Is the Inland Rail a $24 Billion White Elephant? Australian Rail Track Corporation

, ,

The Inland Rail is a huge project. It is riddled with uncertainty and secrecy. The ARTC won’t release the business case for the project, even though we have evidence that many of the assumptions used for it are completely flawed. The Inland Rail started as costing less than $3 Billion, it is now estimated at nearly $24 Billion. While the head of the ARTC is on $1 million+ of taxpayer money a year, all of the detail should be publicly available.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] First question is, can you list Inland Rail Social Media Accounts, and how much we spend on social media including Instagram in the last financial year. Please

[Witness] Sure, we’ll probably have to take it on notice, so we can give you some idea of quickly, but we found social media to be extremely effective and greatly improve, some of our engagements that was asked about earlier, we find that we have interactive dialogues on a real-time basis with people they don’t have to come to us, we don’t have to go to them. We can provide very technical information, including maps. They can post questions on those maps. So the social media interaction has been extremely effective. Do you want to provide any additional detail to back up?

[Witness] No. I mean, I think we’re finding it as a good value for money medium. And, but yes, we have multiple channels, as you would expect. Again, we can confirm those, but all the ones you would expect Facebook and Instagram, LinkedIn, those things are on YouTube, those sorts of things. So, but we can get you the details.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The business case lists 87 coal trains a week, going into Brisbane every week, all the way through to 2050, I understand that coal reserves that would come down that line run out in 2030. Is that true? And if so, what does that do to your business case?

The first part, we would be speculating on we’d have to take it on notice ’cause we don’t control the coal market.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes Obviously.

The second part, we have testified previously, that even if coal was to go to zero, and I’m going to ask Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hornsby to correct me if I’m wrong, but even if the coal volumes were to go to zero, that the business case still stacks up and still had a benefit to cost ratio over two

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The Queensland government only allows 10 million tonnes of coal to be sent to Brisbane port, currently the port handles 7 million tonnes, is this limit of 10 still in place? And rather than 87 trains a week, how many will the remaining 3 million tonnes generate? We make it out around about seven trains a week, not 87.

Yeah. Again, we’d have to take that on notice ’cause I’m not sure the limitations at the port of Brisbane.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that the port of Brisbane can only unload trains for 49 hours a week, being 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, ten to two on Saturday and closed all day Sunday? If so, how long does it take to unload a train? The point being, how many trains can the port of Brisbane actually service as against the business case?

So, Senator the business case was primarily a terminal to terminal activity, so from Melbourne to Acacia Ridge. So as far as I’m aware that the business case didn’t really cater or talk to traffic between traffic to and from the port.

[Malcolm Roberts] How then can we assist the viability?

Of

[Malcolm Roberts] Providing the Inland rail if you don’t know the service?

Yeah, so the inland rail is being built as a terminal to terminal, and I think as we heard earlier on there may be more than one terminal in Brisbane, and there is a separate business case analysis looking at that link to the port which is not part of the inland rail project.

[Malcolm Roberts] So if the port of Brisbane is not modelled in that how do we know the impact of the port on the inland rail? The constraint of the port?

I might ask my colleague Simon.

[Simon Orsby] Okay let me introduce myself. Sir I’m Simon Ormsby executive interstate network for ROTC and I’ve joined the bench. It’s okay chair. In broad term, we can come back with the details behind the modelling, when we take that on notice. But in broad terms, the number of trains assumed is broadly similar to the number of trains that are passed through today. But there are longer trains in the business case, inland rail and investments enables longer coal trains, so heavier coal trains to be run than today. So the assumptions aren’t poorly different, in the business case to what happens today, but we can come back to your technical notice and come back to all the data around that.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m interested in the impact, of the restricted hours at Brisbane port.

Yep, we’ll come back.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that passing loops at Kings Thorpe and Fisherman’s Island can only handle a train, with the length of 670 metres yet your train are 1600 metres, so how do you propose to get your trains in and out of the port?

So Senator it’s not intended at this point, that longer trains than currently operate to the port today will operate to the port in the future. So our 1.8 kilometre trains will terminate at a terminal outside of Brisbane or on the edges of Brisbane or Acacia Ridge. And then there would need to be a different arrangement, than those trains that would take it to the port.

