The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

[mashman]

I one dollar house deal
You set up a company with a pasty.
what you do is buy the houses but before you do get them valued way over what you pay that way you already have your deposit and working capital.
You then get a grant from the goverment to do them up as low cost housing.
You then get a separate grant to train the people to be builders and use them as free labour.
You then bring in a heap of migrants and charge them for living there while you do them up.
You use all the money you borrowed with over inflated bills for the costs of planning and consultation declare bankruptcy and take off with all the rest of the money.:msn-wink:

Then your mate buys the houses cheap for what the bank is owed.

There is that danger... however there are systems in place to counteract such fraud. I know this as I wrote one of them that saved the govt 22 million quid per year. That and I'd rather see a little waste if it means that most benefit from the "project".

[husaberg]

There is that danger... however there are systems in place to counteract such fraud. I know this as I wrote one of them that saved the govt 22 million quid per year. That and I'd rather see a little waste if it means that most benefit from the "project".

I missed out the outsourcing of the trainees as Labourers to a building company yes it was a gross over exaggeration for effect, but this sort of shit unfortunately happens. happening in CHCH now.

[husaberg]

Meh, if lots of 'em is a good deal then so is one. I came quite close to buying a small town once. Not sure if I would have survived it but I sorta regret that I didn't give it a harder nudge than I did at the time...



Was it Otira?

[Brian d marge]

Was it Otira?
Haha I looked at that as well

Still do sometimes
Stephen

[husaberg]

Haha I looked at that as well

Still do sometimes
Stephen

I think it has gone up a bit in price now, 2 or 2.5 million i think it was last time it was in the paper.
Maybe the money doesn't go quite as far these days.

[blue rider]

Will Britain slide into a triple dip recession (or has it already done so?)

all the lazy bludgers......

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/britain-looses-its-aaa-rating/



oh all those lazy bludgers


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chancellors-biggest-challenge-yet-as-uk-teeters-on-brink-of-a-tripledip-recession-8585275.html



yep still lazy those bludgers

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2013/04/why-fitch-downgraded-britain-in-three-graphs/


of course its the fault of those lazy bludgers


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/22/triple-dip-recession-views-ons

[Ocean1]

Did you click on the links.........

How much really as a percent of income do you think the real top earners pay with the access to all the best shelters. A registered address such as Monacco helps.

I did. They refered to members of the top half dozen international busineses legally avoiding tax, what's that got to do with the top 8% earning individuals' tax liabilities?

I don't like the behaviour of a lot of large businesses, and I'd like to see rules changed to encourage them to be better citizens of whatever country they're operating in. But unlike individuals they're free to operate wherever they want, and they're big enough to insist on some say in how that works. If NZ insisted on standing alone amongst every other country in preventing them moving capital off-shore we'd be joining the ranks of the third world inside a year.

Until you get the world's big economies to agree to limits on shuffling cash around it won't change. We're the little guys, we don't get to dictate terms.

[Ocean1]

Was it Otira?

It wasn't.

[husaberg]

I did. They refered to members of the top half dozen international busineses legally avoiding tax, what's that got to do with the top 8% earning individuals' tax liabilities?

I don't like the behaviour of a lot of large businesses, and I'd like to see rules changed to encourage them to be better citizens of whatever country they're operating in. But unlike individuals they're free to operate wherever they want, and they're big enough to insist on some say in how that works. If NZ insisted on standing alone amongst every other country in preventing them moving capital off-shore we'd be joining the ranks of the third world inside a year.

Until you get the world's big economies to agree to limits on shuffling cash around it won't change. We're the little guys, we don't get to dictate terms.

Sorry i don't agree if it keeps going the way it is we will be a third world country regardless.
Why do we have to change labour laws to suit Hollywood why do we have to further subsidize Rio Tinto with the Aluminum smelter they have had cheap power at our expense for the last 30 years that was the deal now they say, oh the heavily discounted market price we have tp pay now is too dear.

The corperate's will still do business in the markets China is great example of this they have to pay to enter China.

Chains like Walmart Kmart and the Warehouse destroy local economies.

[Ocean1]

Sorry i don't agree if it keeps going the way it is we will be a third world country regardless.

What's the difference between the current 1st world NZ and most 3rd world nations?


Why do we have to change labour laws to suit Hollywood

Yes, let's be clear, here the change was for that particular industry and defined who was regarded as am employee and who was a sub-contractor. If the, (Australian) union had their way then firstly the industry would have had to treat extras as permanent employees, (they were particularly insistent that they were entitled to redundancy at termination of contract) and secondly the industry in NZ would have perished with all hands for ever more, making the nation a laughing stock.


why do we have to further subsidize Rio Tinto with the Aluminum smelter they have had cheap power at our expense for the last 30 years that was the deal now they say, oh the heavily discounted market price we have tp pay now is too dear.

In fact the deal between the NZ govt and Comalco was the justification for building Manapouri, and largely financed it. So you could argue that Tiwai Point effectively subsidised NZ's power industry right up to the point where public power consumption would have consumed it's full capacity. Whatever price they now pay is a function of negotiation between supplier and consumer, as it should be.


The corperate's will still do business in the markets China is great example of this they have to pay to enter China.

Yes. China has something they want, acccess to the world's largest market. Minnows like us have absolutely nothing they need.



Chains like Walmart Kmart and the Warehouse destroy local economies.

They certainly make local competitors a bit sick I agree, competitors the Commerce Commission are supposed to protect and foster.

[husaberg]

What's the difference between the current 1st world NZ and most 3rd world nations?



Yes, let's be clear, here the change was for that particular industry and defined who was regarded as am employee and who was a sub-contractor. If the, (Australian) union had their way then firstly the industry would have had to treat extras as permanent employees, (they were particularly insistent that they were entitled to redundancy at termination of contract) and secondly the industry in NZ would have perished with all hands for ever more, making the nation a laughing stock.
Nah they had already settled all the stuff out before the govt rode in and sold them out.
The reasons for wanting to film here is we were already cheap and the scenery.





In fact the deal between the NZ govt and Comalco was the justification for building Manapouri, and largely financed it. So you could argue that Tiwai Point effectively subsidised NZ's power industry right up to the point where public power consumption would have consumed it's full capacity. Whatever price they now pay is a function of negotiation between supplier and consumer, as it should be.

No we the NZ tax payers financed it. The deal which was agreed (Very cheap)price for 30 or what ever years this ran out last year and was renegotiated Now Rio Tinto which did the deal says they can't afford it which is BS. Rio Tinto is betting on John Key wilting under pressure again.



Yes. China has something they want, access to the world's largest market. Minnows like us have absolutely nothing they need.
yes we do money what do they have that we really need.



