that the two could exist together. How do we know that the shipping companies are not being inconsiderate of the rules and regs associated with shipping around the reef?
> 
> ...



I too thought it was primarily about the shipping lanes through the reef.  There are issues that arise from this - the effect of the wash/wake created by the ships on the reef, discharge of ballast when they arrive (which is how some of the nasty marine life makes it here, not to mention left-overs from previous loads), lost items from ships, ships foundering and hitting the reef (2010?).  The following link claims:

A total of 282 oil spills happened in the Great Barrier Reef between 1987-2002.

In addition, 20 groundings and 11 collisions were reported on the shipping route of the Great Barrier Reef from 1985-2001.

Increased shipping traffic leads us to reasonably expect increased issues/disasters.

http://www.workincairns.com/great-barrier-reef/environmental-threats.asp

What is the estimated tourism dollars, jobs, etc associated with the reef?  As opposed to teh same from the projects?  And I don't include the personal profits - am interested in the jobs etc it creates.


----------



## medicowallet (3 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> I too thought it was primarily about the shipping lanes through the reef.  There are issues that arise from this - the effect of the wash/wake created by the ships on the reef, discharge of ballast when they arrive (which is how some of the nasty marine life makes it here, not to mention left-overs from previous loads), lost items from ships, ships foundering and hitting the reef (2010?).




Ballast yes.

As for the wash/wake

I am sure 1 cyclone per year would do more than a whole year of shipping.. and we do have shipping through reef areas right now without any problem.

I think the greenies got onto this one and it is popular at the moment.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 June 2012)

The Coal industry might be here for a couple more generations but the return on a healthy Barrier reef could/should last hundreds of generations - things should be able to work in tandem but the reef surely commands priority.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

Local Central and North Queenslanders have a greater interest in the Great Barrier Reef than some UN Tourism Ambassador such as Robert Mugabe.

The best governace of the Reef is local governance and I trust the Queensland Government to safeguard this local treasure.

Dills in the UN have no reason to dip their bloodthirsty fingers in to our business.

The Reef will co-exist with the Mining boom, and it will be managed by locals not by interfering Fabian socialists ideologues from down South or from dictators in Zimbabwe or the UN.

gg


----------



## CanOz (3 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I trust the Queensland Government
> 
> gg




Big call GG, i didn't think the words 'trust' and 'Government' fit together in the same sentence....

CanOz


----------



## Starcraftmazter (3 June 2012)

How typical, this mining industry is nothing but a cancer on our nation. Exchange a timeless natural wonder which can bring tourism dollars year after year for some temporary dosh off the back of a commodity bubble.

If only Australia was a democracy, then people would have the ability to vote on what course of action to take.


----------



## Julia (3 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> (many)Share holders of mining companies give not a toss about anything but the size of their dividend is the impression that is projected to anyone who reads between the lines.



Hopefully they care about the preservation of their capital via the actual SP also.
(Sorry, I do get your point.)



Calliope said:


> First of all we should tell the United Nations to butt out. If they are so keen on interfering in other countries' affairs they should start in Syria where the *people* are already on the endangered list.



Agree.  It reminds me of how they send someone into remote aboriginal communities every now and again and report back that we are a vile racist country, or something along those lines.

Something for another thread, I guess, but if anyone could explain just one thing that the UN is actually useful for, I'd be grateful.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> What is the estimated tourism dollars, jobs, etc associated with the reef?  As opposed to teh same from the projects?  And I don't include the personal profits - am interested in the jobs etc it creates.




Tourism has not produced any dollars for North Queensland, to any great degree since the former head of the ACTU, Bob Hawke, former Labor PM, screwed the pilots over in the mid eighties. Tourism has been in free fall since.

The reef contributes little to Central and North Queensland's wealth in comparison to Mining, Cattle and Sugar.

I enjoy fishing on the reef as do many other Queenslanders, and we do not need the UN's Tourism Ambassador Robert Mugabe, the Greenies, Crusties, interfering political ALP descendants of Bob Hawke, Greens or any other southerners to tell us how to care for it.

We love and care for the reef, and we intend to continue to ensure that the reef and mining exports co-exist.

Otherwise you southerners won't get any flow on funds for when you get thrown out of work by this Labor governments dereliction of manufacturing in your southern states.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 June 2012)

If you wanted to log near, but not in, a WHA then you're sure to face protests and are unlikely to get away with actually logging the area. It's been tried and the greens weren't happy.

If you wanted to flood 2% of a WHA for a hydro-electric scheme then there's no chance of getting away with that one. It's been tried and met with massive environmental opposition.

If you want to mine coal and ship it in a manner that threatens a WHA then no real problems it seems.

