|
.
SUMMARY
Assessment and Feasibility
THE REVISED
BRADFIELD SCHEME
As proposed by the
Bradfield Study Consortium Report - 1984
INDEX
Home
* Contact * INDEX *
Current Issues * Priority Issues *
Reference Index * Selwyn's
Profile * Your
Comments
.
THE BRADFIELD STUDY
CONSORTIUM REPORT - 1984
This report was commissioned by the Premier's Department of
the Queensland government, and undertaken by four of Australia's leading water engineering
firms - Gutteridge Haskins & Davey, McIntyre & Associates, Munro & Johnson,
and Cameron McNamara.
This report was never released, The Scheme proposed by the
BSCR was allocated only a very limited percentage of the water resources of the area under
study (e.g., the Tully and nearly half the Upper Burdekin were not permitted to be
allocated to the scheme).
The study's terms of reference and resources were limited
(e.g. the preferred scheme, Route 8 was not costed in the Report).
This study stated that 905,000 megalitres of water would be
made available to Channels for delivering to the farm gate. This was sufficient to
irrigate 150,000 ha.
The BSCR study included 0NLY the waters of the Upper Herbert
and Upper Burdekin Rivers (i.e. not the Upper Tully or Upper Johnstone)
The study costed the Scheme at $1,950 million.
The study provided raw engineering figures of construction
costs and water yield only. These of themselves did not recommend the Scheme. The study
stated the annual operating costs at $430/ha compared unfavourably with $122/ha at
Burdekin and similarly with capital cost per ha - $18,800, compared with $6,600 at
Burdekin. The BSC report was prepared from engineering parameters only with restricted and
narrow terms of reference.
Integral considerations of a non-engineering nature were not
factored into the BSC report. The raw engineering figures needed to be inserted into an
assessment model with a more adequate framework and terms of reference.
Cabinet consequently directed the Department of Northern
Development to carry out a cost benefit assessment for consideration.
A Summary of Assessment and Feasibility (cost benefit
analysis) was prepared by the Dept of Northern Development. It was completed just prior to
the fall of the Government in 1989. So neither it nor the BSC Report was released. What
follows is this Summary Report prepared by the office of Northern Development,
Return: INDEX
SUMMARY OF
ASSESSMENT
AND FEASIBILITY OF
THE REVISED BRADFIELD SCHEME
This BSC Report was never released.
Whilst it was of an exploratory nature, it was undertaken to provide some hard figures.
The Fraser Government had, prior to this, allocated $5
million for a full feasibility study; The Government fell before it was undertaken. The
Queensland Government then allocated $0.5 million for an abbreviated study.
This study, it must be emphasized as stated above, Was never
to be a comprehensive report. It did not even cost out its preferred route, Route 8. The
money allocation was simply for an overview costing.
It must be emphasized that the Summary Assessment and
Feasibility does not include five factors:
- One pumping station should be eliminated by Route 8 (Route 8
is the post script preferred route) This should markedly reduce pumping costs.
- Night Pumping and HydroElectric contribution - will further
reduce operating costs from the scheme. More detailed work would need to be undertaken to
confirm these assertions.
- Wages would comprise an estimated 50% of the cost of
construction. The cost of each job created by the project is offset by the removal of one
person from unemployment benefits. This 'dole reduction' effect should lower the
"real" cost of construction by over 25%.
- Figures for drought losses are grossly inadequate because of
difficulties in producing an objective quantifiable assessment.
- Figures for sheep production stabilization and increases are
again inadequate, once again because of difficulties in producing an objectively
quantifiable assessment.