They certainly make local competitors a bit sick I agree, competitors the Commerce Commission are supposed to protect and foster.
The commerce commission is more interested in stopping local producers from joining together to sell stuff as a single seller to the buyers.
Cartells are only for the buyers and the oil producing companies it seems............
Remember the commerce commission oversees our electricity industry and that's a classic example of how toothless they are.

[Ocean1]

Nah they had already settled all the stuff out before the govt rode in and sold them out.
The reasons for wanting to film here is we were already cheap and the scenery.


Sorry, I don't see anything there to refute the facts of the case. And who, exactly is being sold out by the labour laws defining sub-contractors should be hired as such rather than permanant employees?


No we the NZ tax payers financed it. The deal which was agreed (Very cheap)price for 30 or what ever years this ran out last year and was renegotiated Now Rio Tinto which did the deal says they can't afford it which is BS. Rio Tinto is betting on John Key wilting under pressure again.

I helped build Manapouri, it was certainly built using public funds but without Comalco's signature on that deal it wouldn't have happened. I understand they'd essentially paid for the whole capital asset well before the 30 years was up.

As for Rio Tinito's bet, how would you ever know whether any deal JK offers them was a good one? If he comes to an agreement with them would you say he's sold us out? What would you say if they walk away, taking 3.5 billion dollars a year out of the NZ economy?


yes we do money what do they have that we really need.

Global economy is $US75 Trillion, ours is about $US30 Billion. It's peanuts. As for what they have that we need? Considering that we now manufacture fuck all we need pretty much everything from international manufacturers.

[husaberg]

Sorry, I don't see anything there to refute the facts of the case. And who, exactly is being sold out by the govt's insistance that sub-contractors sould be hired as such rather than permanant employees?
Have a Google the repute was settled before the government rode in to save the day
OK to save you the trouble here it is Official documents and all.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1302/S00272/hobbit-sunshine-welcome.htm


I helped build Manapouri, it was certainly built using public funds but without Comalco's signature on that deal it wouldn't have happened. err it wouldn't have been needed either

I understand they'd essentially paid for the whole capital asset well before the 30 years was up.
I too still work in the industry and from what i have been told the deal was so good....er no it was not paid for as of yet.

As for Rio Tinito's bet, how would you ever know whether any deal JK offers them was a good one?
Like i said they just signed the deal now they want to renegotiate it..........

If he comes to an agreement with them would you say he's sold us out? What would you say if they walk away, taking 3.5 billion dollars a year out of the NZ economy?
I think you will find the value is not 3.5 billion dollars anyway.
I would say if they walked away....oh well cheap power for the rest of us supply and demand (only problem is getting it out of there and onto the DC.
Plus John key said he wouldn't interfere in the running and dealing of SOE's Remember Solid Energy similar amount of People involved wouldn't you say...lol.

He sure did get involved in other stuff when it suits SCF Hanover etc.
( yes i am being flipent but remember the Solid Energy job figures for where i live always discount full time contractors and the revenue from solid energy all went to NZ not just the wages and some power)


Global economy is $US75 Trillion, ours is about $US30 Billion. It's peanuts. As for what they have that we need? Considering that we now manufacture fuck all we need pretty much everything from international manufacturers.
Remember we used to manufacture stuff here. Now we don't. Ever wondered how much we benefit from losing the manufacturing here.
We can't make a living here selling burgers to each other while all the profits go overseas can we?

[Ocean1]

Have a Google the repute was settled before the government rode in to save the day
OK to save you the trouble here it is Official documents and all.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1302/S00272/hobbit-sunshine-welcome.htm

I never disputed that the dispute predated the government ammending the relevant law, just that it amounted to selling anyone out. And I'd hardly consider a CTU source to be disinterested in reporting the details.


err it wouldn't have been needed either

I too still work in the industry and from what i have been told the deal was so good....er no it was not paid for yet.

Like i said they just signed the deal now they want to renegotiate it..........

I think you will find the value is not 3.5 billion dollars anyway.
I would say if they walked away....oh well cheap power for the rest of us supply and demand (only problem is getting it out of there and onto the DC.
Plus John key said he wouldn't interfere in the running and dealing of SOE's Remember Solid Energy similar amount of People involved wouldn't you say...lol.


Our sources obviously dissagree.

As for cheap power, I'm not sure that'd be the result. And half of southland would be unemployed.


Remember we used to manufacture stuff here. Now we don't. Ever wondered how much we benefit from losing the manufacturing here.
We can't make a living here selling burgers to each other while all the profits go overseas can we?

You're right. But there was no amount of subsidy that was ever going to keep most of our manufacturing industries alive. So how do we revive our hard-core tech industry?

[husaberg]

I never disputed that the dispute predated the government ammending the relevant law, just that it amounted to selling anyone out. And I'd hardly consider a CTU source to be disinterested in reporting the details.


Yes, let's be clear, here the change was for that particular industry and defined who was regarded as am employee and who was a sub-contractor. If the, (Australian) union had their way then firstly the industry would have had to treat extras as permanent employees, (they were particularly insistent that they were entitled to redundancy at termination of contract) a[U]nd secondly the industry in NZ would have perished with all hands for ever more, making the nation a laughing stock.
This is what you said now in the view of the release documents, it is not what actually happened now is it.

The news story was from documents released by the ombudsman after a request under the official information act.
Google the actual document if you want.


Our sources obviously dissagree.They certainly do, but i bet mine is closer:msn-wink:



As for cheap power, I'm not sure that'd be the result. And half of southland would be unemployed.
like i said hew is that different from Solid Energy?
Last count it was 1000 jobs out of a population of 20000 population not including the 200 out of pike. I bet that is a higher percentage than Southland potential losses.This is the direct job losses btw




You're right. But there was no amount of subsidy that was ever going to keep most of our manufacturing industries alive. So how do we revive our hard-core tech industry?

We certainly haven't helped them by making the playing field so uneven. We went a bit to far to fast in the 80's reforms and now we have to complete with new taxes and laws that there competitor don't.
Don't under estimate the cost of carbon tax.We also have tighter regs relating to what chemicals we can use, yet these same rules do not apply to the imports.

[Ocean1]

This is what you said now in the view of the release documents, it is not what actually happened now is it.
Again, I don’t dispute the timing, the fact that the law changes post-dated the agreement with employers for that particular project. The key work you need to look for is INDUSTRY, without that revision to a nonsensical employment rule the INDUSTRY would never have considered NZ for future projects.

Clear?


like i said hew is that different from Solid Energy?
Last count it was 1000 jobs out of a population of 20000 population not including the 200 out of pike. I bet that is a higher percentage than Southland potential losses.This is the direct job losses btw

:laugh: Oh, well that’s all right then, if it’s good enough for the West Coast it’s got to be a winner for Southland, eh?

