Monday, August 14, 2006
More Ridiculous Water Costs
Australia Our Future
The Queensland Governments water corporation SunWater is currently building a $350 million dollar water pipeline from the Burdekin river 250 km uphill to Moranbah to supply water to the coal mining industry in Queenslands Bowen Basin.
The Burdekin pipeline will supply about 20,000 ML per year, at a capital cost of about $17,500 per megalitre of water delivered. Plus, the water will need to be pumped over 250km uphill, with an effective lift of about 700 feet!!!! This will make it the most expensive water in Australia.
So why is this happening ? Because the Queensland government has done nothing about meeting the growing industry demands for water, and when it became a crisis, the only option available was to build the very expensive, stop-gap pipeline project.
The most sensible solution would be to build the Urannah Dam on the Broken River, which would provide 150,000 megalitres of water per year. Urannah Dam would cost about $150m to build, or $1000 per megalitre delivered.
The Budekin Pipeline is over 17 times more expensive per megalitre than the Urannah dam.
So why hasnt Urannah Dam been built ? Because the Queensland Government and SunWater would not admit there was a need untill it was too late to do anything about it. There has been no integrated approach to planning for Queenslands water needs.
The fact that SunWater is currently spending $350m to build a 20,000 megalitre pipeline to pump water uphill for 250km alongside a river that has over 1 million megalitres a year running down it is surely a testimony to the short sighted planning process we have had in Queensland over the past 10 years or so!!!!
DJ
The Queensland Governments water corporation SunWater is currently building a $350 million dollar water pipeline from the Burdekin river 250 km uphill to Moranbah to supply water to the coal mining industry in Queenslands Bowen Basin.
The Burdekin pipeline will supply about 20,000 ML per year, at a capital cost of about $17,500 per megalitre of water delivered. Plus, the water will need to be pumped over 250km uphill, with an effective lift of about 700 feet!!!! This will make it the most expensive water in Australia.
So why is this happening ? Because the Queensland government has done nothing about meeting the growing industry demands for water, and when it became a crisis, the only option available was to build the very expensive, stop-gap pipeline project.
The most sensible solution would be to build the Urannah Dam on the Broken River, which would provide 150,000 megalitres of water per year. Urannah Dam would cost about $150m to build, or $1000 per megalitre delivered.
The Budekin Pipeline is over 17 times more expensive per megalitre than the Urannah dam.
So why hasnt Urannah Dam been built ? Because the Queensland Government and SunWater would not admit there was a need untill it was too late to do anything about it. There has been no integrated approach to planning for Queenslands water needs.
The fact that SunWater is currently spending $350m to build a 20,000 megalitre pipeline to pump water uphill for 250km alongside a river that has over 1 million megalitres a year running down it is surely a testimony to the short sighted planning process we have had in Queensland over the past 10 years or so!!!!
DJ
Friday, August 11, 2006
Queenslands Water - How Much will it cost ?
Australia Our Future
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is shooting from the hip cobbling together a "South East Queensland Water Grid" in a too-little-too-late effort to address dwindling water supplies in the fastest growing region in Australia. (See the Courier Mail. on 10 Aug 06.)
What has been lacking in the public debate is discussion about how much it will all cost and who is going to pay for it ? The Queensland Governments own rules for water infrastructure development state that all water projects must be on a full cost recovery, commercially viable basis, with the cost of building the infrastructure recovered from the users over the projects life.
There has been very little discussion about the costs. How much will the proposed new infrastruture cost, and how much extra will the residents of South East Queensland be paying for their water ? Will water rates go up by $20 per year? Or $100 per year ? Or $1000 per year ?
The proposed "Water Grid" will cost about $4 billion dollars... and will provide approximate 315,000 megalitres a year after 2011. This is a capital cost of $12,698 per megalitre, which must be repaid over a set period, say 25 years. This is before the costs of maintinging and running the whole system are paid (pumping water around, repairs & maintenance etc).
The cost of this water grid will be bourne by those who use it... that is, the industry and the ratepayers in South East Queensland. Or will the Queensland Government walk away from it Treasury Guidelines for the Financial and Economic Evaluatuation of new water infrastructure and pay for the South Easts water needs out of consilidated revenue ?? If this is the plan, this would be a real injustice to the rest of Queensland.
