Another article filled with the inaccuracies we have come to expect from this author when it comes to the timber industry and his bete noir, Gunns.
Bartlett's only commitment to Gunns is the sovereign risk agreement - which is just an insurance contract. All the permits are approved (bad luck on that, looks like the mill can go ahead...).
The fact that the author writes about the environmental approvals "whatever that means" shows his appalling lack of knowledge, let alone balance.
And as for "no hope of attracting a JV partner" perhaps the author should read the Fin Review - Gunns has got at least two knocking down the doors.
The author should back this mill - it's in a heavy industrial estate, will use 100% plantation timber and will actually REDUCE carbon.

Hagar

It is prudent to provide links to support your claims when you declare: "The author should back this mill - it's in a heavy industrial estate, will use 100% plantation timber and will actually REDUCE carbon."

Your claim is in contradiction to Gunn's spokesman, Don Burke's advice in the following:

"The giant mill plans to be 80 per cent reliant on the island's native forest for its 3.2 million tonnes of feedstock at start-up.

"Mr Burke said he understood that in five years the feedstock would be 60pc plantation timber."

And no sign of a JV partner here Hagar:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24579425-5006788,00.html

Hagar, The people of Australia are finding the contradictory spin from the pro-Gunns' lobby, tedious, which only makes their claims more unbelievable!

Could you please supply me with more accurate and up to date information. Thank you.

http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/burkes-new-backyard-at-gunns-pulp-mill/1330161.aspx

With apologies to those introduced in Gunn's, I want to reply to Dickie's ill-informed onslaught on Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalis (TSE) on the ‘Stay rational on climate change’ thread earlier today. Having used up my post limit on that thread, I’ll deal with Dickie here.

He scoffs at Lomborg for claiming that ‘the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978.’ Wrong. Lomborg said that 86% of the forest remained intact in 1999, compared with 95% in 1978 (p. 114-5).

In 2005 Peter Dougherty, Managing Editor of Princeton University Press, commented as follows on an article in which Chris Harrison of Cambridge University Press (CUP) explained the considerations that led CUP to publish TSE:

“Harrison's account reflects a high degree of professionalism on the part of Cambridge University Press.

“In the first place, Cambridge drew on the experience of its social science and natural science editors to pick four peer reviewers ...—not two, as is usual, and is usually adequate, for most university presses … Harrison and his colleagues took every reasonable measure necessary to ensure the quality of their publishing decision—and this decision, made on the basis of four positive reviews, was to recommend to the academic Syndics of the Press that they accept this book for publication ... The reviewers were chosen from excellent academic departments, represented a variety of disciplinary perspectives, and three were chosen from a list of scholars used to advise the Press on its environmental science publishing program ... The Cambridge staff then took an important step in enlisting endorsements from a broad spectrum of well-known authorities in launching the book into the world ...

“If Harrison's well-documented account is taken seriously, and it is by this reader, then it is hard to challenge his claim that Cambridge accepted and agreed to publish this book not in spite of peer review, but rather because of it” (Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2).

Who do we trust - Dougherty or Dickie (whoever he is)?

I meant to say, "With apologies to those interested in Gunn's.'

IanC,
This article virtually dripping with emotion and according to the other side is full of inaccuracies. While the author is less than objective he still raises point’s that need explanation.
• Has the deadline been moved? Why?
• Are the stories (plural) on the ABC accurate or not if they aren’t why hasn’t Gunns gone for the big guns?
• Will Gunns ever be able to appropriately regen areas devastated by logging?
• Given that old growth forest has taken 100’s of years if not 1000’s in some species. Will the high growth pine really equal or compensate carbon or environment wise?
• How much greater is the fire risk with pine than OG?
• Do Gunns have undue influence in Tasmania?
• Have they abused their power by serially ignoring or breaking regulations?
• Are they getting the environment at bargain prices? Do their delinquent practices reflect this.
Dickie both parties are afraid that if they stand in the way of this project they’ll lose power. As simple as that. Gunn’s have similar attitudes to the banks in Wall St. They and the project are too big to fail.

“World’s best practice” doesn’t mean squat. Prove that this mill doesn’t put toxic sewerage into the environment. Can science guarantee that the cumulative effect of “safe level” chemicals won’t combine and create a “Gotcha” as they have in incidents around the world.
I ask what is the real cost to Australia for this project how much are we paying for each job? Is this the best use of our $’s?

