Saturday, April 20, 2013

Broome airport first casualty of Browse - The West Australian

This is such good news, given the fact that the Broome Airport should of been moved out of town years ago as part of the original sale obligations. At a recent 2040 Visions of Broome Workshop, conducted by the Broome Shire,  the airport was identified as needing to be moved because it takes up enormous amount of land that could be used for residential, that it literately cuts the town in half and the increase air traffic noise with the helicopter onshore base has chased our budding film industry away.  

The number one outcome as outlined the the Broome Shire Strategic Plan clearly states 
that the relocation of the airport is a major priority of the Shire. A new site for the relocation
 of the airport has been identified, 13.5 kms out of town for some years now
The private owners have made no move to relocate instead they were seeking a massive extension.

In October 1990, the Australian Property Group (APG), an Australian Federal Government enterprise, sought expressions of interest for the purchase of the Broome Airport. Airport Engineering Services (AES) on behalf of Wallace Emery & Associates (WEA), the operating company, submitted a final tender in February 1991. 

AES were the successful tenderer and final purchase arrangements were completed
for freehold title of the Broome Airport in April 1991 from the Australian Commonwealth Government, the Shire of Broome and AES by a Heads of Agreement which agreed to 
certain matters relating to the relocation of the Airport outside of the existing Broome townsite which was mutually agreed by the Shire, AES and the Minister for Lands, subject to the State granting to AES freehold title to land on which the new airport is to
 be constructed.

The Shire and AES also agreed that it is necessary for AES to sub divide and sell or develop parts of the airport land. AES were to raise the monies required for the design and construction of the new airport location.
In 2000,  Broome International Airport Holdings (BIAH) were proposing to relocate the Broome Airport from its existing location in the town to a new site approximately 12km north-east, to enable development of the Broome township to the north. 
 
 
Well AES have sold considerable lands for residential and developed a huge commercial precinct over 20 years and still this company has failed to fulfill its obligations to relocate the airport. So pleased that the Woodside's decision has stopped these greedy people in their tracks. 
Also, given the fact that the airport in its current location has serious issues relating to raising sea levels, salt water intrusion  and erosion issues I would like to suggest they relocate as soon as possible because in all reality the airport is sinking.

Plans for a new $10-$20 million international airport terminal in Broome have been shelved in the wake of Woodside's shock decision to abandon the Kimberley gas hub.

The facility, which was just months away from being built, would have seen a significant increase in commercial flights servicing the Kimberley and was designed to open up the region to the international market.

Airport chief executive Nick Belyea said yesterday that the project was no longer viable.

"It will be shelved now because it just won't work," he said. "We need James Price Point to make it work."

3 comments:

  1. The shocks from this will be felt for a very long time.

    ..

    The $100,000 a day man Rex Tillerson the Exxon Mobil boss sees sea level rise as an opportunity,a world population of 9 billion exploding to 16 billion as a profit driver,"...and they're all going to want a lightbulb and a fridge...","My philosophy is "Make Money".
    The USA's big coal miner Don Blankenship when asked about the damage coal is doing replied,""Who gives a f*ck,I'll die with more money than I'll ever need".
    These huge companies and the worlds richest families that own them are all stuck in a well worn money making rut to push further into other peoples country and rip out whatever is there.They cant see any other way to expand or keep their fortunes.Governments become "de facto governments" and they are there only to defend the mighty dollar for these people.
    Burke understands this all too well and is stuck with that question Rod asked but he sees no viable alternative.But I think he is shocked by the violence of it all as he has overseen the real beginning of the destruction of The Great Barrier Reef,his inability to protect the Tarkine and the greedy eyes now looking at the north of Australia and the Kimberley.Perhaps he asks himself the same question,"What will it take to shift the mindset of these people?"
    The first big US oil strike was in 1901 - 112 years ago - where do we go in the next 112 years?
    "Nothing is So Powerful As an Exponential Whose Time Has Come"
    "Until the 1970s world oil consumption was growing at seven percent per year. That means doubling every ten years. (The doubling time of anything growing exponentially is 70 divided by its annual growth rate —70 divided by seven percent is a ten-year doubling time.) Every ten years we used as much oil as we had used in all previous history. Every ten years we had to go out and discover as much oil as we had ever discovered before —and then, to keep going, discover twice that much in the next ten years."
    Sort of explains the LNG exponential.
    JPP is a start,the demise of this project has stopped for now around 40 million tonnes a year of pollution being blasted into our air.Saved a doubling of WA's emissions and an increase of about 7% on Australias emissions.It is a beacon of hope for many around the world who are fighting similar battles.There has been a sense among many that this campaign was pivotal to our much wider future,if JPP went ahead all was lost - if cancelled it would signal a turn in the tide that could result in major changes,"a first dominoe"effect.
    Indigenous people and their supporters are bracing themselves for invasion on many fronts.The day JPP was cancelled Woodside bought into a Canadian LNG project.The Canadians immediately replied,"Woodside the fight will follow you wherever you go".
    Buru have just begun a big public relations exercise to convince people fracking the Fitzroy Valley is good for all of us.Will we see a better way?
    Time will tell.
    A couple of years ago when Woodside announced its 25 square kilometre gas plant the Chinese said they were building a 25 sq.klm. solar plant that would power over 2 million homes.
    But Rex and Buru wouldn't like it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liked the McCrann article on BCNG.