[Malcolm Roberts] Gets quite complex. Isn’t it?

I can’t validate the length of those crossing loops, but what I can say is part of the business case extensive capacity modelling was undertaken, and assume different lengths of trains, because you have a crossing loop or two crossing loops at 600 metres. Doesn’t mean that every train is limited to 600 metres, and there is, there’s quite a bit of double track, so if you’re particularly in running a narrow gauge train, so some of those coal trains may just have a through run without actually utilising the crossing loop.

Can I maybe just help a little bit, what he’s saying is you can give priority to longer trains, so the ones that use the passing loops are the shorter trains. So it doesn’t have to actually match the length of the train that uses the line to be given that priority.

[Malcolm Roberts] Got it.

So that’s one.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Brisbane trains have a curfew which limits inland rail services to 19 hours a day, which means that the times a train can leave Melbourne needs to adjust to avoid that curfew, there will be a corresponding window in Melbourne, and all along the route, have you modelled how this will affect loads, Once inland rail is fully operational?

So there’s no curfew for trains outside of Acacia Ridge. I’m not, in fact, I’m not aware of a curfew.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t modelled it?

Sorry,

[Malcolm Roberts] You haven’t modelled it.

No, we’ve assumed there’s no curfew, could say unlimited access between Melbourne, the Melbourne terminals and the Brisbane terminals?

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The new tunnel ARTC will have to build down from Toowoomba has a grade end of one to 64. The train would need to do 30 kilometres an hour down the tunnel. Once the train exits the tunnel, that limit is 80 kilometres per hour, all the way to the port. Can you demonstrate that this has been factored into the 24 hour transit time?

Yes, and we can give you the train modelling.

[Malcolm Roberts] If we could please, Thank you. The project cost of 14.8 billion does not include anything to do with the tunnel, through the great dividing range outside of Toowoomba. Is that correct?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the cost?

Of the tunnel?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

So projects as we’ve testified a few times now, for commercial and confidence we’re under procurement right now. So we’re not disclosing project budgets, but the total cost of inland rail, does include the cost of the tunnel down the Toowoomba range.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Australian Economic Consultants and Peer reviewed by professor Rolf has put the cost of the tunnel at $5 billion plus $3 billion for new rail line between Acacia Ridge, the port of Brisbane, and $1 billion of other work. This puts the current cost of inland rail at 24 billion. How can it possibly recoup these expenses?

Sorry, Senator Roberts, I’d have to expand on those comments. That’s I believe cost of the tunnel to go to the port, and the improvements to get to the port, which is subject to that separate business case, it wouldn’t be additive to the cost of inland rail. It’s a separate project with a separate business case.

[Malcolm Roberts] How can it still stack up? That’s a heck. That’s a matter for government and the business case.

Sir the port connection, isn’t part of the inland rail project

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry.

The port connection work isn’t part of the inland rail project, and hasn’t been committed to, by any government, then to do the study.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s additional costs.

Well we were doing a study on what’s viable and what would work with, the Queensland government. And whether or not there is a port connection built will be a matter for future government decision-making.

[Malcolm Roberts] Let’s move on then. In the original discussions around what was then called the north south rail corridor, there was a route that came over the border into Queensland. where it does now near Goondiwindi and then heads north to Mooney before crossing the mountain range at a lower elevation through Mamadoer onto Dalby, and then down to Toowoomba. This allows for a junction at Dalby with coal and bulk grains, going to Gladstone and the freight hub for Brisbane located at Toowoomba. The rest of the trip would be by road using the new $1.6 billion second range crossing which is actually built. Do you have any information on that alignment via Mooney?

Yes. That was looked at some time ago and found not to be economically feasible as an alternative to meet the business case requirements. So maybe I can address the broader question there, which is Gladstone truncating in Toowoomba. The biggest thing about inland rail we have to remember, is the actual business case and the business case was developed over a long period of time between the Commonwealth, the states and ARTC and they all agreed that the way to meet the business case, which was a terminal to terminal to meet the growth demands in Southeast Queensland and Victoria for domestic goods was the broadly the alignment we’re on today. It was not meant to get to port okay. If it was a different business case, it was about getting to the most efficient port, or it was about coal then maybe Gladstone would make a lot more sense. The terminal to terminal is very important, particularly when we look at some of the growth rates in Queensland, if you look at what’s been released in the last month or so out of Southeast Queensland two and a half million people growing to 5 million people, they’re gonna have a lot of needs, and a lot of products and goods and services. And so that is what the supply chain is all about. That’s what inland rail is all about, is getting them the furniture, the food that they need, the beer that they need, the toilet paper that they need. So, sorry,

I said here, here.