And talking of percentages Tiwai Point employee numbers are close to 100% of the West Coast’s population. But I’m sure we’ll be far better off without the filthy capitalist scum.


We certainly haven't helped them by making the playing field so uneven. We went a bit to far to fast in the 80's reforms and now we have to complete with new taxes and laws that there competitor don't.
Don't under estimate the cost of carbon tax.We also have tighter regs relating to what chemicals we can use, yet these same rules do not apply to the imports.

I agree. Unfortunately, as I said if we want to buy their product, (and before you leap up and suggest that we don’t I’d suggest you check the purchases on your credit card balance) then we do so as-is, they’re not interested in financing the latest wet green dream.

[husaberg]

Again, I don’t dispute the timing, the fact that the law changes post-dated the agreement with employers for that particular project. The key work you need to look for is INDUSTRY, without that revision to a nonsensical employment rule the INDUSTRY would never have considered NZ for future projects.

You did?

If the, (Australian) union had their way then firstly the industry would have had to treat extras as permanent employees, (they were particularly insistent that they were entitled to redundancy at termination of contract) and secondly the industry in NZ would have perished with all hands for ever more, making the nation a laughing stock.


without that revision to a nonsensical employment rule the INDUSTRY would never have considered NZ for future projects.

They had already committed to the project before the change that Brownleey insisted they needed or would pull out. This was a balant lie of the governments behalf to justify the change.




As for Rio Tinito's bet, how would you ever know whether any deal JK offers them was a good one? If he comes to an agreement with them would you say he's sold us out? What would you say if they walk away, taking 3.5 billion dollars a year out of the NZ economy?

Mr Hobbs says the smelter is facing a 30% increase in the price it pays for its power from January and it is up to the Government, as the 100% shareholder of Meridian Energy, to intervene. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter)

Closure threats
Rio Tinto has threatened to close the Tiwai Point smelter if it can't get a cheaper deal for electricity from retailer Meridian, or the Government fails to give it a substantial subsidy to cover recent losses due to the strengthening Kiwi dollar and a fall in aluminium prices.[9] Between 2008 and 2013, aluminium prices fell by more than 30 percent.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point)



:laugh: Oh, well that’s all right then, if it’s good enough for the West Coast it’s got to be a winner for Southland, eh?
And talking of percentages Tiwai Point employee numbers are close to 100% of the West Coast’s population. But I’m sure we’ll be far better off without the filthy capitalist scum.



half of southland would be unemployed.


The future of Southland's Tiwai Point smelter looks uncertain, with its owner, New Zealand Aluminium Smelters, saying further cutbacks are likely as it continues to lose money.
Tiwai Point (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter), the country's only aluminium smelter, shed 100 jobs last month and the company says further cost saving initiatives will be pursued next year in an effort to make it a viable business.
About 700 people are employed at the Bluff smelter and there are a further 700 contract workers.
The company contributes more than $500 million to the Southland economy annually.
Ocean last time i looked the population of the coast Was 30000 the total employees At Twawi point is only 1400 (700 direct 700 contractors) (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter)
I struggle to see How you figures bear up to any form of scrutiny.

Our power prices have gone up a little more than 30% over the last 30 years wouldn't you say. I looked at my own old bills it was 300% in the last 15 years.:bleh:



I agree. Unfortunately, as I said if we want to buy their product, (and before you leap up and suggest that we don’t I’d suggest you check the purchases on your credit card balance) then we do so as-is, they’re not interested in financing the latest wet green dream.

OH your last one i don't have a credit card i do have a debit card though/
I am not anti industry i just don't see why we couldn't support Solid Energy Which is NZ owned and all the profits go to NZ and yet we are supposed to prop up Rio Rinto who make substantial profits year in and year out where all the profits go overseas.

[Winston001]

I don't think its useful to argue whether Solid Energy's loss of workers is better or worse than the likely effect of the Tiwai Point smelter closing. Both represent tragedies for the families involved. Homes become unsellable. There are no new jobs in the area. Contractors and shops shut down.

I don't know the fine details of the contract with the NZ government in 1963 (or thereabouts) but from the perspective of living in Southland, it appears to have been a winner on both sides. Yes, Comalco (now Rio Tinto) purchased electricity at about half price from a dedicated power station but that brought many people with high levels of expertise into this community. Those people have not only spent their wages locally but also formed the backbone of sports clubs, school boards, and new businesses flowing from the smelter.

If the smelter closes the extra power from West Arm will not immediately flow into the national grid. It isn't connected. Plus the biggest cost of electricity is the lines companies and the retailers margins. The power stations are actually a minor part of the equation.

[Ocean1]

You did?

Yeah,


the industry in NZ would have perished with all hands for ever more, making the nation a laughing stock.

without that revision to a nonsensical employment rule the INDUSTRY would never have considered NZ for future projects.
I’d say they were pretty close, no?


They had already committed to the project before the change that Brownleey insisted they needed or would pull out. This was a balant lie of the governments behalf to justify the change.

Perhaps he meant the industry would pull future projects, exactly as I did. I know I’d certainly not expose any project I was concerned with to the sort of ambush the off-shore union instigated.

As for the poor downtrodden worker, a year later traffic in the Hutt Valley came to a standstill as literally thousands of aspiring extras congregated on Belmont school hall for their 30sec chance at 3 sec immortality, for free. The union obviously hadn’t told them how shoddily they were to be treated.


Ocean last time i looked the population of the coast Was 30000 the total employees At Twawi point is only 1400 (700 direct 700 contractors) (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter)
I struggle to see How you figures bear up to any form of scrutiny.

Bugger, ya got me. And yet the figures came from SUCH a reliable source…


Last count it was 1000 jobs out of a population of 20000.


Our power prices have gone up a little more than 30% over the last 30 years wouldn't you say. I looked at my own old bills it was 300% in the last 15 years.:bleh:

Yes. How much has Rio Tinto’s power bill gone up? Actually don’t bother, it’s not relevant, residential retail prices have skyrocketed because some fuckwit inserted a whole extra layer into the market, the cost of which now makes up a substantial part of our bill. Rio Tinto aren’t buying “retail”, and even if they were the amount they pay should ideally be that which sees them remain in business. Just. What that magic number is I don’t know, and unless you’re as well versed with their business options as both they themselves and the govt are neither do you.



I am not anti industry i just don't see why we couldn't support Solid Energy Which is NZ owned and all the profits go to NZ and yet we are supposed to prop up Rio Rinto who make substantial profits year in and year out where all the profits go overseas.

The fact is coal doesn’t currently command a very good price, and yet it’s not going anywhere, sooner or later the price will rise to the point where it’s attractive to mine again.