An what of the increased costs to the power generators of the Western Corridor water recycling project ? Again, this will be bourne by the power generators, and passed onto consumers. Will this mean all Queenslanders will pay higher power prices because of a lack of planning for water needs in the SOuth East ?? Probably.
Yes... we need new water infrastructure. Unfortunatelty, because there has been a lack of co ordinated planning for 15 years, we are now forced to accept knee-jerk cobbled to together solutions to address a crisis, rather than well planned, well considered long term solutions delivered in a rimely and cost effective manor. Does this remind you of the health system ? Or maybe the power network ? Well done Mr. Beattie.
DJ
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is shooting from the hip cobbling together a "South East Queensland Water Grid" in a too-little-too-late effort to address dwindling water supplies in the fastest growing region in Australia. (See the Courier Mail. on 10 Aug 06.)
What has been lacking in the public debate is discussion about how much it will all cost and who is going to pay for it ? The Queensland Governments own rules for water infrastructure development state that all water projects must be on a full cost recovery, commercially viable basis, with the cost of building the infrastructure recovered from the users over the projects life.
There has been very little discussion about the costs. How much will the proposed new infrastruture cost, and how much extra will the residents of South East Queensland be paying for their water ? Will water rates go up by $20 per year? Or $100 per year ? Or $1000 per year ?
The proposed "Water Grid" will cost about $4 billion dollars... and will provide approximate 315,000 megalitres a year after 2011. This is a capital cost of $12,698 per megalitre, which must be repaid over a set period, say 25 years. This is before the costs of maintinging and running the whole system are paid (pumping water around, repairs & maintenance etc).
The cost of this water grid will be bourne by those who use it... that is, the industry and the ratepayers in South East Queensland. Or will the Queensland Government walk away from it Treasury Guidelines for the Financial and Economic Evaluatuation of new water infrastructure and pay for the South Easts water needs out of consilidated revenue ?? If this is the plan, this would be a real injustice to the rest of Queensland.
An what of the increased costs to the power generators of the Western Corridor water recycling project ? Again, this will be bourne by the power generators, and passed onto consumers. Will this mean all Queenslanders will pay higher power prices because of a lack of planning for water needs in the SOuth East ?? Probably.
Yes... we need new water infrastructure. Unfortunatelty, because there has been a lack of co ordinated planning for 15 years, we are now forced to accept knee-jerk cobbled to together solutions to address a crisis, rather than well planned, well considered long term solutions delivered in a rimely and cost effective manor. Does this remind you of the health system ? Or maybe the power network ? Well done Mr. Beattie.
DJ
Monday, May 30, 2005
Mob Colonial Imperialism ?
I have been watching with some interest the whole Chapelle Corby trial. My interest lies not with the trial itself, but the reaction to the trial and the verdict from the Australia "public".
Listening to the discussions at social function and around the meal room at work, you would think that most of those expressing an opinion had sat in the courtroom in Denpassar for the entire length of the trial.
I find it quite amazing that people who are only slightly informed about the facts of the case and the legal processes in Indonesia can be so convinced that Ms Corby was innocent and that the court had got it wrong.
This mob "judicial rule" is almost like an old fashioned lynch-mob in reverse.
The strength of the public reaction to the guilty verdict has been very surprising. People have been calling charities and demanding the donations they made to the Tsunami relief appeal to be returned. People have been calling for a boycott of the airline Qantas because it flies to Bali.
Ms Corby has been tried by a well constituted court that has been completely open to public scrutiny. The Australian public was more than happy to welcome the death verdict from the same court for the Bali bombing suspects.
The Australian publics actions following the verdict has been very arrogant and borders on racial superiority. The derision that has been leveled at the Indonesian legal system by the Australian public is reinforcing Australia's image in Asia as an imperialist colonial power that wants engagement in Asia when it suits us.
What would be the reaction in Australia if the Indonesian community reacted in a similar way to a verdict of the Australian judicial system ?