I'm not against coal mining per se, but there is bias here I feel. Can't log the trees, don't even think of building a dam, but do whatever you like as long as it keeps king coal happy. Much the same could be said about the general activities of the gas industry too - they seem to get away with impacts which would see just about anything else shut down in an instant. Hmm...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (3 June 2012)

I see no problem with UNESCO saying "watch out you don't bugger up the reef".  That's part of their job.  Watchdogs are a necessity wherever big money is involved.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I see no problem with UNESCO saying "watch out you don't bugger up the reef".  That's part of their job.  Watchdogs are a necessity wherever big money is involved.




It is a problem when you have unelected entities from afar with a maelstrom of ideology, administration and a top down we know best mind set interfering in local issues.

Local solutions for local treasures and dilemmas are needed.

Our dilemma is to protect the reef and ensure workers and their families have a sustainable future. It should be left to Queenslanders to sort out, and not some Greenie Show, some unrepresentative international organisation nor a political party like the ALP whose representatives have never had proper jobs.

For Gawds sake, the UN just made Robert Mugabe an Ambassador for Tourism.

That would be similar to making Craig Thomson the head of a Worldwide Organisation for the care of other people's money.

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is a problem when you have unelected entities from afar with a maelstrom of ideology, administration and a top down we know best mind set interfering in local issues.
> 
> Local solutions for local treasures and dilemmas are needed.




The bulk of the UNESCO Executive board members come from dictatorships. Our gutless leaders should tell them to get stuffed. Unfortunately their demands coincide with the Green's demands.

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/GBS/SCX/pdfs/ELECTORALGROUPS_2011-2013.pdf


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> The bulk of the UNESCO Executive board members come from dictatorships. Our gutless leaders should tell them to get stuffed. Unfortunately their demands coincide with the Green's demands.
> 
> http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/GBS/SCX/pdfs/ELECTORALGROUPS_2011-2013.pdf




How does that grouping work?  Looks like the cool countries are in group one then sort of ranked down from there. 

You can't just tell people who point out your flaws to "get stuffed"!  How would it be if you lived your life like that?  You'd never get anywhere.


----------



## Calliope (4 June 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> How does that grouping work?  Looks like the cool countries are in group one then sort of ranked down from there.
> 
> You can't just tell people who point out your flaws to "get stuffed"!  How would it be if you lived your life like that?  You'd never get anywhere.




Why not. Surely you don't imagine that representatives from this bunch of mainly dictatorships give a stuff about the environment or the reef. They are just interfering busy bodies. Have you ever heard of sovereign rights?


----------



## basilio (4 June 2012)

I was more than a bit curious about hysteria over Robert Mugabe's "appointment as UN Tourism ambassador". Last time I heard they had no such position.

Anyway after a little look its clear that is just another beat up folks. Always good to kick the UN in the nuts if you want to discredit something you don't like.

With regard to the damage to the Great Barrier Reef?  It has been recognised as one of the icons of Australia and our environmental heritage. The world bodies use that recognition to try and protect unique and high quality  natural environments from damage - almost always as a result of development demands. The huge traffic of coal ships, dredging and spills let alone the risk of really serious damage if a ship hits the reef and loses its cargo.

It would be a bit later then to clean up the mess?



> But after this grandstanding, it turns out that the Conservatives are the ones who look out of touch. *There was no appointment. The UN World Tourism Organization hasn’t named Mugabe to be its “tourism ambassador” for the excellent reason that it doesn’t have a tourism ambassador.* The story was hyped by the media, and the Tories give every sign of having been suckered in.
> 
> *The only nod Mugabe got from the UN was a form letter that goes to leaders of all the 155 countries that are members of the agency. It reminds them that tourism is now a $1 trillion global business and job creator in poor countries, and invites them to help encourage travel. On Tuesday, UN officials handed Mugabe and Zambian President Michael Sata their copies at Victoria Falls, where the 155 countries agreed last year that the pair should co-host a tourism conference next year. That’s it. No ambassadorial appointments.*




http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...-un-made-robert-mugabe-its-tourism-ambassador


----------



## numbercruncher (4 June 2012)

Haha - pack of suckers - few red faces now -


Maybe Mugabe can become spokeperson for the Coal Industry now he lost that Tourism job ?


----------



## Calliope (4 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Haha - pack of suckers - few red faces now -




Yes, yours and basilio's especially. The improbable short-lived story was given life by your favourite left wing newspaper, The Guardian.



> With a line-up that includes Drew Barrymore, David Beckham, Orlando Bloom, and Ricky Martin, the UN's choice of ambassadors has been known to cause raised eyebrows or the odd smirk.
> 
> Seldom, however, has there been such anger, or questioning of the organisation's credibility, as that greeting the appointment of a new international envoy for tourism: Robert Mugabe.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/29/robert-mugabe-un-international-envoy-tourism


----------



## Julia (4 June 2012)

basilio said:


> I was more than a bit curious about hysteria over Robert Mugabe's "appointment as UN Tourism ambassador". Last time I heard they had no such position.