Personally I’m a little uneasy about burning shitloads of coal just to make electricity, although I know there’s NZ based tech that significantly reduces the pollutants. But, y’know, I’m neither an expert or a seriously rabid environmentalist. I do reckon that eventually there’ll be far better uses for the resource, plastics manf springs to mind.

Whereas, while aluminium doesn't command a particularly high price today it's apparently likely to improve, and if Rio Tinto abandons NZ for the same market-related reason they won’t be back, even if the price of high-grade aluminium doubles overnight they’ll stick with their alternative upgrade of their Aus assets, right next door to where the raw material comes from.

[husaberg]

I don't think its useful to argue whether Solid Energy's loss of workers is better or worse than the likely effect of the Tiwai Point smelter closing. Both represent tragedies for the families involved. Homes become unsellable. There are no new jobs in the area. Contractors and shops shut down.

I don't know the fine details of the contract with the NZ government in 1963 (or thereabouts) but from the perspective of living in Southland, it appears to have been a winner on both sides. Yes, Comalco (now Rio Tinto) purchased electricity at about half price from a dedicated power station but that brought many people with high levels of expertise into this community. Those people have not only spent their wages locally but also formed the backbone of sports clubs, school boards, and new businesses flowing from the smelter.

If the smelter closes the extra power from West Arm will not immediately flow into the national grid. It isn't connected. Plus the biggest cost of electricity is the lines companies and the retailers margins. The power stations are actually a minor part of the equation.

I agree with most of that but not the end bit
Yes it isn't connected which is something i alluded to earlier.
But the huge increase in the electricity costs is the Retailer and generators not the distribution costs.
In fact although the costs are fixed as to what the distribution lines and transmission companies can charge.
The commerce commission has said they must increase in rural areas and they must decrease in Auckand...lol

[Ocean1]

I agree with most of that but not the end bit
Yes it isn't connected which is something i alluded to earlier.
But the huge increase in the electricity costs is the Retailer and generators not the distribution costs.
In fact although the costs are fixed as to what the distribution lines and transmission companies can charge.
The commerce commission has said they must increase in rural areas and they must decrease in Auckand...lol

My memory's not what it could be, but I believe Comalco's initial and prefered scheme was to build the generating infrastructure itself. IIRC the govt eventually had them paying for reticulation, I guess figuring we would do OK out of the generation side with Comalco's... what do you call the minimum demand level charged?

Meh, more Bourbon...

[husaberg]

Yeah,



I’d say they were pretty close, no?

No as you still keep on inferring they were the then current labour laws weren't stopping them. The only one who said that was Gerry to justify what he wanted to do.
The project Hobbit was after the laws so for you to say future is wrong, Sorry but that is how it was.
NZ labour laws are lax compared to Aussie and Hollywood and Canada.




Perhaps he meant the industry would pull future projects, exactly as I did. I know I’d certainly not expose any project I was concerned with to the sort of ambush the off-shore union instigated.

No he didn't, he said they were going to pull out the documents plainly say they weren't going to.



Bugger, ya got me. And yet the figures came from SUCH a reliable source…
I hope that is rhetoric because the Rio Tinto job figures never state it, why because it doesn't suit their threat they are trying to make.
Everytime Rio Tinto quote job numbers note how it is phrased. AS i have shown the Solid energy's job losses were far greater than what rio tinto is threatening
Yet where was the goverment?

OH look their own figures for employees are even less,2011 850 FTE's remember they have slashed a lot of workers since 2011http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30



Yes. How much has Rio Tinto’s power bill gone up?
I showed you........ from their figures 30% up. from piss all.

Rio Tinto aren’t buying “retail”, and even if they were the amount they pay should ideally be that which sees them remain in business. Just. What that magic number is I don’t know, and unless you’re as well versed with their business options as both they themselves and the govt are neither do you.

As you keep saying they have the right to negotiate and they did. an increase of 30% was all it went up. It is from their own figures isn't that reliable enough for you? I guess they know what they pay don't they? They (RIO Tinto) released them to the union to justify job cuts. Might have been a mistake in hindsight.



The fact is coal doesn’t currently command a very good price, and yet it’s not going anywhere, sooner or later the price will rise to the point where it’s attractive to mine again.
Please respectively read what you wrote about the aluminum price.

Personally I’m a little uneasy about burning shitloads of coal just to make electricity, although I know there’s NZ based tech that significantly reduces the pollutants. But, y’know, I’m neither an expert or a seriously rabid environmentalist. I do reckon that eventually there’ll be far better uses for the resource, plastics manf springs to mind.
NZ coal is not used for Generating electricity other than a back up (Huntley) Sure the dairy industry use a bit and so does some industry but it is small potatoes
It is sold overseas with all the profits saying in NZ it is predominantly used in steel manufacturing.
Aussie use there own coal it big time for generating power (they don't have our abundant water.which is why they would have to be coal fired to set it up in Aussie to power a smelter over there.
It would cost shit loads more plus the cost to increase capacity for smelting over their

Whereas, while aluminium doesn't command a particularly high price today it's apparently likely to improve, and if Rio Tinto abandons NZ for the same market-related reason they won’t be back, even if the price of high-grade aluminium doubles overnight they’ll stick with their alternative upgrade of their Aus assets, right next door to where the raw material comes from.

For the same reason used used for NZ coal Rio Tinto is logically unlikely to abandon their already operational NZ operation and infrastructure for a short term dip are they. sure they might retrench as they have been.


My memory's not what it could be, but I believe Comalco's initial and prefered scheme was to build the generating infrastructure itself. IIRC the govt eventually had them paying for reticulation, I guess figuring we would do OK out of the generation side with Comalco's... what do you call the minimum demand level charged?

Meh, more Bourbon...
You worked at Manapori, I guess you should recall its location, Can see why only the government could have built it?


Political historyIn July 1956, the New Zealand Electricity Department announced the possibility of a project using the Manapouri water, an underground power station and underground tailrace tunnel discharging the water at Deep Cove in Doubtful Sound. Five months later, Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited (later known as Comalco) formally approached the New Zealand government about acquiring a large amount of electricity for aluminium smelting.

On 19 January 1960, the Labour Government and Consolidated Zinc/Comalco signed a formal agreement for Consolidated Zinc to build both an aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point and a power station in Manapouri. The agreement violated the National Parks Act, which provided for formal protection of the Park, and required subsequent legislation to validate the development. Consolidated Zinc/Comalco received exclusive rights to the waters of both Lakes Manapouri and Te Anau for 99 years. Consolidated Zinc/Comalco planned to build dams that would raise Lake Manapouri by 30 metres, and merge the two lakes. The Save Manapouri Campaign was born, marking the beginning of the modern New Zealand environmental movement.