Many people (who really do not know what they are talking about) have made the claim to me that "our legal system is better than Indonesia's". Really ? Consider this.... what would be the outcome if Chapelle Corby had been trialled by a jury of her peers as we do in Australia ? Well, a group of Indonesian residents, who are fervently opposed to drug trafficking, would likely have convicted her very swiftly and recommended the death penalty.
I feel sorry for Chapelle Corby. I feel she has made some silly decisions and will pay a huge price for it. I do, however, accept the verdict of the Indonesian court. I also accept the right of the Indonesian people to make laws over their sovereign territories and to expect visitors to abide by both the laws and the consequences of breaking them.
Australia needs to integrate into the Asian region. The region where we live. We are not part of Europe. We are not part of the Americas. We are part of the greater Asian region. Our future security and trade prospects will be determined by our relationships within Asia. The vitriol from the Australian public over the Chapelle Corby verdict will not endear us greatly to Asia. Our future depends upon making friends with our neighbours.
I do personally oppose the imposition of death penalties.
Dave
Listening to the discussions at social function and around the meal room at work, you would think that most of those expressing an opinion had sat in the courtroom in Denpassar for the entire length of the trial.
I find it quite amazing that people who are only slightly informed about the facts of the case and the legal processes in Indonesia can be so convinced that Ms Corby was innocent and that the court had got it wrong.
This mob "judicial rule" is almost like an old fashioned lynch-mob in reverse.
The strength of the public reaction to the guilty verdict has been very surprising. People have been calling charities and demanding the donations they made to the Tsunami relief appeal to be returned. People have been calling for a boycott of the airline Qantas because it flies to Bali.
Ms Corby has been tried by a well constituted court that has been completely open to public scrutiny. The Australian public was more than happy to welcome the death verdict from the same court for the Bali bombing suspects.
The Australian publics actions following the verdict has been very arrogant and borders on racial superiority. The derision that has been leveled at the Indonesian legal system by the Australian public is reinforcing Australia's image in Asia as an imperialist colonial power that wants engagement in Asia when it suits us.
What would be the reaction in Australia if the Indonesian community reacted in a similar way to a verdict of the Australian judicial system ?
Many people (who really do not know what they are talking about) have made the claim to me that "our legal system is better than Indonesia's". Really ? Consider this.... what would be the outcome if Chapelle Corby had been trialled by a jury of her peers as we do in Australia ? Well, a group of Indonesian residents, who are fervently opposed to drug trafficking, would likely have convicted her very swiftly and recommended the death penalty.
I feel sorry for Chapelle Corby. I feel she has made some silly decisions and will pay a huge price for it. I do, however, accept the verdict of the Indonesian court. I also accept the right of the Indonesian people to make laws over their sovereign territories and to expect visitors to abide by both the laws and the consequences of breaking them.
Australia needs to integrate into the Asian region. The region where we live. We are not part of Europe. We are not part of the Americas. We are part of the greater Asian region. Our future security and trade prospects will be determined by our relationships within Asia. The vitriol from the Australian public over the Chapelle Corby verdict will not endear us greatly to Asia. Our future depends upon making friends with our neighbours.
I do personally oppose the imposition of death penalties.
Dave
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
On Water and Our Future
Water is something I am very passionate about. Water has been undervalued and misused for a long time in Australia. As a nation we have taken an abundant supply of fresh, free water for granted.
Now, because water has run short, and owing to inappropriate development in Southern Australia, the conventional wisdom is that farming is bad, irrigation is bad, and that because of environmental concerns, Australia can no longer build appropriate new water infrastructure to provide for future industry, commerce and employment.
It appears to be the majority view that becasue there have been some mistakes made in the Murray Darling Basin (over clearing, over irrigating fragile solis, diverting too much water from the watercourses etc.), therefore we cannot build a new dam or weir. ANYWHERE. This is really quite illogical.
The problems in the Murray Darling can be avoided by opting for appropriate development in areas where there is sufficient water to enable BOTH the needs of industry (ie. people) and the needs of the environment to be met.
The entire Murray Darling Basin (Stretching across 4 states from Queensland to Adelaide), accounts for only 6.1% of Australia's surface water supply (See Water and the Australian Economy) . By comparison, Australia's North East (including QLD Coast & Gulf) accounts for 44.4% of Australia's divertible surface water. This is where future development should occur.