What?  People actually believed this nonsense?   
No wonder you so easily fall for all the stuff about AGW.


----------



## basilio (4 June 2012)

Julia said:


> What?  People actually believed this nonsense?
> No wonder you so easily fall for all the stuff about AGW.





Wait a tick ! I didn't believe that nonsense. That's why I checked out the story and came up with the reference.

 If you check back you'll find  a number of other members used the "story" to bag the UN and it seems anyone who thought  protecting the Great Barrier Reef was good idea. And Julia I think almost all of those members  dismiss AGW out of hand.

From the look of it human rights people decided that absolutely anything Mugabe  was tainting  anything he was involved with -  which in this case included being the one of 150 plus countries to receive a letter from the  UN promoting tourism.

But the question remains. If the Great Barrier Reef is a World heritage site do we have a responsibility to protect it ?  And what risks are there to our future tourism industry if we do allow severe damage to the reef


----------



## medicowallet (4 June 2012)

What amuses me is that the people who tend to want to stop economic progress and development tend to be the ones who indirectly benefit from it, and in their poor understanding of the Australian economy actually think their cafe late lifestyle is NOT supported by the mining and farming industries.

People forget that it is exports that allow us to import, not the juggling of the money generated by these industries.

Give me a break,

MW


----------



## CanOz (4 June 2012)

To me the reef represents more than a world heritage site. The reef I s a truly natural wonder of the world, one the few left. I class it in the same league as the S.American rain forests. 

When the reef is gone, cash in your chips because by that time we have really turned the corner as a planet....nothing is worth saving anymore.

CanOz


----------



## numbercruncher (4 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> To me the reef represents more than a world heritage site. The reef I s a truly natural wonder of the world, one the few left. I class it in the same league as the S.American rain forests.
> 
> When the reef is gone, cash in your chips because by that time we have really turned the corner as a planet....nothing is worth saving anymore.
> 
> CanOz





Absolutely Canoz -

People who save the Reef will be thanked and remembered and respected for all time.

The Rineharts etc wont even be remembered in one generations time, they are flashes in the pan. Take someone like Kerry Packer for example young people dont even Know who he was - Didnt even leave a lasting legacy and once upon a story was probably one of the best known people in the land.

What is the use of an economy (especially a temporary one like coal mining) if you destroy a World treasure/food source/tourism source/job source/ecosystem like the reef along the way.

Need to get the balance even if it does cost jobs/money in the near term - half the people dismissing this report dont give a damn about Aussie jobs anyway (ie support abuse of 457 system) - A Hell of alot more revenue will be generated over Generations from a Healthy Reef.

IMO


----------



## medicowallet (4 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Absolutely Canoz -
> 
> People who save the Reef will be thanked and remembered and respected for all time.
> 
> ...




Oh please,

Save the reef?

from what?  The thousands of boats that go amongst it per year now?  or the extra ones that go through it when the ports expand?

From the dredging, for which the scientific evidence is sketchy?

From all the global warming over the past 15 years?

From the wars that start when cheap power gets cut off around the globe?

I really think that the coffee has got to your head, perhaps a XXXX or a VB might help you.

Our precious greenie friends truly have got a devout group of followers, and in their world is black and white, and there is no co-existance against their beliefs.... we CAN do shipping AND have a reef, the fruit loops who control the government and MEDIA have no idea about the real world or where Australia gets its $$$ from for them to waste on their crazy ideas.

MW


----------



## numbercruncher (4 June 2012)

medicowallet said:


> Oh please,
> 
> Save the reef?
> 
> ...





Even Campbell Newman is going to protect us from you right wing environmental terrorists - perhaps you should stop counting your easy coal mining dividends and realise the reef is alot more important than your narrow minded profits.




> Premier Campbell Newman says Queensland will stop the "free-for-all" in port development and work out more steps to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
> Queensland Premier Campbell Newman says his government will rein-in rampant port development and work out a strategy within a year to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
> 
> The Queensland government has been spurred on by a UNESCO report released on Saturday which threatened to declare the World Heritage-listed reef "in danger" unless Australia improved conservation and made substantial changes to its supervision of the area by February.




http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1655881/Reef-report-should-kill-Wongai-plan-TWS


Thanks goodness UNESCO came to town my Grandkids will thank them - but when they hear the name Rinehart , they will say , who the hell is that ?


----------



## Calliope (4 June 2012)

medicowallet said:


> Our precious greenie friends truly have got a devout group of followers, and in their world is black and white, and there is no co-existance against their beliefs.... we CAN do shipping AND have a reef, the fruit loops who control the government and MEDIA have no idea about the real world or where Australia gets its $$$ from for them to waste on their crazy ideas.




It amazing how the loony left will latch onto the support of a bunch of tin pot dictators in an effort to enforce their  views upon us. Especially if it is something that will damage Australia's economy.