Return: INDEX
SUMMARY
TOTAL VALUE of ANNUAL PRODUCTION
From
THE REVISED BRADFIELD SCHEME
As Per BSCR 1984
| COTTON |
$507,000,000 |
| WOODCHIP |
$105,000,000 |
| CATTLE PRODUCTION INCREASE |
$240,000,000 |
| DROUGHT AND FLOOD MITIGATION BENEFIT |
$78,000,000 |
| |
|
| TOTAL |
$930,000,000 |
Return: INDEX
SUMMARY
| NETT CAPITAL COST |
$ 2.37 billion |
| GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCTION (per annum) |
$0.93 billion |
Return: INDEX
SUMMARY
If the Upper Tully is included in the Scheme and a paper
pulp mill converts wood chip to the value added product paper…
| NET CAPITAL COST |
$2.49 billion |
| GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCTION |
$2.02 billion |
Return: INDEX
FULL COMPARISON
| |
Capital
Cost |
Gross Value
Production
p/a |
Average Yield
(mgltrs) |
STAGE 1
Diversion of Upper Burdekin and Upper Herbert |
$2.37b |
$0.93b |
725,000 |
STAGE 2
Diversion of Upper Tully |
$0.12b |
$0.59b |
50 |
STAGE 3
Diversion of Upper Johnstone (This production figure a assumes no downstream processing of
the woodchip. Value adding to paper pulp would add another. |
$0.55b |
$0.53b
$0.50b |
460,000 |
TOTALS |
$3.04b |
$2.55b |
1,691,00 |
This figure for Stage 3 of $2.05 billion is in line with
California's agricultural production.
California's Central Valley produces around $12 billion of
agricultural production from 2 million hectares of irrigated land.
The Revised Bradfield Scheme would irrigate around 0.3
million hectares and should yield $1.8 billion of agricultural produce.
Return: INDEX
VOLUME OF
WATER AVAILABLE
| |
Available
Water (mgl) |
| Bradfield Study Consortium Report (BSCR) 1984
States that volume of water available to the Downs on the southwest of Hughenden
BSCR states (pp. 3-18) "more detailed investigations could provide a non-assured
water supply 15% greater whilst still meeting QWRC-criteria". The BSCR could not
accurately state what volume of water was available, but knew it was between 725,000 and
834,000 mgl. |
725,000 |
| The BSCR chose the bottom end of speculative
range. This report chooses the upper end of 109,000+ speculative range (i.e. adds
15%). In arriving at this 834,000 mgl the BSCR had deducted 187,000 mgl for
"future urban mining and power generation requirements". These requirements can
be supplied from other sources - Burdekin Falls, Middle Burdekin and Cape River. The BSCR
stated that the allocation of these Waters "are policy matters for decision by
Government...the probable demands for thermal power stations, mining, urban, industrial
needs are relatively small", BSCR (pps 2-47). |
109,000+
834,000 |
| The decision should be to allocate the
resources where they will be most economically effective (i.e. to Bradfield). Thus,
allocating 20,000 mgl for a future power station on the Pentland coal seam, 167,000 mgl
remains for allocation to Bradfield. |
167,000+
1,001,000 |
| 200,000 mgl should be allocated for timber
farming irrigation (e.g. of commercially planted eucalypt forest for paper pulp) east of
the Great Divide. |
200,000-
801,000 |
A 3O% deduction needs to be made for losses in
irrigation channels "en route" to the farm gate (as per BSCR)
Revised volume of water available at farm gate on Downs southwest of Hughenden |
240,000- 561,000 |
| Water for cotton east of Great Divide |
180,000 |
| Water for woodchip timber farms |
200,000 |
| Water lost in transmission between main
diversionary canal and farm gate |
240,000 |
| Water for cotton west of Great Divide |
561,000 |
| Total Annual Volume of Water Available
mgl |
1,181,000
|
Return: INDEX
IRRIGATION
AREA FOR COTTON
| Irrigable area for cotton facilitated by
561,000 mgl (@ 7.0 mgl.per ha) would be |
80,000 ha |
Plus area for cotton east of Great Divide since
180,000 ml per ha is allocated for this purpose (only 6 ml per ha needed for cotton east
of Great Divide).
Irrigable area @ 6 ml per ha would be |
30,000 ha |
| AREA THAT CAN BE IRRIGATED |
110,000 ha |
Return: INDEX
VALUE
OF PRODUCTION
VALUE OF COTTON PRODUCTION
@ 6 bales per hectare @ $550 per bale i.e. @
225 kg/bale and 247c/kg (the price at 20/10/89)
Production is |
$3,300 per/ha |
@ ·0.9t per hectare for cotton seed meal @
$280/t (price at Hughenden)
Production is
Total Production is |
$250 ha
$3,550 per/ha |
Since there are 110,000 hectares or irrigable
land
TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTION |
$390,000,000 |
(Residual stubble is edible for cattle
fattening, see cattle production)
VOLUMETRIC ALLOCATION
If water is allocated on the basis of volumetric allocation
and not non-assured yield allocation then it is reasonable to assume that in one out of
every three years, on average, double the "non assured yield" would be available
(a fairly complex programme would have to be prepared to accurately quantify this figure).