However, efforts to develop new industry in the North are being thwarted because of the Southern Australian view that because there are problems in the Murray Darling Basin, then all water related development is therefore bad. The North has the available water, and can develop it sustainably to provide a foundation for future economic growth and emplyment for future generations.
The Burdekin Catchment in Queenslands North is a vast, hydrologically rich catchment, with significant quantities of undeveloped water resource. For example, the Bowen Broken sub catchment withing the Burdekin, has streamflows in excess of 1 million megalitres per year, and is less than 4% diverted.
The proposed Urannah Dam project in the Bowen & Broken Rivers sub catchment would provide sufficent water to sustain a significant new sustainable farming area of around 20,000 hectares, supply the future needs of the coal mining industry in the Bowen basin and for power generation at Collinsville. If Urannah Dam were built, the Bowen / Broken River System would still only be around 14% diverted, leaving 86% of streamflows for the environment (See Burdekin Water Supply Planning Study section 6.5.3) .
This project has been discredited by government and non-government groups who are applying the urban myths about water related development that have evolved in Southern Australia. Projects like Urannah Dam can be developed with managed environmental impacts, to provide an economic foundation for Our Future.
Dave
Now, because water has run short, and owing to inappropriate development in Southern Australia, the conventional wisdom is that farming is bad, irrigation is bad, and that because of environmental concerns, Australia can no longer build appropriate new water infrastructure to provide for future industry, commerce and employment.
It appears to be the majority view that becasue there have been some mistakes made in the Murray Darling Basin (over clearing, over irrigating fragile solis, diverting too much water from the watercourses etc.), therefore we cannot build a new dam or weir. ANYWHERE. This is really quite illogical.
The problems in the Murray Darling can be avoided by opting for appropriate development in areas where there is sufficient water to enable BOTH the needs of industry (ie. people) and the needs of the environment to be met.
The entire Murray Darling Basin (Stretching across 4 states from Queensland to Adelaide), accounts for only 6.1% of Australia's surface water supply (See Water and the Australian Economy) . By comparison, Australia's North East (including QLD Coast & Gulf) accounts for 44.4% of Australia's divertible surface water. This is where future development should occur.
However, efforts to develop new industry in the North are being thwarted because of the Southern Australian view that because there are problems in the Murray Darling Basin, then all water related development is therefore bad. The North has the available water, and can develop it sustainably to provide a foundation for future economic growth and emplyment for future generations.
The Burdekin Catchment in Queenslands North is a vast, hydrologically rich catchment, with significant quantities of undeveloped water resource. For example, the Bowen Broken sub catchment withing the Burdekin, has streamflows in excess of 1 million megalitres per year, and is less than 4% diverted.
The proposed Urannah Dam project in the Bowen & Broken Rivers sub catchment would provide sufficent water to sustain a significant new sustainable farming area of around 20,000 hectares, supply the future needs of the coal mining industry in the Bowen basin and for power generation at Collinsville. If Urannah Dam were built, the Bowen / Broken River System would still only be around 14% diverted, leaving 86% of streamflows for the environment (See Burdekin Water Supply Planning Study section 6.5.3) .
This project has been discredited by government and non-government groups who are applying the urban myths about water related development that have evolved in Southern Australia. Projects like Urannah Dam can be developed with managed environmental impacts, to provide an economic foundation for Our Future.
Dave
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Australia Our Future.... an introduction....
Hello world..... (I think someone else uses that greeting???).... let me introduce my Blog. You see.... I am a born cynic....with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in, and I am keen to reach out to to others who question the direction Australia is heading.
This is not about pushing a particular political line (I am equally critical of both conservative and Labour governments)....rather it is about questioning "conventional wisdoms" that seem to develop, and, ultimately be accepted as "the way things are" without any public debate or consultation.
Things like... we dont build dams or water infrastructure.... the environment is more important than people.... we should lock up children in mandatory detention..... governments cant borrow money to invest in income producing infrastructure.... huge budget surpluses are the mark of success for governments. I dont recall these issues being debated.... and I am not sure that these "conventional wisdoms" are in the best interests of "Australia....Our Future".
