Shoalwater bay





Waratah Coal Proposal
Port Byfield - Conservationists Alarmed

Further information reveals terminal wholly within Capricorn Coast’s Waterpark Creek catchment

Local conservationists and the Shoalwater Bay Wilderness Awareness Group (SWAG) are appalled by new evidence obtained from analysing information contained in Waratah Coal’s initial advice statement (IAS).

Steve Bishopric (SWAG spokesman) says, “The coal terminal is best described as Port Byfield and not Port Clinton or ‘in Shoalwater Bay’. Although located in the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area (SWBTA) the proposed port is close to Byfield township adjacent to the Byfield National Park. The proposed rail line will cut through the Byfield forest, crossing the Yeppoon-Byfield road south of the military gates then into SWBTA along the National Park boundary. This project flies in the face of the Federal Government’s carbon trading initiatives and their calls for Australians to ‘THINK CLIMATE, THINK CHANGE’ ".

“Investigations show that the project is already well advanced and is seriously alarming” says Steve. The projected 100 million tonnes per annum facility will be located 3 km north of Five Rocks Beach (Three Rivers) and 20km from Byfield town. Steve said, “Facts revealed by the IAS and from the Capricorn Conservation Councils meeting with Waratah Coal’s CEO Peter Lynch indicate:

more alarming facts

 

This is the Waratah web site

You can find their Initial Advice Statement, IAS, on this page.

Project Managers :- Worley Parsons

Location of Proposed Coal Terminal

Corio Bay to Port Clinton

Stockyard Point to Cape Manifold

Waratah Coals Proposal - further Information

State Wide Body Corporate (Craig Hardy) wrote:

Points that have appeared in various investor reviews, Toronto Stock Exchange information and the company’s website .

  1. The coal is "Highly volatile" and requires a large spread out stockpile design. The coal is unlikely to be stored in large piles like the "coking" coal in Gladstone. Waratah are indicating that the first stage will have stockpiles at least 2.5KM in length with the associated stacker/reclaimers. Their "plans" involve a doubling of capacity and possibly allowing other exporters to us the same port facilities. The impact on this is likely to affect a much greater area of land (sand masses) than the rail and port facilities. The area of the stockpiles would require a much greater need for water than the usual stockpiles in Gladstone. The "X" on the map may need to be shown as a massive Blob up to 5 km long and 2 km wide, plus the rail loop and port facilities if the companies own information is to be believed.

  2. Waratah is not a "Large" coal company. Its cash resources are less than $100mill and it does not own or operate any current mines. Waratah has pegged a large number of "exploration permits" from St.Lawrence to Baralaba. It is very much in the early stages of exploration on these leases.

  3. Waratah is likely to have a large resource of "cheap Steaming Coal" at Alpha but it has not properly defined any mineable deposit as yet. Because of the remote location of the deposit and the comparatively low price of their coal compared with the usual Bowen Basin resource they will not be viable unless their cost structure is much lower than other producers. This appears to be the reason that they are not adopting the usual procedures for port and rail infrastructure.

  4. The Chinamax carriers they are keen to have cart the coal is a long term situation only. The first bulk carriers of this class have only just been ordered for the Brazil iron-ore trade. They require deep water ports at Both ends. Current bulk carriers will only require water depths of 10 metres, which can be provided at most existing ports including even Port Alma.

  5. The closest port facilities to Alpha are the Abbott Point facilities north of Bowen. There would not be much difference in rail line construction cost to any port from Bowen to Gladstone.

  6. There is no way that Waratah will develop this resource by itself. They will require a major partner if they are going to get serious.

  7. In the late 1970s, BHP and Lang Hancock did a feasibility on the development of the Wendouree deposits near Alpha (I think adjoining Waratah's area) and determined that it was not viable at that stage. There are other large deposits defined in the Galilee basin.

  8. Long wall Mining (an underground method) has the potential to cheaply mine this deposit. Open cut may only be viable in a comparatively small portion of the resource. Long-wall is extremely risky financially and has been used in various Bowen Basin mines over the last 20 years. Long wall mining is totally dependent on good roof conditions and this can not be easily determined until test mining occurs. The CEO is promoting long-wall as the potential least cost mining operation for Alpha. This indicates that they still have a long way to go to prove the viability of the project. I suspect that they are up to 5 years away from defining the mine plans.
  9. Whilst China has not been importing any coal (less than 2 mill tonnes /annum at present from Aust.) it is likely to increase its need for coal greatly in the next 10 to 20 years. The rest of the world wants Australia's high quality coking coal but not our cheaper thermal coals.
    Thermal coal is found in many parts of the world with lower cost structures than Australia. There is expected to be a boom in thermal coals, mainly from India and China but the world's resource of thermal coals is large.

  10. The initial reports of mining 25 mill tonnes per annum equal about 80 mill tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. This is significant compared with Australia's total yearly Co2 output and even the world's output of 70mill tonnes Co2 per day.