A little bit of reality would help;



> And all this debate about the danger posed to the reef by shipping is nonsense. One cyclone causes more reef destruction than if all of the ships that ever traversed the reef since the beginning of time crashed into it.
> 
> During World War II thousands of ships were sunk on or around reefs, bombed and smashed, some of them oil tankers. And where is the evidence of that today? To the extent that they went down on a reef they are now part of that reef. The Chinese bulk coal carrier Shen Neng 1 ran aground on the reef east of Rockhampton in 2010 amid cries of outrage and demands to cease bulk shipping through the reef. But in reality it was a minor blip on the vastness of the reef, one that will quickly rectify itself.






> The Great Barrier Reef is truly one of the great wonders of the world. But it is a massive self-correcting eco-system with great powers of renewal. It is under no threat from fishing or tourism or shipping. It seems to me the reef, and particularly our lifestyle and economy, are under more threat from misguided do-goodism.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...shing-and-mining/story-e6frgd0x-1226381993882


----------



## numbercruncher (4 June 2012)

You will do as UNESCO and your other international masters dictate or you will suffer the wrath - Mr Newman is already seeing it our way in that the Reef needs protection from greedy one eyed coal miners ...

I noticed the article you linked in authored by Keith Delacy From Macarthur coal?  Dude how can we possibly take you seriously .....


----------



## medicowallet (4 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You will do as UNESCO and your other international masters dictate or you will suffer the wrath - Mr Newman is already seeing it our way in that the Reef needs protection from greedy one eyed coal miners ...
> 
> I noticed the article you linked in authored by Keith Delacy From Macarthur coal?  Dude how can we possibly take you seriously .....




On a serious note.

Yes, we should do environmental impact studies etc. but unless they clearly show a risk, it should be go ahead as usual.

I will support whatever the risk assessment result comes through at.  But I'd bet that it will come through as a goer.. 

Don't worry too much, if the world economy goes to crap, as it is looking, nobody will have the $$$ to do anything there !!


----------



## Logique (4 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> [FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]_Just hours ago UNESCO released their findings...[/FONT]__[/SIZE]_



_
UNESCO, yeah right. Amazingly persistent the reef, the endless pretext for the latest frightening predicament, we must vote Left or be destroyed. Yet there the reef is, climate change couldn't destroy it, but coal mining surely will.  As we know, coal mining also caused climate change._


----------



## numbercruncher (4 June 2012)

Logique said:


> UNESCO, yeah right. Amazingly persistent the reef, the endless pretext for the latest frightening predicament, we must vote Left or be destroyed.





Who you _Vote_ for will be of little consequence on this issue


----------



## Calliope (4 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You will do as UNESCO and your other international masters dictate or you will suffer the wrath - Mr Newman is already seeing it our way in that the Reef needs protection from greedy one eyed coal miners ...
> 
> I noticed the article you linked in authored by Keith Delacy From Macarthur coal?  Dude how can we possibly take you seriously .....




How can we take you seriously dude when all your posts are driven by an obsessional hatred of Gina Rinehart and the mining industry, and by class hatred and envy. 

And Newman is not seeing your way. He is actually seeing it *our way.* This is what he said;



> Mr Newman said there was an environmental argument that the more ships traversing the Great Barrier Reef, the greater the risk.
> “Now frankly I don't agree with that. What we should be saying is that we're going to put in place the safeguards to make sure that we don't have problems with shipping on the reef, that we protect the reef in that way," he said.
> “*The arguments from some of the very green, left-wing green groups are frankly spurious*.
> “If we listen to their arguments then we would probably stop increases in international air travel because if you follow their arguments the more planes in the air the more crashes you're going to have, and that clearly isn't the case, so we need to be sensible about these things.
> “I stress we're not going to hold back the economic development of Queensland but we are going to ensure we protect the environment as these new projects come forward.”




Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...reef-newman-20120604-1zrnq.html#ixzz1wowZ4F62


----------



## Logique (4 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Who you _Vote_ for will be of little consequence on this issue



He he, touche.


----------



## Glen48 (7 June 2012)

_Gina Rhinehart and her ilk want to build huge new coal mines and export facilities right next to the world heritage site. *Seven* new coal mines are planned, plus _*the largest coal export facility in the Southern Hemisphere. It would send thousands of export ships through the precious area, and massively increase Australia's contribution to climate change. 

So, what's the plan? Well, the mines can't be built without huge sums of cash from Asian investors, the most likely being the Indian firm, GVK. 

Gina Rhinehart would like investors to consider this an easy buck: projects with public support and low risk of Government intervention. 


*[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]So you can see why she wants cheap workers but 7 new mines who will buy the stuff by the time these are online the depression will bet at full throttle.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> _Gina Rhinehart and her ilk want to build huge new coal mines and export facilities right next to the world heritage site. *Seven* new coal mines are planned, plus _*the largest coal export facility in the Southern Hemisphere. It would send thousands of export ships through the precious area, and massively increase Australia's contribution to climate change.
> 
> So, what's the plan? Well, the mines can't be built without huge sums of cash from Asian investors, the most likely being the Indian firm, GVK.
> 
> ...