I aim to publish ideas, information, links to interesting documents, reading lists and all sorts of interesting stuff. Drop me a line if you wish.... and add your two bobs worth to the thoughts on this site.
Cheers
Dave
This is not about pushing a particular political line (I am equally critical of both conservative and Labour governments)....rather it is about questioning "conventional wisdoms" that seem to develop, and, ultimately be accepted as "the way things are" without any public debate or consultation.
Things like... we dont build dams or water infrastructure.... the environment is more important than people.... we should lock up children in mandatory detention..... governments cant borrow money to invest in income producing infrastructure.... huge budget surpluses are the mark of success for governments. I dont recall these issues being debated.... and I am not sure that these "conventional wisdoms" are in the best interests of "Australia....Our Future".
I aim to publish ideas, information, links to interesting documents, reading lists and all sorts of interesting stuff. Drop me a line if you wish.... and add your two bobs worth to the thoughts on this site.
Cheers
Dave
A bit on Schools
Australia Our Future
My 17 year old year 12 student came home the other day asking questions a bout Shakespears 'Macbeth' (which I painfully studied myself at school).
She is enrolled in a Queensland public school.... a school that I have a lot of respect for.
As the questions about 'Macbeth' flowed, I tended to give the standard answer - "Why dont you refer to the text and find the answer ?" (a predictable parental response... especially for parents who cant remeber the intricaies of the relationships in Macbeth 20 years later).
The response ? "I havent read the text."
Dad's response ? "#@#$$#@$@ read it then!!!!"
Students response ? "We dont have to read it, the teacher said we can just watch the movie". (I think it has Mel Gibson in it.)
Well.... that just sent me right off. When I challenged that I didnt believe the teacher would say that... Student was adamant. I was sure that would not be the case.
So... next day I happen to be involved in a meeting with the School Principal and the Head of the English Department. To my utter amazement, Students version of the story was confirmed. "We dont have enough time for the kids to actually read the play. It's enough that they are aware of the plot and the storyline, so the movie is sufficient", answered the Head of the English department.
When I expressed my disappointment and amazement (how will they learn to read, discern, judge etc. etc. blah, blah), the response was "You are out of step with the thinking of Education Queensland, and if you disagree, you should take it up with them", said Head of Dept English.
I really feel our kids already get enough of "Hollywoods" version of the world, without the education system turning over the school curriculum to their control as well.
I sometimes fear for Our Future!!!!
Dave
P.S. I did go out and purchase my daughter a copy of the text with a plain english translation included... she read it.... actually enjoyed it.... and did very well in the assessment tasks. Pity the school could not take the same approach.
My 17 year old year 12 student came home the other day asking questions a bout Shakespears 'Macbeth' (which I painfully studied myself at school).
She is enrolled in a Queensland public school.... a school that I have a lot of respect for.
As the questions about 'Macbeth' flowed, I tended to give the standard answer - "Why dont you refer to the text and find the answer ?" (a predictable parental response... especially for parents who cant remeber the intricaies of the relationships in Macbeth 20 years later).
The response ? "I havent read the text."
Dad's response ? "#@#$$#@$@ read it then!!!!"
Students response ? "We dont have to read it, the teacher said we can just watch the movie". (I think it has Mel Gibson in it.)
Well.... that just sent me right off. When I challenged that I didnt believe the teacher would say that... Student was adamant. I was sure that would not be the case.
So... next day I happen to be involved in a meeting with the School Principal and the Head of the English Department. To my utter amazement, Students version of the story was confirmed. "We dont have enough time for the kids to actually read the play. It's enough that they are aware of the plot and the storyline, so the movie is sufficient", answered the Head of the English department.
When I expressed my disappointment and amazement (how will they learn to read, discern, judge etc. etc. blah, blah), the response was "You are out of step with the thinking of Education Queensland, and if you disagree, you should take it up with them", said Head of Dept English.
I really feel our kids already get enough of "Hollywoods" version of the world, without the education system turning over the school curriculum to their control as well.
I sometimes fear for Our Future!!!!