| This would facilitate an increase in average
annual production of 30% adding |
$117,000,000 |
| GROSS VALUE OF COTTON PRODUCTION |
$507,000,000 |
Return: INDEX
FOREST
TIMBER PAPER PULP (Fodder, Activated Carbon)
* 200,000 mgl is allocated for irrigation of eucalypt forest
for woodchip.
* 5 mgl per hectare is required to produce 35t%ha/yr.
* Woodchip debarked green at port is worth $75/t (or $140/t
bone dry)
for 40,000 ha of forest.
| VALUE OF PRODUCTION OF CULTIVATED FOREST TIMBER
AS WOODCHIP |
$105,000,000 |
The area proposed for timber production is 40,000 ha of what
is locally known as the "desert country", red massive soils of poor quality
southwest of Pentland. Valuable returns can be achieved on this area in preference to
using water on western downs for cotton since here it provides:
Diversification: Economy of area depends upon world
price of cattle, sheep, cotton, paper pulp, not just the "ccs" - cotton, cattle,
sheep.
Utilizing Water before the cost of pumping over the
range has to be met. Cost per unit of production is less than if used on the downs for
cotton.
Utilizing Water before the major losses from the
extremely hot dry conditions - the high evaporation rates of the Western Downs and west of
the Great Divide are sustained as is the great length of channel losses 300 km @
evaporative rates of 2,500mm.
Paper Pulp Plant can be facilitated by this volume of
production with a processed product - paper pulp, worth some $1 billion per annum to the
Australian economy.
BY-PRODUCTS
A significant extra as a source of product income is the
by-products, particularly the production of activated carbon and other carbon products.
These are too indefinite, however, to quantify.
Return: INDEX
INCREASED & STABILISED CATTLE
PRODUCTION
Stations contingent to the irrigation channels can take 400
mgl each to permanently irrigate 40 ha of pasture for cattle fattening (or lamb weaning)
or drought feeding of breeding stock during a prolonged dry. (Bullocks would be sent to
agistment to feed lots during a prolonged dry).
Artesian bores can be closed off along irrigation routes,
considerably contributing to the conservation of this still dwindling resource.
Pastoralists can secure their stock watering from Bradfield
channels.
Mid west towns can secure vastly improved drinking water
from Bradfield channels.
Both these measures will substantially reduce the pressure
on the artesian aquifer. Some of this water conserved by these measures can be reallocated
for similar cattle fattening and drought mitigation projects on stations off the Bradfield
channels. Thus the average turn-off age of cattle - five years old - can be reduced to 2
years only and turn-off ratios would consequently increase from 1:7 to 1:3-I/2. The cattle
population of the mid-west region and contingent areas is 1.4m per head.
Annual cattle turn-off will therefore increase from 200,000
to 400,000 per head @ value added (i.e. processed price) of $1,220 per head.
| THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF CATTLE PRODUCTION
WOULD BE |
$240 million pa
|
Return: INDEX
DROUGHT PROOFING & FLOOD MITIGATION
CATTLE DROUGHT LOSSES
Increased slaughtering of females during the drought years
(i.e.1986 -1988) were 97,000 head. The 97,000 head @ 60% calving rates represents and
annual production loss of 60,000 head @ $1,220 per head (processed cost).
| CATTLE DROUGHT LOSSES AN ESTIMATED |
$72,000,000 pa. |
SHEEP DROUGHT LOSSES
Sheep losses are far harder to quantify. Lambings are nearly
20%o lower than in the rest of the State, but income from sheep is far less than from
cattle. Losses of 5% from annual woolclip of $60m would seem to be a not unreasonable
figure .
| SHEEP DROUGHT LOSSES AN ESTIMATED |
$3,000,000 pa. |
DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Drought grants and subsidies saved cannot be quantified
because there are a plethora of assistance. It is considered that a figure of $1 million
would not be excessive -
| DROUGHT ASSISTANCE AN ESTIMATED |
$1,000,000 pa. |
| TOTAL VALUE OF DROUGHT PROOFING |
$76,000,000 pa. |
Return: INDEX
FLOOD
MITIGATION CANE LOSSES
| Loss of sugar production through flooding (and
to a small degree, waterlogging) and the cost of property loss in general in the Lower
Herbert basin is difficult to quantify. The Cameron McNamara Flood Management Study 1980
states the losses in a 1-in-25 year flood at $8,877,000 -an average loss of $36O,000/year.