    "Post-boom, we face two cliffs
    BY:TERRY MCCRANN From:The Australian April 20, 2013 12:00AM
    THE decision by Woodside and its partners to abandon the $40 billion liquefied natural gas project at James Price Point in north-western Australia signalled the beginning of the end of Australia's greatest and most extraordinary resources boom."

    ..

    "Indeed, Woodside et al's decision to abandon not just the James Price Point location but perhaps even the underlying Browse project, arguably would have coincided with the BHP decision, making the "end of boom" decisively clear earlier, but for the matter of the WA state election.

    It would not have been wise for Woodside et al to have made the announcement pre-election, given the huge amount of political capital invested in James Price Point, and the heat absorbed on their behalf, by WA Premier Colin Barnett.

    Election over and "coincidentally" with an appropriate interval, Woodside and partners "came" to their decision.

    Both Olympic Dam and James Price Point were classic end of (all) boom fantasies.

    Simply, never mind the sober metrics, just build in ever rising demand that would generate ever rising product prices, to cover the (other) major end-of-boom characteristic -- exploding project costs.

    Some such fantasies are brought back to reality after the money's been spent. Fortunately, for BHP and Woodside shareholders, managements and boards woke from their dreamy slumber before spending too much."

    ..

    In short, if this boom does come to a shuddering halt, it will be not simply worse than any previous end-of-boom, but both the context and the consequences will be severe and unpredictable.

    One thing would be very predictable. A budget which is already in significant and arguably sustained deficit would plunge deep into catastrophic levels of deficit.

    Never mind not raising anything from the resources tax (or the carbon tax). Core company tax and personal income tax revenues would plummet -- with an inevitable rise in outlays.

    Put all those realities and contexts together, and it would not be a good time to be running two -- perhaps large -- budget and current account deficits. To put it, at its mildest.

    ..


    It's time Woodside,the Broome airport,BCC et al. thanked the campaigners for pointing out to them in no uncertain fashion the error of their ways and as we have said many times saving them from certain disaster.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barnett can stick his CA because if he hasn't been told already he will be eventually that it is way too expensive to build a port at Walmadany and the same goes for Pt. Torment.To justify either he would have to have some major tonnage going out to pay for it,which would be coal and bauxite and both are under massive pressure right now.Coal surplus in the US from fracking will go to Asia and they will undercut Oz prices to do it.Bauxite refineries and alumina smelters are way too expensive to build and operate in Oz.
    And the dredging again and the tides and cyclones and all of what we have just been through with the gas all over again.But to make things worse the coal mine would have to be huge to compete and coal carriers have bigger draughts than LNG ships - about 17 mtrs compared to around 12 mtrs.So double the dredging figures again - say 60 million tonnes this time.
    And they will not have the jump on the community this time who will be armed to the teeth with up to date information to scare the pants off the hardiest investor.China is set to reduce it's coal consumption in 5 years and they must or they will all die.Aluminium is a battle in cheap countries and the price is very volatile.
    This is the canal all over again,Barnett cant come to terms with the truth and acts foolishly,e.g. "water runs downhill from the Kimberley to Perth so the canal wont use much power".
    He should just hand JPP over and go away,but odds on he is spiteful and will seek to punish us no doubt with more help from the usual criminals.
    His best shot would have been to upgrade Broome port and airport for the Browse Basin work that we can pinch off of Darwin but his attitude,(and the attitude of some BCC people),are likely to sink this idea.

    ReplyDelete