Hopefully she is committed to some gigantic high interest loan as it all begins to Crumble and Coal demand vanishes into thin air .....

Love the smell of justice on a frosty morning


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> ...and Coal demand vanishes into thin air .....




...and pigs might fly.

Name one viable power base load source that causes less *nett* pollution that can be implemented on the scale necessary.

Natural Gas doesn't solve the perceived problem and is a dumb move for other reasons.

Hydro and Geo thermal where possible, but not everywhere.

Nuclear, yes but what of the risks (but interesting potential).

Solar, wind.... pfffffft.

Coal will be with us for a while yet.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

True world coal demand isnt going to vanish into thin Air -


But demand for Ginas could if my our mate called Karma pays her a visit


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2012)

Gina undoubtedly has her own cross to bear (Haven't we all?).

All else is just business.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

Theres a fair bit of coaled reading around I see 



> Falling coal prices and soaring costs have forced Australia's producers to start trimming output and letting go of some workers, hurting miners, rail and port operators and potentially threatening plans for more than $30 billion of investment in new mines.




http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2012/06/07/australia-coal-miners-face-squeeze-new-mines-at-risk


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

We may even end up thanking our American brothers for saving our reef via a Gas switch  Coal is such icky stuff - especially the expensive Australian variety ...




> THE standoff between the Queensland and federal governments on environmental clearance for the $6.4 billion Alpha coal project of Gina Rinehart and India's GVK could be the *least* of the project's problems, with analysts questioningits economic viability after a collapse in thermal coal prices and a demand outlook that continues to *sour*.
> 
> Credit Suisse said its modelling indicated a "risk that the project may not be economic" because of the fall in thermal coal prices to $US92 a tonne (Newcastle), and the potential for its cash operating costs to be higher than its modelling for the planned 30 million tonne a year development suggested. Thermal coal prices have plunged from $US119 a tonne at the start of February to the two-year low of $US92. Prices are 20 per cent below last year's annual average price of $US115.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/us-switch-to-gas-puts-pressure-on-coal-prices/story-e6frg9df-1226385373194


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

Quotes like this should warm the cockles of any Australian coal bears heart ....



> "The capital intensity for Australian coal projects ($US141 per annual tonne) are well above that of other countries (including Indonesia at $US51 a tonne)




No wonder Gina needs so many " skilled " 457s 


Gee at that rate we may end up needing foreign aid _From _ Indonesia instead of giving it _To_ Indonesia!


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2012)

No matter which side of this debate you are on, it is hard to deny that the situation is not sustainable.

Amount of coal in the ground, rate at which it can be extracted and railed to port and then shipped. Add a few % compound growth to that each year and well within the lifetime of someone born today we're going to have some pretty serious problems. Problems like a peak then decline in coal production, for example.

My point isn't for or against any actual proposal, it's just a statement to the effect that Queensland's economy can not be sustained on this basis in the long term. Coal is a finite resource, and the rate of growth in extraction is starting to look somewhat scary...


----------



## Glen48 (7 June 2012)

We are all going Nuclear whether you want to or not:

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/0...-radiation-poisoning-mass-evacuations-likely/


----------



## Calliope (7 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> My point isn't for or against any actual proposal, it's just a statement to the effect that Queensland's economy can not be sustained on this basis in the long term. Coal is a finite resource, and the rate of growth in extraction is starting to look somewhat scary...




Don't worry, your fears are premature. The Greens with the aid of Burke will delay the project so long that it will wither on the vine. This is part of Greens/Labor's war on the miners and Queensland is the meat in the sandwich. The finite resource will stay in the ground and Queensland will end up being a basket case. 

Coal seam gas is next in line to get the chop, where the landholders are aligned with the Greens. Newman was elected on the promise to cut the environmental red tape but he is now up against the dugongs, tortoises and whales, and gases bubbling up in the Condamine. Shock! horror! The Traveston dam project was beaten by an anal breathing frog!!


----------



## numbercruncher (7 June 2012)

> Don't bet on costly Aussie coal
> BY: RHIANNON HOYLE From: The Wall Street Journal June 05, 2012 12:02PM
> Increase Text Size
> Decrease Text Size
> ...




Even the CBA bearish on Aussie coal - the beautiful Barrier reef is liking it


----------



## numbercruncher (8 June 2012)

Phew looks like we may be spared from these money hungry environmental terrorists for now ....