However, if two 1-in-50 year floods and one 1-in-100 year flood damage is added, this
should double this figure. CPI increase allowed for over9 years would double this figure,
giving an annual loss of around $1 million pa. A similar figure for the Tully would
produce annual losses of over $2m.More importantly, a simultaneous flooding in the upper
and lower Herbert, which has not occurred since European Settlement (but is part of
Aboriginal legend of the area), would result in substantial loss of life and massive
property loss FLOOD MITIGATION and CANE LOSSES AN
ESTIMATED |
$2,000,000 pa. |
| TOTAL DROUGHT PROOFING & FLOOD MITIGATION
SAVINGS |
$78,000,000 pa. |
Return: INDEX
FLOOD DANGER TO HERBERT RIVER VALLEY
Simultaneous flooding in the upper and lower Herbert River
catchment area would place hundreds of lives in danger.
Of the five major Ingham floods this century, none have
resulted from this simultaneous flooding of the upper and lower catchments.
Aboriginal legend in the Ingham area states "water from
mountain to mountain". So whilst a simultaneous flood situation has not occurred in
European Australian history, it has occurred in pre-European Australian history.
Kooragwyn Dam, the proposed Central Dam on the Herbert
River, is sited on the upper Herbert River, just above where the river goes over the
Herbert River Falls and tumbles down onto the coastal plain.
Kooragwyn Dam in proper operating mode should be kept empty.
It's storage capacity will probably exceed 2.8m mgl (the
maximum flood flow ever was 3.3m mgl - it must be noted that that was for a 12 month
period). Clearly, the Bradfield proposals with an empty operating mode at Kooragwyn can
provide almost a complete protection for Ingham and the Herbert River Valley.
Return: INDEX
CAPITAL
COST OF
THE
REVISED BRADFIELD SCHEME
| |
Billions ($) |
Billions ($) |
BSCR states:
total costs of the project
Cost of delivery channels to the farm gate
BSCR Total Cost therefore |
$1.75
$0.25 |
$1.95 |
| However, these are 1984 costing. No earthwork
price index exists. Cement has increased by some 33-1/3% (162.6 to 217) using 33-1/3% as
the Cost Price Index movement - increase in cost of scheme (of 33-1/3) adds $0.65 billion
to project costs. |
$0.65 |
|
| TOTAL COST OF SCHEME AT 1989 PRICES |
|
$2.60 billion |
LESS
| Net proceeds of land resumption and resale.
Unlike previous irrigation schemes (all undertaken in marginal farming areas) this scheme
services a narrow band along the canals at "grazing land" prices of $50/ha and
resells the land at irrigation farm prices of $1,625/ha. |
|
|
| There is 110,000 ha of irrigation farmland
(i.e. land provided with a water allocation of 7 mgl/ha) that will be resumed and resold.
The gross surplus from the resale of this land would be $1,575/ha ($1,625 - $50) |
$0.173- |
|
| A further 110,000 ha can be resumed and resold
for opportunity farming (whenever dams are at full supply level or near full supply level
and/or for cattle and sheep grazing @ $400 per ha). |
$0.044- |
|
| The 40,000 ha reserved (for commercial paper
pulping) @ $300/ha will provide a further |
$0.012-
|
|
| TOTAL REDUCTIONS |
$0.229 |
|
| NET CAPITAL COST OF SCHEME |
|
$2.371 billion |
Return: INDEX
ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE POTENTIAL
TULLY (KOOLMOON/NITCHAGA) FLINDERS, THOMPSON CAPE & UPPER JOHNSTONE RIVERS
The BSCR terms of reference dealt with the Herbert and
Burdekin Rivers only. However, water from the Tully (Koolmoon/Nitchaga Creeks), Flinders,
Thompson and Cape Rivers must be considered.