Is this a case of that Gunn’s is the problem not the mill per se? I suspect it is.
I don’t object to a pulp mill just this one.
There is enough doubt and unanswered questions to wonder if isn't a a better way to employ 3000 people?

Finally the culture argument is emotional rubbish. It could’ve been applied to everything from wig powder makers to buggy whip manufacturers.

When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

It's credibility is severely compromised by "Are we to believe then, that the federal government has granted Gunns an extension until January 2009 knowing that Tasmanian permits will end on November 30, 2008?

The Tasmanian permits will not end on the 30 November and if readers want to check the permits they are available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment/pulp_mill_permit

The author is confusing the permits with a sovereign risk agreement on wood supply that appeared to be a requirement of the ANZ bank when considering finance. As the ANZ bank has withdrawn and the mill will be predominantly plantation based, the need for such an agreement seems to have passed.

The project received approval by the then Environment Minister under the EPBC act on 4th October 2007
“My decision followed the recommendations of the Chief Scientist’s report and took account of advice from my Department and over 36,000 public submissions received through the three consultation periods over the five month assessment period..."

“The Chief Scientist advised me …The panel accepted that the proposed mill was likely to conform to world’s best practice, and the panel considered that this was a strong argument that equally high standards should be expected of the interaction of mill operations with the environment.”

Again the author appears to be confused with packages of the Environmental Impact Management Plan (EIMP)

Current Environment Minister Garrett said in announcing the extension "The EIMP requires thorough and rigorous examination and an extension will enable Gunns to address the issues raised by my department to date and will also give my department, the IEG and me an opportunity to ensure that every finalised module fully addresses all of the relevant environmental matters set out in the 48 approval conditions for the proposed mill."

Garrett’s extension has nothing to do with Tasmanian permits, or agreements at all. The article should only be treated as pure speculation!

If you are concerned Gunns received an armchair ride check the Commonwealth approval of the Victorian ECF mill at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=223

For those seeking comment upon on the accuracy of ABC pulp mill stories then a place to look is in the Public Reports on Audience Comments and Complaints available at http://www.abc.net.au/contact/public_reports.htm

A good example can be found this years April to June report “The 7.30 Report on 5 June 2007 was found to contain inaccuracies. The complainant sought a detailed on air apology. The CRE’s review agreed with the initial finding that the item gave the impression that there was a scallop fishing industry in Bass Strait when there was not at that time."

Also in the same report
A listener complained that during the Issue of the Day segment, the presenter made an erroneous reference to the Tasmanian pulp mill using old growth forest.
Findings
The ABC agreed that the assertion regarding old growth forest should have been attributed to the Greens, not stated as fact.

These corrections also answer concerns that old growth forest will not be used, the feed stock for the mill will mainly be from eucalypt plantations, with initial supply from regrowth forest and a small quantity from pine plantations.

Details of the sustainable management as well as regeneration success in Tasmania’s public forest can be found in their sustainability report, at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/publications/sustainable-forest-management

Hopefully all these links work, however I noted my last post, the link to the EPBC Act assessment of the Victorian ECF Pulp Mill assessment was missing its final number 4, it can also be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=2234

In regards to greenhouse gas emissions the IPCC in its 4th assessment report found “In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

By processing that fibre from sustainable forests the pulp mill will save about a million tonnes CO2e a year in shipping and will provide enough renewable energy to power a city the size of Launceston.

Cinders
Fair comments I've relearned a important lesson don't comment on things I have no real knowledge of.
I still wonder at the stories that
- Show breaches of forestry in coupes.
- give clear indication of Gunn’s abuse of power
- Are getting the OG at bargain price.
- and programs from Europe and USA about legal level chemicals combining to form un anticipated problems. All different programs even channels.
I’m still not convinced that world best practice means anything. 3mile island was in operating standards until something went wrong. Tailings dams in the NT leaked polluting into the environment, Fly River gold polluted an entire rivers system but presumably they all complied with ”world’s best practice” of the time. Different industry true but Business still sees rules and regulations as inconvenient speed bumps.
I still ask given the cost per job to the Australian public should we be involved in a polluting sunset industry/technology and are there any sun rise opportunities.