> QUEENSLAND will have no further role in the Alpha coal mine approval process, the federal government says.
> 
> The federal and Queensland governments have been warring for more than a week over the approval process for the $6.4 billion coal mine in central Queensland that is part owned by Gina Rinehart.
> 
> Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke this week said he could not sign off on the Queensland government's approval, calling it *shambolic and dangerously deficient*.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-more-role-for-qld-in-alpha-coal-project-approval/story-fn59niix-1226387694716


----------



## numbercruncher (8 June 2012)

This poster sums it up nicely -




> D H of brisbane Posted at 7:43 PM June 05, 2012
> 
> Coal pulled out of Australian farming land, shipped to other countries by overseas workers, the Great Barrier Reef is destroyed and also the related tourism industry, our water is contaminated and farming industry killed. All for the profit of a few mining magnates and politicians who have lined their pockets. So where does the average Australian win here? What happens when there is no more coal and we have no money to show for it and we have no farms, no Great Barrier Reef and no more jobs?




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/gina-rineharts-alpha-coal-mine-halted-over-great-barrier-reef-fears/story-fn7j19iv-1226384699070

Seriously what is the Gain for Australia out of this whole thing ?

We are better to let this type of mining die and our dollar devalue and revert back to Tourism, Farming/Fishing, Manufacturing, Education etc etc and all that comes with a lower dollar ..


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> This poster sums it up nicely -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You might find that farming is more of a threat to the reef than anything.


----------



## Calliope (8 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> We are better to let this type of mining die and our dollar devalue and revert back to Tourism, Farming/Fishing, Manufacturing, Education etc etc and all that comes with a lower dollar ..




Good idea! The diving GDP would soon wipe the gloat off Swan's face.



> The political awkwardness of the federal government's battles with certain states at the same time that it seeks to claim credit for its management of the national economy was on display on Wednesday when better than expected GDP figures showed the economy has been growing at 4.3 per cent. *The states the federal government is most at war with -- WA and Queensland -- have averaged growth of more than 10 per cent while the rest of the nation is struggling at just over two per cent.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ts-to-the-states/story-e6frg6z6-1226388084466


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 June 2012)

This is a matter for Queensland and Queenslanders alone.

The UN, UNESCO and the Federal ALP/Green Government should butt out of it and mind their own bloody business.

The UN has Robert Mugabe as a Tourism Ambassador for gawds sake,

99.999% of the world's population would not know what UNESCO do, if they actually do anything.

And as for the ALP/Green Federal Government, I am reliably informed by Channel 7 that they cannot organise a root in a brothel.

So leave us to look after our reef and the future of our young workers and families here in Queensland.

gg


----------



## joea (8 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This is a matter for Queensland and Queenslanders alone.
> 
> The UN, UNESCO and the Federal ALP/Green Government should butt out of it
> 
> ...




GG
There are certain boards in Qld who we do not hear much from. However people on these boards work in a certain ways to ensure they push their ideas on the people of Qld. and Australia.
No doubt some of their thinking may be correct.

Now this report above has been pushed by someone or group. Greens etc. The agenda is probably explained by the third person down on this link. 

http://www.cvent.com/events/coast-t...stom-21-5c7501dfa5784a6d97b4fb1be977da02.aspx

It explains what he is about and how he thinks. It just happens that he comes from my shire, and the board he is on, also has our current representative on the Cairns City Council.
Check who he is involved with in the abstract.
I rest my case. The gentleman is very very capable.
joea


----------



## Calliope (8 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And as for the ALP/Green Federal Government, I am reliably informed by Channel 7 that they cannot organise a root in a brothel.




In that case Thomson must be their last hope.


----------



## Julia (8 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> In that case Thomson must be their last hope.


----------



## numbercruncher (8 June 2012)

Once China goes off the boil - India to the rescue ?



> NEW DELHI/MUMBAI, June 8 (Reuters) - Frustrated by a lack of opportunities in India, Germany's Fraport, the world's No. 2 airport operator, is shutting its development office in the country, the latest in a growing list of companies exiting Asia's third-largest economy.
> 
> Regulatory uncertainty and policy gridlock have battered foreign corporate sentiment towards India, adding to a dramatic slowdown in economic growth and exacerbating a widening current account deficit that has knocked the rupee to record lows.




http://www.xe.com/news/2012/06/08/2723641.htm?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=TL&utm_content=NOGEO&utm_campaign=News_RSS_Art1

I thinks not -

Who could be interested in our coal to see the industry actually expand ?


----------



## ChrisJH (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This is a matter for Queensland and Queenslanders alone.
> 
> The UN, UNESCO and the Federal ALP/Green Government should butt out of it and mind their own bloody business.
> 
> ...




Hi GG,

Although your over the top hyperbole can be somewhat entertaining at times, I just wanted to step in and remind readers that it is just that: hyperbole, if not just outright disingenuous.

Presumably you're not aware of the fact that *The UN does not have a Tourism ambassador*. It is simply not possible him to be a tourism ambassador, when no such position exists. After doing a quick bit of research on your behalf, I have here are a few random links: this one, this one, this one, and possibly many more where that came from.