In the last 30 years over 500,000 mgl was available every
single year from these streams, with the exception of only one-year in which the yield was
350,000 mgl.
The huge flood flow in the Flinders, Cape and Thompson
Rivers is so brief and infrequent as to be unable to sustain any annual farming or
irrigation ventures. Because the terrain of the mid-west and central-west is so flat there
are no dam sites or even weir sites. These shallow ponded areas being reduced by
evaporation rates of over 2 metres/pa. would be economically non-viable. Statistically, in
two out of every 10 years there would be negligible production.
However, if Bradfield water could be utilised to replenish a
series of small dams, weirs and off stream storage along the Flinders and Thompson Rivers,
it seems quite feasible that an extra 20,000 ha of cotton could be sown on both rivers.
This benefit would be enhanced through stabilised and increased production of wool and
beef - extended along the middle Flinders and middle Thompson Rivers. If the Betts Gorge
Creek project is added, the Bradfield proposals extend by a further 50,000 ha.
The addition of the Upper Tully (including
Koolmoon,
Carpenter, Carron, Unnamed and Nitchaga Creeks) would add 506,000 mgl per year,
facilitating a 70% increase in production from the proposals as put forward in the BSCR.
(See figures following).
The upper Johnstone River can also be used. Its contribution
would be significant (nearly another 70%).
Water available but
not included in the B.S.C. Report
| |
|
Water Volume
(mgl) |
THOMPSON RIVER (at Stonehenge) Minimum annual
discharge recorded 1968-9
Average annual discharge |
40,000 |
3,825,000
|
FLINDERS RIVER (below Richmond)
Minimum annual discharge recorded 1977-8
Minimum annual discharge (excluding 77-8)
Average annual discharge |
NIL
186,000
|
791,000 |
CAPE RIVER (at Pentland)
Minimum annual discharge recorded 1977-8
Average annual discharge |
1,613 |
835,000 |
TULLY (Nitchaga) RIVER (at
Koombooloomba)
Minimum annual discharge recorded 1959-60
Average annual discharge - Tully
Average annual discharge - Nitchaga |
260,000 |
352,000
51,000
|
If Koolmoon and Nitchaga basin discharge is
added
Minimum annual discharge (estimate)
Average annual discharge - Koolmoon |
40,000 |
56,000 |
| TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE DISCHARGE |
|
5,208,000 |
NOTE: a)`UPPER JOHNSTONE RIVER
NOT INCLUDED - b)PARTS OF UPPER TULLY NOT INCLUDED
Return: INDEX
OPERATING COSTS AND ECONOMIC OFFSETS
ELECTRICITY LOSS $21m pa
Some $21m of power is generated by the HydroElectric power
station "Kareeya" on the Tully River. This loss of production can be offset by a
low head; high volume HydroElectric power station or stations built on the Bradfield
storages.
Some 300m of head and 650 mgl of water are available at the
Tully River, whilst l00m of head and 1.5 mgl are available on the upper Burdekin.
OPERATING COSTS OF SCHEME - $41 million pa
More importantly, by siting the next thermal station on the
commercially non-viable coal reserve of the remote Galilee Basin (i.e. Pentland) there can
be a very sizeable cost saving to the electricity consumers of Queensland. Since the coal
has no alternative market, it can be taken on a cost plus basis at minimal prices, and
since the station is sited at the coalmine, unlike other power stations, it has no rail
freight on coal component (a cost saving of around 20% per unit).
Effectively, no base load power station exists in North
Queensland. All FNQ electricity requirements are generated in Central Queensland at a
cost of around 2c/kwt.hr. Around 20% of the electricity generated in Central Queensland's
power stations are lost in transmission to FNQ.
These two factors should provide a cost saving of nearly 40%
on most of the electricity generated to FNQ.
The Galilee Basin, it must be noted, cannot be opened up for
electricity production unless there is some source of water to run the turbines. Some
20,000 mgl has been set aside for a 1,000MW power station at Pentland.
One of the most important issues is the annual operating
cost of $430/ha. No details are given of how this cost was comprised.
