This mine was about producing coking coal for export, how would that affect the lights?
3 Likes
So they did:
2 Likes
Meanwhile, in Queensland:
For those who came in late, Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin will produce thermal (not coking) coal of mediocre quality. The global market for thermal coal is not healthy. The poorer the quality, the poorer the market.
Much is made of jobs created by a new mine but, in a declining market, sales from one mine will inevitably be offset by lost sales at others. With lost sales go lost jobs. I live in the Hunter Valley - a coal mining area likely to lose jobs if Queensland begins exporting vastly more coal. To top it off, Carmichael is planned to be the most automated mine on the planet. More jobs will probably be lost in other states than Queensland gains.
A comment from the traditional owners:
http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/adanis-trained-attack-dog/
2 Likes
OT since it is Qld but Adani was caught out and the full force of the law (<-sarcasm) is applied. $25,000 for lying to government. Precious. We get what we deserve but our choices between parties is Tweedledee and Tweedledum as they reinforce over and over.
Prosecutors have called for Adani to be fined $25,000 for giving the Queensland government false or misleading information about land clearing.
1 Like
Double and re-Double on the (<-sarcasm).
It is twice worse when you read the ABC report.
Correction?
On top of the requested penalty of $25,000 reduced to $20,000 the ABC reports “No Criminal Conviction” was recorded.
The Guardian, usually reliable appears to have jumped the gun?
A Criminal Conviction would have provided grounds for government to cancel the approvals held by Adani.
2 Likes
It makes one wonder about the independence of our judiciary…
2 Likes
Not a defence of the individuals actions, however?
When one is aware of several closer to home Criminal Convictions of individual land owners (not a corporate) and fines many times greater than Adani received.
And all for far less significant transgressions in respect of impact.
No need to wonder for too long! Just plead guilty after the fact to an administrative error.
1 Like
Having created the umpire but found to their chagrin they still can’t win every game NSW decides to change the rules. This is a direct result of the refusal of mines at Bylong and Gloucester and of course a concerted lobbying effort by the Minerals Council, who declare that they need certainty. Yup they actually say that. There is no abiding by the umpire they need certainty.
1 Like
Having filled out Annual Returns in Queensland, it would be very easy to make a mistake in the forms or the supporting information. They are usually filled in by operational staff or consultants acting on behalf of the companies. I recall the company I worked for making a mistake and notifying then then EPA and lodging an corrected return (the form referred to an attachment which had outdated information). The EPA at the time was thankful the mistake was found and accepted the corrected return without any further action. I wonder what has changed.
I personally think that this is a gesture of sabre rattling by the Queenslsnd State Government due to the high profile nature of the mines approvals and that there are some groups keen to find any discrepancies within its operations to discredit the company and its operations.
The mistake also appears to be clerical rather than in breach of its approvals.
Now the Qld State Government has set a new precedent, do they also plan to take legal action for mistakes in information provided on forms, no matter how small the business (including family or small businesses which possibly are more likely to make smitakes).
That is Adani’s opinion, and defence. It failed.
If there was no breech of any of the conditions which form part of the approvals, why would there be an adverse finding by the court?
It is stated the reporting was only amended by Adani after the Qld Govt DES had turned up to investigate a complaint.
The DES along with many other departments might welcome voluntary amendments of forms. Should doing so after you have been caught out be excused without risk of prosecution?
Given the spotlight that Adani knows it is under as part of it’s project, would a responsible mining company ensure that it dotted every ‘i’ crossed every ‘t’ and double checked every official document.
Arrogance, ignorance or carelessness? Not a great start.
2 Likes
It is an offence to provide false snd misleading information in an Annual Return. This ia different to not carrying out operations in accordance with approval conditions.
If a mistake is made and a company pleads guilty, like Adami did, that the original Annual Return ihad incorrect information, the court would find that the Annual Return contained false and misleading information, even if such infor n ation was provided in err.
While I haven’t done an Annual Return for a number of years, itnis also possible like many government form that the default values in a form are zrero. This could explain why Adanis Annual Return reported zero clearning when in fact clearing was undertaken in accordance with its operational conditons…someone forgot to add the area in the clearing area box and when checking, someone saw a zero and asumed that the value was right.
If Adani was prohibited to clear the vegetaion in question, this is a far more serious offence and the Environment department would have taken action against this illegal clearing instead. This was not the case and the action was about a mistake in the lodged Annual Return.
Edit: I should have also said that the Annual Return is about annual reporting of information and data in relation to operations under an Environmental Authority (in effect it is a licence to operate an environmentally relevant activity), and forms part of the data gathering of government for annual renewal of these authorities. The Annual returns can present information on compliance with the Environmental Authority, monitoring data, etc and is an administrative process under the Queensland Environment legislation.
Whilst fines can be high (reports in the media suggest up to $3M), the fine issued to Adani would be considered very low due to the nature of the mistake they made. If the mistake was intentional and included information Adani was trying to hide from tge government, I suspect the fine would have been substantially more if the government had found the inconsistencies (i.e. not reported by Adani which didn’t occur), the information not disclosed was hiding a non-compliance with operstional conditions (which didn’t occur) or data was fabricated to paint a different picture in relation to compliance with the Environmental Authority (which again didn’t occur).
The fine recently issued to Adani was due to an administrative failure (non-compliance with an administrative process) and not a non-compliance with approvals or conditions.
This conspiracy website (as some might see it) reflects how Adani can be trusted to do the right thing.
Followed by reporting that some might consider nothing but hearsay.
And how good they are
Whether or not one salutes these ongoing reports, they could bear witness to the character of Adani as a corporate entity as well as its governance and ‘good will’ and importantly, day to day activity.
2 Likes