Actually and here is one from the UNWTO website itself. And just in case reading their website is too taxing on your ability to research factual information, allow me to quote it:



> Over the last few days a series of articles related to the hosting of the UNWTO General Assembly in Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) have been published which do not reflect the facts. In this respect, UNWTO would like to clarify the following:
> 
> The 155 UNWTO Member States decided, at the 19th Session of the UNWTO General Assembly held in October 2011 in the Republic of Korea, to hold the 20th Session of the UNWTO General Assembly in Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) in 2013. In this framework, the UNWTO Secretary-General was in Victoria Falls on 29 May 2012 to sign a tripartite agreement with both countries on the hosting of the 20th Session of the General Assembly.
> 
> ...


----------



## johenmo (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This is a matter for Queensland and Queenslanders alone.
> 
> So leave us to look after our reef and the future of our young workers and families here in Queensland.
> 
> gg




Sorry gg, I believe you will find that lots of people outside QLD believe that the reef is Australia's - it just happens to sit off the QLD coast.  The faith of the masses that business and govt will be able to ensure that coal and the reef coexist with no ill effect is, I would think, not very strong.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Sorry gg, I believe you will find that lots of people outside QLD believe that the reef is Australia's - it just happens to sit off the QLD coast.  The faith of the masses that business and govt will be able to ensure that coal and the reef coexist with no ill effect is, I would think, not very strong.




I don't trust the UN.

Locals are better at managing their assets than do good bureaucrats at a distance.

gg


----------



## johenmo (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Locals are better at managing their assets than do good bureaucrats at a distance.
> 
> gg




Hey gg - being on a forum at this hour of the morning - surely we have better things to do!!

I have to agree, but I don't know if distance makes much difference between local and federal bureaucrats.  variation on a similar theme...

And as for business being considerate of the environment...  yeah, well, hmmm...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Hey gg - being on a forum at this hour of the morning - surely we have better things to do!!
> 
> I have to agree, but I don't know if distance makes much difference between local and federal bureaucrats.  variation on a similar theme...
> 
> And as for business being considerate of the environment...  yeah, well, hmmm...




Just on dawn in paradise.

gg


----------



## johenmo (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just on dawn in paradise.  gg




Dark as blazes and "feels like" temp of 3 ° outside in my southern "paradise".  I love tropical mornings and evenings.  Enjoy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Dark as blazes and "feels like" temp of 3 ° outside in my southern "paradise".  I love tropical mornings and evenings.  Enjoy.




Quite a chilly 12C here in Townsville this morning.

gg


----------



## CanOz (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Sorry gg, I believe you will find that lots of people outside QLD believe that the reef is Australia's - it just happens to sit off the QLD coast.  The faith of the masses that business and govt will be able to ensure that coal and the reef coexist with no ill effect is, I would think, not very strong.




Great point, reminds me of how Albertans forget that the oil sands are Canada's !

If they found some rare earth mineral in my home province everyone would claim it as Canada's too....I wonder why they don't think that way about our potatoes?

CanOz


----------



## johenmo (9 June 2012)

CanOz said:


> Great point, reminds me of how Albertans forget that the oil sands are Canada's !
> 
> If they found some rare earth mineral in my home province everyone would claim it as Canada's too....I wonder why they don't think that way about our potatoes?
> 
> CanOz




   as for spuds  - some poor fool has to put them in the ground, then take them out.  They're not just sitting there to be taken for massive profit.  If they were made of oil or wanted as jewellery, they'd be in demand.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> as for spuds  - some poor fool has to put them in the ground, then take them out.  They're not just sitting there to be taken for massive profit.  If they were made of oil or wanted as jewellery, they'd be in demand.




If Eddie Mabo were alive and tried to grow sweet potatoes in his plot by the reef today, some bloody snot nosed do-gooder in the Greens or UN would probably take him to court.

These muppets in the Greens and war criminals and gangsters in the UN have no business telling us what we should or should not do.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Sorry gg, I believe you will find that lots of people outside QLD believe that the reef is Australia's - it just happens to sit off the QLD coast.



The problem is, those outside of the affected region always seem to find some reason to not pay the cost of preserving these things. 

Therein lies the crux of the problem. Resources are "locked up" in order to sway the Green vote in Sydney and Melbourne. But the residents of those cities somehow forget to keep sending the $ to pay the cost, leaving relatively smaller communities economically devastated.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem is, those outside of the affected region always seem to find some reason to not pay the cost of preserving these things.
> 
> Therein lies the crux of the problem. Resources are "locked up" in order to sway the Green vote in Sydney and Melbourne. But the residents of those cities somehow forget to keep sending the $ to pay the cost, leaving relatively smaller communities economically devastated.




+1

gg


----------



## johenmo (9 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem is, those outside of the affected region always seem to find some reason to not pay the cost of preserving these things.
> 
> Therein lies the crux of the problem. Resources are "locked up" in order to sway the Green vote in Sydney and Melbourne. But the residents of those cities somehow forget to keep sending the $ to pay the cost, leaving relatively smaller communities economically devastated.