Upon a "totality costing' basis if the outlay by the
Nation is $3.04 billion and the annual income produced by this project for the Nation is
$2.55 million then this is the only relevant valid costing method.
However, real operating costs for example pumping and
maintenance costs most be accounted for.
Whilst maintenance costs can be covered by a moderate per
megalitre charge of $10/mgltr charge for a Stage 3 development would provide $16.9 million
pa.
Requiring farmers to pay interest and redemption on the cost
of construction of the project would create a prohibitive charge and render the farmer's
non-viable.
The cost of pumping should be nil since delivery to all
farms is by gravity feed and because the Great West Aqueduct follows the water divides.
The Great Western Aqueduct starts at the delivery point of
the water from the Burdekin about 40 - 50 klms approx. due south of Hughenden (i.e. 6
klms WSW of Peronne Homestead Elevation at 1075').
Since Route 7B discharges into Torrens Creek, 8 klms
above
Ulva H/S and the Elevation at this point is 1070', and since the water is delivered from
Mt Foxton Dam where full supply level is 1213' gring a fall of 143' over a distance of 415
klms - a fall of 4.2"/krn delivers water at a pumping cost of only $0.7 million pa.
Route 8 is approximately 600 klms long at 4.2ins (10cms)
fall/km delivery would require a head of 600 x 4.2 - 210 feet. Since start point of Great
Western Aqueduct is at Elevation 1075' and since the full supply level at Hells Gate Dam
is Elevation 1279', pumping cost should be about the same as in Route 7B - under $1
million pa.
ROUTE 8
| Reference Point |
Start Point |
Elevation |
Lowest Possible |
| Perronne Stn H/S |
(6 klms WSW) |
1075 |
(960) |
| Homeleigh Stn H/S |
(6.5 klms W) |
1090 |
(990) |
| Webbs Lake |
(11 klms SW) |
1120 |
(1025) |
| Hells Gate Dam |
(FSL) |
1279 |
(1120) |
On the Upper Burdekin River, whilst the full supply level at
Hells Gates is 1279, even the minimum delivery level point just on top of the banks of the
river would still be 1115'.
The fall is the same as in Route 7B in the B.S.C.R. and
since the pumping costs in Route 7B are $0.7 million pa. the pumping costs for Route 8
would also be around $0.7 million pa.
This again would be an approach similar to that used in
California - water charges in California (where water is brought hundreds of kilometres)
is charged out to the farmers at only $3.90/mgltr.
Return: INDEX
POPULATION
MAJOR PACIFIC
COUNTRIES
Millions, Actual and Projected
| |
Projected
Population
Growth (% pa.) |
2018
Actual
(million) |
2040
Projected
(million) |
| Australia |
0.94 |
24.9 |
30.6 |
| New Zealand |
0.62 |
4.7 |
5.4 |
| Malaysia |
0.94 |
31.5 |
38.8 |
| Singapore |
0.51 |
5.8 |
6.4 |
| Canada |
0.73 |
37.1 |
43.5 |
| Chile |
0.33 |
18.7 |
20.2 |
| China |
0.07 |
1,427.6 |
1,440.0 |
| Colombia |
0.49 |
49.7 |
55.3 |
| Indonesia |
0.80 |
267.7 |
318.6 |
| Japan |
-0.52 |
127.2 |
113.4 |
| Mexico |
0.78 |
126.2 |
149.8 |
| Peru |
0.85 |
32.0 |
38.6 |
| Philippines |
1.10 |
106.7 |
135.6 |
| South Korea |
-0.12 |
51.2 |
49.8 |
| Taiwan |
-0.03 |
23.7 |
23.6 |
| Thailand |
-0.03 |
69.4 |
69.0 |
| USA |
0.52 |
327.1 |
366.6 |
| Vietnam |
0.55 |
95.5 |
107.8 |
| TOTAL: Above |
0.30 |
2,826.7 |
3,021.9 |
195.2 million extra people by Year
2040
SOURCES:
United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Prospects 2019.
Online Edition.
COMPILED AT REQUEST BY THE STATISTICS GROUP
OF THE PARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH SERVICE
Return to: INDEX
E-MAIL: Bradfield
Scheme - (bradfield.scheme@fnq.cc)
|