In 1963, Consolidated Zinc/Comalco decided it could not afford to build the power station. The New Zealand government took over. Electricity generated by the plant was sold to Consolidated Zinc/Comalco at basement prices, with no provision for inflation.

In 1969, Consolidated Zinc's electric power rights were transferred to Comalco Power (NZ) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Australian-based Comalco Industries Pty Ltd.

In 1970, the Save Manapouri petition to the government attracted 264,907 signatures.

In 1972, New Zealand elected a new Labour government. In 1973, the Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, honoured his party’s election pledge not to raise the levels of the lakes. He created an independent body, the Guardians of Lake Manapouri, Monowai, and Te Anau, to oversee management of the lake levels. The original six Guardians were all prominent leaders of the Save Manapouri Campaign.

In 1984, the Labour Party returned to power in the general election. The resulting period was tumultuous, with Labour's controversial ministers Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble driving rogernomics, a rapid introduction of "free market" reforms and privatisation of government assets. Many suspected the Manapouri Power station would be sold, and Comalco was the obvious buyer. In 1991, the Save Manapouri Campaign was revived, with many of the same leaders and renamed Power For Our Future. The Campaign opposed selling off the power station to ensure that Comalco did not rehabilitate its plans to raise Lake Manapouri's waters. The Campaign was successful. The government announced that Manapouri would not be sold to Comalco.

On 1 April 1999 - the 1998 reform of the New Zealand electricity sector took effect: the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was broken up and Manapouri was transferred to new state-owned generator Meridian Energy.

[Ocean1]

No as you still keep on inferring they were the then current labour laws weren't stopping them. The only one who said that was Gerry to justify what he wanted to do.
The project Hobbit was after the laws so for you to say future is wrong, Sorry but that is how it was.
NZ labour laws are lax compared to Aussie and Hollywood and Canada.

I clearly recall an American production exec saying that his company wouldn’t work in NZ under the then current laws. Might have been bullshit, who knows. Two facts: the rules were changed, and movies have subsequently been made in NZ.

My personal take on the rules is hardly important, but as I said there’s no way I’d have been spending my dime in NZ under those conditions either, as applied to that industry they were absurd. I don’t know what the laws are overseas, but I know there was a time when Hollywood was the only place where that type of work was done. The studios came up with alternatives precisely because they couldn't accept those labour demands, otherwise we probably wouldn’t have the industry here at all.


As you keep saying they have the right to negotiate and they did. an increase of 30% was all it went up. It is from their own figures isn't that reliable enough for you? I guess they know what they pay don't they? They (RIO Tinto) released them to the union to justify job cuts. Might have been a mistake in hindsight.

You figure they’re not paying enough, I get that. Yet if they released the details of their costs I’d say that demonstrated a fairly open handed approach to their relationship with their staff.


NZ coal is not used for Generating electricity other than a back up (Huntley) Sure the dairy industry use a bit and so does some industry but it is small potatoes
It is sold overseas with all the profits saying in NZ it is predominantly used in steel manufacturing.
Aussie use there own coal it big time for generating power (they don't have our abundant water.which is why they would have to be coal fired to set it up in Aussie to power a smelter over there.
It would cost shit loads more plus the cost to increase capacity for smelting over their
For the same reason used used for NZ coal Rio Tinto is logically unlikely to abandon their already operational NZ operation and infrastructure for a short term dip are they. sure they might retrench as they have been.

I know we don’t burn much coal here, but it doesn’t really make much difference to the environment where it’s burnt, does it? I know China’s coal resource quality is very poor, and yet I've seen the tonnage that floats down the Yangtze, presumably to the steel mills. Perhaps we should be selling them our superior product, why isn’t it a commercial reality?

I don’t doubt that when it comes to negotiations with nz.govt Rio Tinto would play hard, I understand they’ve rolled aus.govt on several multi-billion dollar deals. That doesn’t mean there can’t be a mutually profitable business arrangement between them and NZ. What price that means they should pay for electricity I don’t know, I guess we’ll only ever know if they walk away. And I assure you that if they lose money for too long their version of logic means they most certainly will walk away. As you point out aluminium prices are such at the moment that given their overall international production capacity losing a non-profitable facility would hurt them not a jot.


You worked at Manapori, I guess you should recall its location, Can see why only the government could have built it?

I don’t think Comalco’s original proposal was site-specific, they simply wanted to control the price they paid for electricity and figured that owning the infrastructure was the best way to do that. Even then that would have been politically unacceptable I suspect.

And I’ve never worked at Manapouri, but I did make parts of it. I’d like to see it one day.

[husaberg]

I clearly recall an American production exec saying that his company wouldn’t work in NZ under the then current laws. Might have been bullshit, who knows. Two facts: the rules were changed, and movies have subsequently been made in NZ.

My personal take on the rules is hardly important, but as I said there’s no way I’d have been spending my dime in NZ under those conditions either, as applied to that industry they were absurd. I don’t know what the laws are overseas, but I know there was a time when Hollywood was the only place where that type of work was done. The studios came up with alternatives precisely because they couldn't accept those labour demands, otherwise we probably wouldn’t have the industry here at all.


It subsequently turned out, according to an email from Jackson to National Minister, Gerry Brownlee, that the threat of moving ‘The Hobbit‘ overseas was non-existent,

Sir Peter Jackson told the Government he did not believe an international actors’ boycott would force The Hobbit overseas, emails show.

The message, sent to the office of Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee on October 18, is in stark contrast to comments the film-maker made earlier in the month.

On October 1, he said: “The Hobbit is being punished with a boycott which is endangering thousands of New Zealand jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign income, for no good reason.”

Sir Peter dismissed the idea that movie production was moving overseas because it was cheaper to make films there.

“It’s completely absurd! Eastern Europe is only being considered because a minority group of the New Zealand acting community have invoked union action that has blacklisted our film, making it impossible to shoot in New Zealand.”

But on October 18, Sir Peter said the boycott had nothing to do with the movies potentially moving overseas.

“There is no connection between the blacklist (and it’s eventual retraction) and the choice of production base for The Hobbit,” he wrote.

“What Warners requires for The Hobbit is the certainty of a stable employment environment and the ability to conduct its business in such as way that it feels its $500 million investment is as secure as possible.”

The October 18 email also suggests Sir Peter thought the boycott had been lifted, even though he said in television interviews three days later he was unsure if it had been officially ditched.

Sir Peter declined to comment through a spokesman yesterday
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/and-the-oscar-for-union-smashing-and-manipulating-public-opinion-goes-to/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10695662


You figure they’re not paying enough, I get that. Yet if they released the details of their costs I’d say that demonstrated a fairly open handed approach to their relationship with their staff.
No they released the increase not the figures.
Suffice to say it is a great deal and the owners have always paid hardball. The plant is for sale and is not likely to remain economic long term because they paid to much for it in a biding war. Rio Tinto are unable to pull out for about 6 years. it will take 3 years to upgrade and put in new lines



I know we don’t burn much coal here, but it doesn’t really make much difference to the environment where it’s burnt, does it? I know China’s coal resource quality is very poor, and yet I've seen the tonnage that floats down the Yangtze, presumably to the steel mills. Perhaps we should be selling them our superior product, why isn’t it a commercial reality?.