Notwithstanding this I take your point and wonder in silence. I have neither the ability to wade through processes or the scientific knowledge to comment further. Clearly this is a case of who do we believe?
Thank you for the info very illuminating.

I have been following the plantation versus old growth carbon sequestration debate waiting for a single word to be mentioned:

BIODIVERSITY

Old growth logging eliminates the habitat needed for native flora and fauna. It kills many species.

Pine plantations do not provide anything approaching a suitable habitat. And native tree plantations are too little too late - the plant and animal species cannot and are not transplanted along with the planting of plantation eucalyptus.

Preserve native forests now. Gunns will have to diversify if it wants to continue and this is not an option its practices offer our native flora and fauna.

There are viable alternatives to old forest logging. There is no need for this discussion.

All this argument over whether carbon sequestration is higher in old growth forest or plantations is missing the entire herd of elephants - BIODIVERSITY

Examinator

You appear to be aware of Australia’s third world regulatory standards.

Allow me to ponder on a few catastrophic events in recent years:

1. 2001: Largest chemical fire in Australia’s history at hazardous waste plant. The Department of Environment and Conservation failed to enforce conditions, granted the operator $100,000 of taxpayers’ money and the place blew up.

2. 2004 An audit of the construction of Newcrest's gas pipeline from Port Hedland to Telfer last month found more than 6,500 animals died in the trench dug for the project within six weeks. EPA admits it should have placed tighter restrictions on a mining company in the state's north to prevent thousands of animal deaths.

3. 2007 Australian uranium mining company Energy Resources Australia has been fined AUS$150,000 after being found guilty of a series of contamination breaches at its Ranger mine.

Twenty-eight workers fell ill after drinking and showering in water contaminated with 400 times the legal limit of uranium. A total of 159 workers were exposed to the contamination.

4. 2007 December A flawed decision by the Department of Environment and Conservation, to lift a bushfire roadblock in the West Australian goldfields sent a convoy of up to 15 trucks into a firestorm, killing three men and leaving a trail of devastation on the road.

5. 2007. Ongoing. The lead poisoning of the people of Esperance by Magellan Mines. 9,500 native birds dropped from the skies.

Parliamentary committee concluded: “The Committee has identified major failings in DEC’s industry regulation function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies – exposing workers and the community to unacceptable and avoidable health and environmental risks."

6. 2008. Class action against Xstrata. "Lead poisoning of Mt Isa. According to the latest annual National Pollutant Inventory data, the Xstrata-owned operation pumped out more lead, sulphur dioxide, copper, zinc, cadmium and antimony than any other single operation in the nation in 2006-09." And the DEC? Invisible!

There’s enough to fill a small book Examinator – but you get the message, I’m sure.

Cheers

Examinator,

I agree that in the end with most of these big business versus the environment debates it boils down to whom you believe.

I choose unequivocally NOT to believe big business and their mouth pieces (including our governments who care not a hoot about the environment) until a weight of generally independent experts pronounce in their favour (ie big business').

I choose not to take seriously the coal industries claims in the climate change debate nor Gunns' in their effort to advance their pulp mill.

Garrett's decision to grant a postponement of the deadline for Gunns is in any case unpardonable given the overwhelming public opposition to the mill in the first place.

And a somewhat unrelated point - if indeed additional employment is a motivation of the government for allowing the mill to proceed it needs to be put it in the context of the retrenching of staff that will happen as the result of recent bank mergers that governments have allowed without protest - mergers that have markedly reduced competition in the already monopolistic banking sector.

DICKIE
Thank you for the additional info. You're right. However we differ in quantitative terms on the size of the book….Bloody huge comes to mind.

Pollution Standards etc aren’t necessarily based on what is best for people/environments but a compromise of what business will accept.
Examinator’s law of negotiation: “the one with the with the biggest clout sets the agenda and the questions asked. Any doubt who ultimately benefits?
In truth it’s a bit like asking “How many razor blades can we fit in a baby’s mouth before it kills them?” When the Question should be “why put any in there at all, isn’t there a better way of selling bandaids?”

KULU
I think jobs are a secondary issue, the real issue for the political parties is that the number of seats at stake in Tassie that could influence who would form govt.