Fir comment.  So how do you get those people to put their money where their mouth is?  A tax??


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Fir comment.  So how do you get those people to put their money where their mouth is?  A tax??




You don't need a tax mate.

We need to withdraw our $ going in to the UN.

We have muppets like Rudd, Carr, Evans and Fraser, lining up for $600,000 a year jobs like sucklings after birth, should a job become available.

We spend billions on supporting the UN, a non representative mob of turkeys and tyrants.

The money saved would ensure good governance of our precious natural assets.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Fir comment.  So how do you get those people to put their money where their mouth is?  A tax??



A tax would be the only realistic means of collecting the money. The big issue however, is ensuring that (1) it is permanent and (2) actually overcomes the imposed economic disadvantage to the region concerned.

Using this specific example, my suggestion would be that the Australian Government simply fund the entire construction and operation cost, for an indefinite period, of a rail line to an alternative port somewhere else thus enabling the mine to go ahead without the shipping issue. This overcomes the disadvantage for the mining region, but not for the region where the port would be.

In addition to the above, funding of alternative ongoing employment for those who would otherwise have worked at the local port. For example, this might involve direct subsidies to encourage new industry to the area. Such subsidies would be binding on all future governments for however long the mine and port would have lasted. A key point here is that it must be a genuine industry, not a "make work scheme" etc, with the subsidy being to influence location in an area it otherwise would not have been located in.

All such expenditure would be quarantined from routine debate regarding payments to the states. That is, the cost is a direct Australian Government expense and in no way affects routine payments to Queensland for other purposes. This point is necessary due to actual events in Tasmania in the past - best described as saying the Australian government paid compensation for lost industry as agreed, then took it straight back via reduced payments for general running of government etc. More recently, the same trick has been tried with health funding.

Yes, all of this sounds incredibly complex and expensive. That's part of the idea - make it hard thus ensuring it only ever happens when a real justification exists. It would also end much of the debate since the affected region then has no real reason to oppose conservation. They lose a mine, port, pulp mill, power station or whatever and end up with some other new industry (which would otherwise never have existed in the region) instead. Workers are still employed in similar roles to what otherwise would have existed, the environment gets protected, the cost ends up spread equally across all Australians. 

It won't happen of course. There's too many votes to be gained protecting things to keep people in the cities happy, and not enough votes to be lost in the regions which bear the cost. 

It's a sad reality that, for example, there are people in Melbourne who haven't even been to the Latrobe Valley which is just two hours away by car. And yet they're happy to vote for politicians who promise to economically destroy the entire region. And don't even mention those who think Bell Bay (Tas) is some sort of wilderness because that's what a certain group of lobbyists tell them. Fact is it's the most heavily industrialised part of the whole state and has been for decades.


----------



## Julia (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You don't need a tax mate.
> 
> We need to withdraw our $ going in to the UN.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

From the ABC:


> Australia is set to become the world's largest donor to education in Burma, with plans in place to train 20,000 teachers over the next four years.
> Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr says education aid to Burma will total $80 million over four years. [Reuters: Soe Zeya Tun]
> Audio: Australian aid to keep Burmese children in school
> Less than have of Burmese children make it all the way through primary school, but its hoped that aid money from Australia will change that. During a visit to Burma this week, the Foreign Minister Bob Carr announced that Australia will become the biggest
> ...




Given the history of the repressive regime in Burma, perhaps the Australian government might have been a little more cautious about throwing money in their direction, at least until the 'new Burma' is confirmed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2012)

Regarding my previous post, I should have added that it is in the context of a situation where some activity is halted "in the national interest" by the Australian Government. In that context, my focus is on how to avoid economically destroying the affected region.

Whether or not the Qld coal mines, or any other industry, should be stopped by the Australian Government is an entirely different question. I do not personally advocate that we shut the coal industry, although I do see a need to recognise that ultimately coal is a finite resource production of which will at some point peak and decline.


----------



## numbercruncher (27 June 2012)

Palmer wants to release some pollution around Townsville.



> Pollution dump not newsworthy: Palmer
> From: AAP June 26, 2012 5:39PM
> 
> 
> ...






> Mr Palmer said it was only the water on the top of the "really toxic stuff" underneath that had to be released before the next wet season to save wetlands and the environment in the area.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/palmer-should-be-denied-reef-dump/story-fn3dxiwe-1226409287832

Guess Townsvilles fate is to end up toxic like Gladstone ?


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2012)

There seems to be a bit of a concentrated push amongst the mining magnates lately


----------



## noirua (12 November 2021)

In this episode of Minutes with we sat down with former London gangster Bobby Cummines to find out about his life of crime, what he called his shotgun and the one killing that still haunts him...








						Bobby Cummines - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------