Because John was wanting to run the company into the ground, so he could sell the resource offshore. It was a great way to destroy the union.Nz Per capita has the largest coal reserves next to Aussie. But ours is higher quailty.


I don’t doubt that when it comes to negotiations with nz.govt Rio Tinto would play hard, I understand they’ve rolled aus.govt on several multi-billion dollar deals. That doesn’t mean there can’t be a mutually profitable business arrangement between them and NZ. What price that means they should pay for electricity I don’t know, I guess we’ll only ever know if they walk away. And I assure you that if they lose money for too long their version of logic means they most certainly will walk away. As you point out aluminium prices are such at the moment that given their overall international production capacity losing a non-profitable facility would hurt them not a jot.
If we have to pay well above actual market rate because it cost so much to support the smelter and build additional capacity for normal growth (36 billion eq for Manapori at today's costs) it is not a win win.
They rolled the state governments with the same tactics. Tasmainia they now regret it because they are now going back for another go.
(comalco was worse) when you look at what they used to play. and are threatening to pull out without extra support. Rio tinto economic benefit figures don't stack up

I don’t think Comalco’s original proposal was site-specific, they simply wanted to control the price they paid for electricity and figured that owning the infrastructure was the best way to do that. Even then that would have been politically unacceptable I suspect.

They originally wanted to do it there. but couldn't or more likely wouldn't finance it. When the locals objected to their cheap option of increasing the lake level either 30 meters and build dams to achieve it.Rather than what the NZED did.

Oh have a read of this 3.5 cents a unit although it has gone up 30% since then.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html

highlights

Fighting hard against a rate increase of 650 percent proposed in 1977 by the Muldoon (National) government, Comalco contacted its parent companies in Japan, the UK and the United States [Kaiser Aluminum used to be in the smelter consortium] and asked them to persuade the U.S. and UK governments to "take action" against the New Zealand government, according to internal company documents leaked to CAFCA. The documents reveal that Comalco asked its Japanese associates to organize Japanese industrialists to act against New Zealand and directly asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to intervene in the price dispute. Comalco eventually agreed to a 350 percent rate increase, and the government managed to cut the length of the contract from 99 years to 30 years, so that it will now expire in 2007.


In 1986, with the Labour government trying to increase Comalco's rate from 1.5 cents to 3.5 cents a unit, Comalco attempted to pressure top government officials, including Minister of Energy Bob Tizard, to be more sympathetic toward the company. Comalco also unsuccessfully took the government to court to try to prevent a rate increase from being legislated.

Comalco shifted tactics in the late 1980s, Rosenberg says, after a 1986 public opinion survey showed that people thought "power prices" rather than "aluminum" when they heard Comalco's name.


There is good reason for the controversy which has surrounded the Manapouri station and the Comalco deal. Although former Works Minister Hugh Watt said upon his retirement in 1974, "The greatest achievement of my career was persuading Comalco to build their smelter in New Zealand," Comalco has created numerous problems for the country which subsidizes its smelting operations. It tried to ruin a lake to build a power station, it fought both National and Labour governments over attempts to raise power prices and now it is trying to buy the power station itself from the state at a steep discount. Structurally, the Comalco arrangement puts New Zealand in the role of low-cost energy exporter, a fact which the government has implicitly noted in rebuffing other mineral smelter proposals. In 1974, for example, the Labour government rejected a proposed nickel smelter, saying: "As energy and labour would have been the only substantial inputs into a product primarily aimed at export markets, the proposal could have, in effect, involved a low-priced energy export."




Comalco never built the power station. With the company complaining that it could not afford to build the power plant, the government agreed in 1963 to build the Manapouri plant itself and to sell electricity from the station to Comalco at bargain- basement prices that have still not been officially revealed. Bill Rosenberg of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA; Aotearoa is the indigenous Maori name for New Zealand) says, "Comalco has long had highly favorable power prices. Its initial agreement with the government, based on Manapouri power, gave it a 99-year agreement for power at a tiny fraction of the price to other users, with no provision for inflation." The original Comalco rate was 13 times less than the rate paid by New Zealand householders and one twentieth the rate charged to other industries and farmers. The government even granted the company the right to take electricity from the national grid at Manapouri prices; Comalco exercised this right in 1974, when a drought caused a severe drop in Lake Manapouri's level.




Comalco has repeatedly manipulated and interfered with New Zealand politics - and politicians - to preserve its special arrangement with the Manapouri plant. Rosenberg says that, in 1970, Comalco "issued shares to influential New Zealanders at a cheap rate before offering them to the public. These included prominent journalists, politicians, judges and newspaper executives."



The National government at least had some success in increasing the power price in the 1970s; Labour failed completely in the 1980s. Comalco dragged out negotiations, took court action and complained publicly about its power price. But the company was hardly suffering under the new arrangement, as Electricorp CEO Rod Deane revealed in leaked 1987 documents: "With corporatization, electricity consumers will now have to meet the full cost of running the electricity system. Under the existing agreements, without any explicit Government subsidy, all other electricity consumers will be subsidizing the smelter. Comalco is benefiting by [NZ]$1-1.5 million per week as a result of the present agreements." But the Rogernauts running Electricorp had no stomach to legislate a price increase (which would signal a return to discredited Muldoonism), and the negotiations disappeared into the realm of "commercial confidentiality," where they remain.

[Ocean1]

Collection of Hobbit historical regurgitation.


Yes, we've done all this repeatedly, the union was manipulitive, the studios were ugly and the govt told porkies in cleaning up the mess. That cover it?

Yet again: The law changed, movies (including those unrelated to teh Hobbit) have since been made here that in all liklihood would not have been without that change. End of.


No they released the increase not the figures.
Suffice to say it is a great deal and the owners have always paid hardball. The plant is for sale and is not likely to remain economic long term because they paid to much for it in a biding war. Rio Tinto are unable to pull out for about 6 years. it will take 3 years to upgrade and put in new lines

In who’s opinion is it a great deal?

And hardball is exactly what most would expect a large corporation to play. Some people don’t see that as an ultimate barrier to a productive agreement.



Because John was wanting to run the company into the ground, so he could sell the resource offshore. It was a great way to destroy the union.Nz Per capita has the largest coal reserves next to Aussie. But ours is higher quailty.