Hence the govt isn't as acutely interested in the bank retrenchments...they are spread over a number of electorates (both persuasions).
Jobs are the issue to the Taswegians and why wouldn't it be BUT at what cost both in $s and to the environment?

From what I've now read (thanks to Cinders) I can see that the issue is largely beyond the lay person and has not been well communicated (spin included). It seems to me Gunn's have set the desperate and curmudgeonly up to fight their battle rather than attempt to reasonably approach the wider public. It is the “Why” that is instructive as to the nature and true intent of Gunn’s.

Corporations to me are like guns (they are both a tools [amoral] and/or means of plunder [immoral}).
Put guns into the hands of protected, greedy and self-interested individuals without sufficient restraints and invariably you get carnage and plunder.
As I have said elsewhere it behoves us to challenge every line of any Corporations utterances until the business culture is forced to change. Sadly concepts like ‘cash cow’ economics and “Charge the most for the least” regardless of the circumstances they will continue to behave like a hoard of marauding latter day Mongols in a cathedral.

Ah Dickie, yet another victim of reading innaccurate stories written by journalists who are against the pulp mill and craft their articles as such (ring any bells Mr Henning?).
Here's the latest ASX release from Gunns: http://www.gunns.com.au/corporate/nov10.html
Now, you can't tell shareholders something that's inaccurate - that's a serious breach of ASX listing rules. So let's assume the media is wrong on this one, shall we? And I note the article you posted doesn't have it in direct quotes from Don Burke, and the claim was made by the paper, not him, but let's just chalk that another inaccuracy up on your part now shall we?
So 40% native timber at start up, moving to 0% within five years. Clear enough? Actually I'll concede you're half right - the mill WAS going to use 80% native timber at start-up, but the company's plantations are a bit further advanced now, so they can use more.
And as for JV partners, perhaps you should have read this one, not the lies in the Oz...
http://northerntasmania.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/economy-business-it-finance/gay-upbeat-about-pulp-mill/1348107.aspx
So there you go. That's the most up to date info...

Thank you hagar. Unfortunately you have provided a link which requires registration prior to accessing media details.

Since you have referred me to the pro-Gunns' Examiner newspaper, I would be most reluctant to give them my personal details. I believe I have valid reasons for doubting their manner of "ethical" reporting.

Cheers

Dickie - you're happy to quote from the anti-Gunns Australian, but not the local newspaper with therefore better contacts? Examiner story below.

Gay upbeat about pulp mill
BY JULIAN BURGESS
31/10/2008
GUNNS executive chairman John Gay will travel to Europe next week for serious discussions with financiers and banking syndicates to obtain funding for the company's proposed $2.2 billion pulp mill.
He told an annual meeting yesterday the global financial crisis had impacted on the project.
"The timing of attaining financial close for the project will largely depend on developments in the financial markets," he said.
"There will be some period of time before financial markets stabilise.
"When that window (reopens) we will go and get financial closure."
Mr Gay told the meeting that the project was at a ready status and construction would start once finance was obtained.
Company spokesman Matt Horan said later that work on the project had not stopped and rejected suggestions the global financial crisis had effectively put the project on hold.
"Mr Gay is going to Europe next week for some serious discussions on financing," Mr Horan said.
"He is off to discuss the finance with financiers, banking syndicates and joint venture partners."
About 90 people, including a contingent of anti-pulp mill shareholders, attended yesterday's meeting and were told the company was still committed to a pulp mill.
"What is clear to me, and has been highlighted in the present economic environment, is that the Bell Bay mill will be highly competitive in the global market," he said.
"This is due to the location and quality of the wood resource, the scale and design of the mill and the proximity of the mill to the Asian market."
He said the potential equity partners were all pulp industry operators.
"This company will continue the process to build the mill for as long as it takes," Mr Gay said.
The company is still waiting approval for 12 of the 16 Federal Government environmental modules and its sovereign risk agreement with the State Government expires next month.

Thanks again hagar.

Could you please give me a link to your following claim. I've had no luck finding it. Who and where are the two JV's "knocking down the doors?"

"And as for "no hope of attracting a JV partner" perhaps the author should read the Fin Review - Gunns has got at least two knocking down the doors."

Cheers

Dickei - you won't find it in the AFR online unless you;re prepared to pay through the nose - worst newspaper website in the world.
It was on the same day - named Stora Enso and Sodra as possible JV partners.