Thank you. So trying to divert now and go to Gladstone, it can be an end, but you doesn’t make sense. We have to be true to the business case and deliver on that business case. And that’s what we’re doing.

[Malcolm Roberts] A lot of complexities. In a major project we learn as we start the project, and as we implement the project, there seem to be more and more questions that are coming up.

Yes. And, but that is, you’re exactly right. That’s a major project, and so what you have to do is respond to the learnings, and improve as you go, and have a process that allows you to account for it

[Malcolm Roberts] Could it be that the original business case was not done in sufficient depth quality?

I think it’s one of the better business cases I’ve seen and certainly had a very good benefit to cost ratio compared to other projects. So it’s pretty high quality.

[Malcolm Roberts] Based on early assumptions.

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] What’s the benefits to cost ratio?

2.6 originally

[Malcolm Roberts] The AEC found that a route that terminated in Toowoomba and sent coal and grain to Gladstone, including the cost of the extra leg to Gladstone would cost $12 billion total on a return of 1.58 as against the current route, including tunnels and links, which is now at 24 billion on a return of investment at 1.01, will you refer the AEC Gladstone alignment with Toowoomba termination, to the rural and regional affairs and transport committee inland rail inquiry for a full review?

Yeah. So I have to correct the statement, that inland rail not 24 billion. We talked about that earlier today, two different business cases. And the second thing about being cheaper to go to Gladstone, if it doesn’t accomplish the business case, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s cheaper. You know, I had this discussion with my family all the time when they buy something on sale that they don’t need, it doesn’t do us any good. So,

If it’s more productive.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Isn’t it that the issue really about value?

It is about value, but you have to accomplish. One of the great things is, and I’ve mentioned this a few times one of the great things about Australia, as opposed to other countries, I’ve dealt with large infrastructure, large infrastructure projects are justified based on the business case. We have to be true and honest to that business case, it’s disingenuous to deliver something different other than that business case, without going back and changing it.

/1 Comment/by

CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA

, ,

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority makes very scary claims that CO2 is destroying the reef. They do this even though they cannot provide the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on climate factors like air or ocean temperature.

The greens are always rattled when I start to pick apart these claims and you can hear them try to smear me throughout the video.

Transcript

[Chair] Thank you for attending today.

[Malcolm Roberts] First question is: what empirical scientific evidence does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect, and specifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut to save the Reef? GBRMPA has said a lot about that. And I’d like to know what evidence in specific.

[Joshua Thomas] I’ll ask my chief scientist to address that, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.

[David Wachenfeld], Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not our direct business. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who do research into climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those, the work of those scientists is synthesised and summarised in the assessment reports of the IPCC. We don’t independently assess evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide on atmosphere and climate. And that’s a global issue, not a Great Barrier Reef issue.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand… I’ve forgotten your name, I’m sorry.

[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.

[Malcolm Roberts] Mr. Wachenfeld. I understand that…

[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.

[Malcolm Roberts] Doctor. Thanks. I understand that… GBRMPA. Do we have any advance on David? Okay. I understand that GBRMPA has echoed those claims and spread those claims that carbon dioxide needs to be cut to save the Barrier Reef. Is that correct?

[David Wachenfeld] So the Authority’s position is well set out in that Climate Change Position Statement, and yes-

[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?

[Joshua Thomas] So we have a position statement that articulates quite clearly that we see climate change as the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And that all action should be taken to reduce emissions over time at a global, national and local scale.

[Malcolm Roberts] So according to Dr. Wachenfeld, the evidence for that is in the IPCC.

[Joshua Thomas] No, Senator. The evidence for that is in probably thousands of scientific papers by scientists-

[Malcolm Roberts] You can’t point to where it is specifically for the basis of that policy?