You’re obviously on very good terms with John, if anyone else had told me that I’d suggest that at best it wasn’t a particularly lucid explanation for the events surrounding the industry, and at worst it sounded almost like union propaganda. If I was of a mind to entertain uncharitable suspicions regarding any lack of official enthusiasm for the industry at the time I’d probably be looking at influences of a greener tinge.

As for our coal reserves, notwithstanding the fact that there’s a fair wad of it for each kiwi and the fact that it apparently can’t be accessed for a price that allows it to be profitably marketed I don’t necessarily have a problem with us retaining them as exactly that, a reserve.


If we have to pay well above actual market rate because it cost so much to support the smelter and build additional capacity for normal growth (36 billion eq for Manapori at today's costs) it is not a win win.

I agree. I even agree that it appears we’re paying above market rates for electricity. Whether the price we’re charging Rio Tinto for power represents “support” I have no idea, you’d have to know a great deal more than I do about whatever benefits their business represents for NZ to make that call. As for new projects, ask what the economic surpluses of the 2000’s were spent on, ‘cause there was a bunch of us really really hoping it would be spent on infrastructure rather than social fiddling and election bribes.


They rolled the state governments with the same tactics. Tasmainia they now regret it because they are now going back for another go.
(comalco was worse) when you look at what they used to play. and are threatening to pull out without extra support. Rio tinto economic benefit figures don't stack up

I’ll take your word for it, I simply haven’t seen anywhere near the full list of pros and cons let alone the independent analysis I'd want to make even a passing guess.

As for Tassie, I was there last year, from close-up it looks indistinguishable from the NZ situation. Including the public unease at any concessions the federal govt might manufacture.



They originally wanted to do it there. but couldn't or more likely wouldn't finance it. When the locals objected to their cheap option of increasing the lake level either 30 meters and build dams to achieve it.Rather than what the NZED did.

I remember my Father arriving back from a trip to Doubtful Sound with a couple of the principals, he worked for a local related equipment supplier. There was nowhere to moor the boat where they wanted to survey, vertical cliffs for miles each side of them. They managed to get a line around an outcrop while they dropped an anchor. They lost the lot, all 100yds plus of it.

Is there more hydraulic capacity in the system H? Would more tunnels expand the potential output?

[husaberg]

Yes, we've done all this repeatedly, the union was manipulitive, the studios were ugly and the govt told porkies in cleaning up the mess. That cover it?

Yet again: The law changed, movies (including those unrelated to teh Hobbit) have since been made here that in all liklihood would not have been without that change. End of.
You nearly had me agreeing with you until the last bit Your justification is unfounded. As has been showed and as Peter Jackson has clearly stated. Mr Brownlee told Porkies to justify what he did. AS Peter Jackson has said we were still by far the best Deal around



In who’s opinion is it a great deal?
IF you mean the bit where they paid to much for the alcanz assets? it came from an economist so your right who says:shifty:
They (Rio Tinto) signed it? The power price deal then tried to forcibly renegotiate it when they thought they had traction.

And hardball is exactly what most would expect a large corporation to play. Some people don’t see that as an ultimate barrier to a productive agreement.
A productive agreement is a win-win for both parties.......




You’re obviously on very good terms with John, if anyone else had told me that I’d suggest that at best it wasn’t a particularly lucid explanation for the events surrounding the industry, and at worst it sounded almost like union propaganda. If I was of a mind to entertain uncharitable suspicions regarding any lack of official enthusiasm for the industry at the time I’d probably be looking at influences of a greener tinge.
I have worked for 4 SOE's now I can tell you that they very week National came to power they The CEO's of the SOE' S were all hauled in front of the minister of SOE's and told in no certain terms they what dividend they were going to post.

Solid Energy for all its problems not including the poor decisions
Was told not to mine for almost a year post Pike.
Told they had to Buy the Pike mine.
Had to borrow to achieve the National defined return to the Government.
They were also told they were to pay 125 million dollars to the government as a Carbon tax.
They went to the government and said the market not good we need some capital Key hung them out to dry.
This is the same person who had said it was of national importance to for the country to bail out those who had lost money in Hanover and The SCF debacle with tax payer funds.


As for our coal reserves, notwithstanding the fact that there’s a fair wad of it for each kiwi and the fact that it apparently can’t be accessed for a price that allows it to be profitably marketed I don’t necessarily have a problem with us retaining them as exactly that, a reserve.
It can be they are just not allowed to, Solid Energy's cash cow Stockton is highly variable quality, spring creek was used to blend a lot more it into an acceptable quality. Now Stockton is less profitable because of this they are cutting back again.
BHP is running around the West Coast as we speck tying up as many additional mining licenses as they can.



I agree. I even agree that it appears we’re paying above market rates for electricity. Whether the price we’re charging Rio Tinto for power represents “support” I have no idea, you’d have to know a great deal more than I do about whatever benefits their business represents for NZ to make that call. As for new projects, ask what the economic surpluses of the 2000’s were spent on, ‘cause there was a bunch of us really really hoping it would be spent on infrastructure rather than social fiddling and election bribes.
It does one would expect a discount for bulk but not the bulk of consumers to support the price to achieve it.
AS for the Nanny state of the earlier part. Really can you tell me the workers are better off Now. The trickle downs from nationals policies is not exactly working is it. Everything is going up other than wages. Business is good.............. The whole time national was in the operstion they n=blreated we were being ripped off and they were being irresponsible not decreasing tax.
Have upped GST......Which is only a consumer cost.
Now we are going to sell of the silverware.
Wow a chance to buy something we already own? how exciting is that............



I remember my Father arriving back from a trip to Doubtful Sound with a couple of the principals, he worked for a local related equipment supplier. There was nowhere to moor the boat where they wanted to survey, vertical cliffs for miles each side of them. They managed to get a line around an outcrop while they dropped an anchor. They lost the lot, all 100yds plus of it.

Is there more hydraulic capacity in the system H? Would more tunnels expand the potential output?

The major problem is capacity with dryer years. Increasing the lake height would of course be a help but is a no no.
More tunnels would only increase short duration energy capacity.
interestingly the tides effect Manapori because of its outfall.
As it stands Manapori is being supplemented to power the smelter at times (but at a discounted rate of course)
PS to say i am union leaning is entirely incorrect, and to say i am green is FAF

[Ocean1]

You nearly had me agreeing with you

Difficult to argue, that’s the way the respective protagonists always behave, shouldn’t surprise anyone.



IF you mean the bit where they paid to much for the alcanz assets? it came from an economist so your right who says:shifty:
They (Rio Tinto) signed it? The power price deal then tried to forcibly renegotiate it when they thought they had traction.

A productive agreement is a win-win for both parties.......