Dave
P.S. I did go out and purchase my daughter a copy of the text with a plain english translation included... she read it.... actually enjoyed it.... and did very well in the assessment tasks. Pity the school could not take the same approach.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Ok .... lets start with the Budget
We have ports so choked that we cant get our exports out quick enough... we have a national skills shortage and falling enrollments in universities.... we have a national lack of housing for low income residents.... and the Australian Government trumpeted an $8 Billion surplus (and this was after splurging on meaningless tax cuts and other such like).
All of the public analysis by our mainstream media has been focused on whether the tax cuts where big enough.... or fighting over who should get them. There has been a bit of a whimper about there being no funds for infrastructure etc..... but generally no true questioning of the underlying basis of the budget..... a big surplus is good and tax cuts are the best option for Our Future.
Sure.... when Australia's government debt was out of control, and interest payments were rivalling our spending on health and education.... there was sense in curbing government spending. The "low govt spending" mantra began with solid justification.. Things have changed. Within 3 years (at current rate of federal surpluses), there will be no commonwealth debt. But the wisdom continues that ALL government borrowing is bad. The low debt mindset has resulted in a plummeting investment in our infrastructure foudations... ports, water infrastructure, power, transport.... all those things that provide for Our Future.
While industry is screaming out for underlying infrastructure and services.... to have the commonwealth stacking away $8 billion per year, and using the surpluses to pay down debt.... may look sensible in the short term.... but is really stupid in the long run.
Queensland has surge ahead economically over the past 10 years. Why is this ? It has been on the back of excess capacity in infrastructure provided by the last generation of governments (yes.... thats right.... predominantly by that beligerant character Sir Joh). It was the excess capacity in ports, rail, power, water.... that has enabled Queensland to seize opportunities in mining, manufacturing, processing, and food production. That excess capacity has now gone..... and new infrastructure is not being created.
Our Future depends upon people being able to pay their way in the world... it depends on jobs.... on indsutry.... on sustainable development, This all depends on infrastructure.... both hard (ports, power, water etc) and soft (people... education, training, skills). We have to spend our money in these areas.... if we want to be able to continue to earn incomes in the future.
Government should borrow to build assets that deliver benefits over an extended time period. It's good economic sense. What we are doing now in non-sense. Wake up Australia.... Our Future depends upon it.
Dave
All of the public analysis by our mainstream media has been focused on whether the tax cuts where big enough.... or fighting over who should get them. There has been a bit of a whimper about there being no funds for infrastructure etc..... but generally no true questioning of the underlying basis of the budget..... a big surplus is good and tax cuts are the best option for Our Future.
Sure.... when Australia's government debt was out of control, and interest payments were rivalling our spending on health and education.... there was sense in curbing government spending. The "low govt spending" mantra began with solid justification.. Things have changed. Within 3 years (at current rate of federal surpluses), there will be no commonwealth debt. But the wisdom continues that ALL government borrowing is bad. The low debt mindset has resulted in a plummeting investment in our infrastructure foudations... ports, water infrastructure, power, transport.... all those things that provide for Our Future.
While industry is screaming out for underlying infrastructure and services.... to have the commonwealth stacking away $8 billion per year, and using the surpluses to pay down debt.... may look sensible in the short term.... but is really stupid in the long run.
Queensland has surge ahead economically over the past 10 years. Why is this ? It has been on the back of excess capacity in infrastructure provided by the last generation of governments (yes.... thats right.... predominantly by that beligerant character Sir Joh). It was the excess capacity in ports, rail, power, water.... that has enabled Queensland to seize opportunities in mining, manufacturing, processing, and food production. That excess capacity has now gone..... and new infrastructure is not being created.
Our Future depends upon people being able to pay their way in the world... it depends on jobs.... on indsutry.... on sustainable development, This all depends on infrastructure.... both hard (ports, power, water etc) and soft (people... education, training, skills). We have to spend our money in these areas.... if we want to be able to continue to earn incomes in the future.
Government should borrow to build assets that deliver benefits over an extended time period. It's good economic sense. What we are doing now in non-sense. Wake up Australia.... Our Future depends upon it.
Dave