[David Wachenfeld] Well, Senator, there is… I’m trying to summarise here a vast body of global research conducted by scientists all over the world that is probably most authoritatively summarised in the IPCC reports. The specific consequences of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef are also covered by the work of many scientists through many institutions. That work is summarised in our Outlook Report, which we produce every five years.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for repeating it again. Mr. Thomas has just told me, your position statement says it’s carbon dioxide from human activity is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Now I want to know what specifically you rely on. Pinpointed. Where’s the specific scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves human carbon dioxide affects the Barrier Reef. And here’s the quote, Mr. Thomas: “the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, as Dr. Wachenfeld is trying to explain, there are thousands of sources that we can-

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.

[Joshua Thomas] That we consider and digest. And we’d be very happy to provide you a summary or a list of some of those sources that we rely on heavily.

[Malcolm Roberts] What I would like and make very clear is the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect that specifically states the link between carbon dioxide and various climate factors, such as water temperature, ocean temperature, air temperature, rainfall, droughts, winds, currents, ocean alkalinity. That’s what I would like. Until you have that, it’s no basis for policy, no basis for your statement.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, we do have that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good. I’d like to see it.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, it’s in the Outlook Report, is the short answer.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the page, please.

[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the specific page of the specific effect of carbon dioxide? To make a policy and a statement on a position statement such as Mr. Thomas has made, we need the specific link between amount of carbon dioxide and impact on those various climate factors. I want to know where it is.

[Joshua Thomas] So, Senator, that’s not one piece of work. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect that they have warming our atmosphere, obviously that’s global research. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean warms. That means the Great Barrier Reef warms. The Great Barrier Reef is approximately 0.9 of a degree warmer than it was about a century ago.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the human cause. I want to see the link, the quantified link. Because until you provide that, there’s no basis for Dr. Thomas’s position statement. I want to know the link.

[Joshua Thomas] Yes, Senator, there is a basis for that position statement.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to see it then.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, it’s present in a vast body of global science summarised by-

[Malcolm Roberts] So you can’t give me a specific link to that policy?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.

[David Wachenfeld] The policy, yes, Senator. I’ve got it right here.

[Malcolm Roberts] Specific quantified link stating carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Joshua Thomas] Dr. Wachenfeld has tried to answer your question. The Outlook Report is our best digest of the information available to us about the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, of which we see climate change as being the greatest. That report has some 1400 citations in it. We’d be very happy to point them out to you here this evening in the back of that document, or separately provide them on notice to you.

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want the specific, I just want the specific interest.

[Whish-Wilson] This is the elbow we’re talking about. It might be very different than Senator Roberts’s ward.

[Roberts] So what-

[Chair] Senator. Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Whish-Wilson. You do not have the call. Can I suggest that you do take that on notice? I think what Senator Roberts is after, is a worked example of one of those pieces of work that demonstrates the linkage he’s talking about. Could I ask you perhaps to take that on notice if that answers your question?

[Malcolm Roberts] Sure. And I’ll make the comment, Chair, that when people align or smear, it indicates they don’t have the evidence. So that’s… Not accusing you of doing that by the way.

[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are you aware that Liberal, Labor and National Party MPs have told me that they have never seen such evidence for the Reef nor for climate generally? Are you aware?

[Joshua Thomas] No. Senator, I’m not aware of what other politicians have told you. Sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson government introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector, stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s gear of protocols, and was the first major party to introduce a carbon dioxide tax?

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.

[Whish-Wilson] You live in-

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson. Interjections are disorderly. And Senator Roberts, can I ask you to come to the point on relevant questions that the officials can answer without long preambles. The hour is late and we have another two sections to get through.

[Malcolm Roberts] So on notice you’re gonna provide the evidence. What I highlight, is that I need the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide production and climate factors, including air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, winds, and currents. Is that clear?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, I should just point out here. We will provide that information to you. We may need to consult other portfolios-

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to hear that.

[Joshua Thomas] And other experts who have the Commonwealth lead on climate policy.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much, Chair.

/by

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

, ,

The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?

[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.

[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.

[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.

[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?

[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?

[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.

[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-

[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.

[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.

[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.

[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.

/1 Comment/by