I actually meant the bit where they pay for power. There’s a bunch of different model structures that attempt to describe the shape of various markets. The one I find particularly attractive is really simple: what’s a reasonable return on cost of supply? I know you’ve posted numbers representing asset build costs etc, but they go nowhere near describing the current cost of electricity supply to Tiwai Point. It’s quite possible that they’re paying what that model would consider a reasonable return on the current cost of supply. In which case NZ.corp and RT both win. And that’s without considering secondary issues like taxes from related industry and unemployment.

To be honest I get annoyed at most other pricing rationale, they’re almost always simply attempts to justify costs for products I don’t want to buy.


I have worked for 4 SOE's now I can tell you that they very week National came to power they The CEO's of the SOE' S were all hauled in front of the minister of SOE's and told in no certain terms they what dividend they were going to post.

Solid Energy for all its problems not including the poor decisions
Was told not to mine for almost a year post Pike.
Told they had to Buy the Pike mine.
Had to borrow to achieve the National defined return to the Government.
They were also told they were to pay 125 million dollars to the government as a Carbon tax.
They went to the government and said the market not good we need some capital Key hung them out to dry.
This is the same person who had said it was of national importance to for the country to bail out those who had lost money in Hanover and The SCF debacle with tax payer funds.

Sounds like exactly the sort of behaviour I’d expect from the board of any large company. They do tend to get a bit testy with year-in year-out losses. And I’d rather the govt viewed our SOEs as something other than a cosy alternative that diverts attention from unemployment.

I wonder to what extent we’re affected by our various leaders field of experience, I don’t think I’ve ever been happy that the interests of people in technical roles have been represented well. We seem to get an endless string of academics with zero practical work experience or financial experts with zero practical work experience.

From my understanding the bail-out wasn’t required, private investors should take the hits with the gains. It’s possible I don’t know the full story there though.



It can be they are just not allowed to, Solid Energy's cash cow Stockton is highly variable quality, spring creek was used to blend a lot more it into an acceptable quality. Now Stockton is less profitable because of this they are cutting back again.
BHP is running around the West Coast as we speck tying up as many additional mining licenses as they can.

I’d tell ‘em if I was you. They’d have to listen if you gave ‘em the facts, innit?

I do know what you mean, though, I was doing some contract work for Rail when mate Cullen bought it back from Toll. With a minimum of inside knowledge you could easily see it was worth fuck all, by the time you added up the costs of outstanding maintenance, (the contract for which Toll tied up in the same deal) it exactly wiped out the asset capital value.


It does one would expect a discount for bulk but not the bulk of consumers to support the price to achieve it.

As I said, I’m not convinced the bulk of consumers are subsidising Tiwai Point. If I had to guess why we’re paying so much for power I’d be looking in other directions to see where our money’s going.



AS for the Nanny state of the earlier part. Really can you tell me the workers are better off Now.

Of course not, there’s the small matter of a worldwide recession. GDP’s looking up though, in a couple of years people will figure they can afford another labour govt. They’ll be wrong of course, but that’s never stopped them before.


The major problem is capacity with dryer years. Increasing the lake height would of course be a help but is a no no.
More tunnels would only increase short duration energy capacity.
interestingly the tides effect Manapori because of its outfall.
As it stands Manapori is being supplemented to power the smelter at times (but at a discounted rate of course)

I remember Jantar taking exception to my observation about the tidal flow through Cook straight being a tempting source for generation. Only a couple of metres head, he said. Still, there’s a fair quantity of water there and back again, twice a day…

[husaberg]

I actually meant the bit where they pay for power. There’s a bunch of different model structures that attempt to describe the shape of various markets. The one I find particularly attractive is really simple: what’s a reasonable return on cost of supply? I know you’ve posted numbers representing asset build costs etc, but they go nowhere near describing the current cost of electricity supply to Tiwai Point. It’s quite possible that they’re paying what that model would consider a reasonable return on the current cost of supply. In which case NZ.corp and RT both win. And that’s without considering secondary issues like taxes from related industry and unemployment.

You are are missing the but where the SOE is told what profit it has to return, and can't pass the cost on to its largest customer.
guess who makes up the difference, who pays?
People either don't understand or don't know about the SOE charter.
It states they are only to make a responsible profit. the new mixed model won't have this i are betting.
This is been holding back power prices (not that you would notice) this will no longer be in place.



Sounds like exactly the sort of behaviour I’d expect from the board of any large company. They do tend to get a bit testy with year-in year-out losses. And I’d rather the govt viewed our SOEs as something other than a cosy alternative that diverts attention from unemployment.
They were not making losses on the contrary they were posting profits year in and out plus paying good wages supporting local industries
this was not the case with RIO Tinto the profits are funneled offshore, Shit they( RIO TINTO)were exempt from company tax for a long time (1988)


From my understanding the bail-out wasn’t required, private investors should take the hits with the gains. It’s possible I don’t know the full story there though.
This is correct but it wasn't what happened was it.



I’d tell ‘em if I was you. They’d have to listen if you gave ‘em the facts, innit?
They know just as Timberland's knew, remember what happened to their CEO.
Fixing SE does not suit the political agenda the asset (coal reserves) are worth more than the company is as a whole

I do know what you mean, though, I was doing some contract work for Rail when mate Cullen bought it back from Toll. With a minimum of inside knowledge you could easily see it was worth fuck all, by the time you added up the costs of outstanding maintenance, (the contract for which Toll tied up in the same deal) it exactly wiped out the asset capital value.

The dollar deal with hooks LOL
If i recall corect one of the companies was sold off for a years profit for a start off.Telecom?
With the Railway deal Mr Fay and Co sacked all the people that maintained the tracks sold the silver and copper from the electric set up at Otira for a Million dollars i think.
run it into the ground for great profits. Admittedly Muldown had used it as a unemployment benefit (but shit stopped them burgling houses i guess)



Of course not, there’s the small matter of a worldwide recession. GDP’s looking up though, in a couple of years people will figure they can afford another labour govt. They’ll be wrong of course, but that’s never stopped them before.
Recession during recessions people make outstanding returns and the minions do not ask for wage increases.
The West Coast had no recession until SE shit went down



I remember Jantar taking exception to my observation about the tidal flow through Cook straight being a tempting source for generation. Only a couple of metres head, he said. Still, there’s a fair quantity of water there and back again, twice a day…
Jantar is the only Mod that has ever inf-acted me.
There is a place in NT that has a 20 meter tide similar in the UK.
Whats wrong with waves?
There was another scheme mooted for Stockton where the dirty water (acidic) was to be used to run a Hydro scheme it would be a great cheap scheme. Also great for the environment as the water would have by passed the river and it had a Huge head (about 400 meters) Cheap as well.
I think the company is imploding at the moment which is a shame (solid energy tried to block it as they wanted to do the same)