DOCSLIB.ORG

Net Primary Productivity and Rainfall Use Efficiency of Pastures On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Net Primary Productivity and Rainfall Use Efficiency of Pastures On 03/04 - Bisrat Page 47 Tuesday, March 9, 2004 2:17 PM Tropical Grasslands (2004) Volume 38, 47–55 47 Net primary productivity and rainfall use efficiency of pastures on reconstructed land following open-cut coal mining in central Queensland, Australia S.A. BISRAT1, B.F. MULLEN1, A.H. GRIGG2 use in central Queensland, but investigations into AND H.M. SHELTON1 the grazing capacity of these rehabilitated 1 School of Land and Food Sciences, pastures have only recently begun. Given the The University of Queensland, Australia high cost of rehabilitation (AUD25 000/ha) and 2 Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, the relatively small areas involved, Grigg et al. The University of Queensland, Australia (2000) suggested that grazing management should be directed to preventing degradation of the plant-soil system rather than achieving high Abstract production from cattle. Guidelines for sustainable The development of improved pastures for cattle grazing management are therefore essential. grazing is a logical post-mining land-use option Long-term experience and research in for the Bowen Basin coalfields of central northern Australia have indicated that safe Queensland, but little is known of the potential stocking rates require that 30% or less of average productivity or livestock carrying capacity of seasonal pasture production is utilised (McKeon these systems. A research program was instigated et al. 1990). This strategy requires the determina- to determine key indicators of grazing capacity, tion of net above-ground primary productivity viz. above-ground net primary productivity (NPP) (NPP) of pastures, a key measure of the potential and rainfall use efficiency (RUE), at 18 plots productivity of a pasture system (Redman 1992). across 3 mines. NPP ranged from 3000–11 000 Given the stochastic climate in central Queens- kg/ha/yr and RUE ranged from 4–21 kg/ha/mm. land (Willcocks and Filet 1993), and the variable These results are comparable with those for nature of rehabilitated pastures in terms of slope, buffel grass pastures on unmined lands in the aspect and spoil chemical and physical properties region. Multivariate linear regression was used to (McLennan 1994), considerable variation in develop a model for prediction of RUE from plot pasture productivity is expected among sites and topographic and edaphic characteristics. The over years. Rainfall use efficiency (RUE), deter- variables of slope, magnesium concentration and mined from seasonal NPP and rainfall, may be a exchangeable sodium percentage most effectively valuable tool for predicting pasture yields in 2 predicted RUE (cumulative r = 0.77). Predicted environments when moisture is the major limita- RUE and average seasonal rainfall were then tion to growth (Grigg et al. 2000). The NPP and used to predict NPP for the 3 mines. Safe RUE of improved grass pastures on unmined stocking rates were calculated based on 30% lands in central Queensland have been deter- utilisation of seasonal NPP. mined (Willcocks and Filet 1993), but are not Introduction available for rehabilitated pastures on mined lands in the region. This paper reports prelimi- Around 8000 ha of land disturbed by open-cut nary research to determine the NPP and RUE of coal mining in the dry, subtropical region of pastures on reconstructed lands following coal central Queensland, Australia, has been returned mining in central Queensland. Climatic and bio- to pastures since large-scale operations com- physical characteristics influencing NPP and menced in 1961. Cattle grazing is a logical post- RUE were examined and used to develop an mining land-use option, being the dominant land empirical model to predict RUE and, from sea- sonal rainfall records, NPP. Safe stocking rates Correspondence: B.F. Mullen, School of Land and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia. for the 3 pasture systems were calculated from Email: [email protected] NPP estimates. 03/04 - Bisrat Page 48 Tuesday, March 9, 2004 2:17 PM 48 S.A. Bisrat, B.F. Mullen, A.H. Grigg and H.M. Shelton Materials and methods 1992). Total cover and green cover were esti- mated visually. Green cover was the area covered Experimental plots by attached, standing vegetation as a percentage Eighteen plots were selected for the measurement of total surface area. Total cover included both of NPP on areas of established pasture on recon- green cover and litter cover. Peak green cover structed lands at Blackwater, Norwich Park and was the highest percentage of green cover Goonyella/Riverside mines in the Bowen Basin recorded for each plot over the growing season. coalfields in central Queensland, Australia Standard errors for the means of peak DM yield (20°–25°S; 148°–150°E). The Bowen Basin has a and peak green cover were determined for each subhumid climate with approximately 650 mm plot. annual rainfall, 70% of which falls over the summer (November–April). Mean monthly Plot characterisation maximum/minimum temperatures range from 34°/21°C in January to 23°/7°C in July. Two soil cores were collected from each plot at All areas were rehabilitated to pastures of depths of 0–15 and 15–50 cm at each pasture Cenchrus ciliaris (buffel grass), Chloris gayana sampling for determination of physical and (rhodes grass) and a range of legumes, notably chemical properties. At the completion of the Macroptilium atropurpureum (siratro). At the sampling program, cores were bulked within Blackwater mine, pasture was sown directly on to plots for each depth, air-dried and ground to pass spoil in the mid-1970s. At the Norwich Park and through a 2 mm sieve. Total soil nitrogen (N) and Goonyella/Riverside mines, top-soil was applied total carbon (C) concentrations were determined to a depth of 20–30 cm prior to sowing in the by combustion analysis (LECO CNS 2000, Leco mid-1990s. Corporation, St Joseph, MI, USA). Phosphorus Six plots (12 × 15 m) were fenced to exclude (P) and exchangeable cation (Ca, K, Mg, Na) grazing animals at each of the 3 mines. The plots concentrations were determined by inductively were selected to represent the range of variability coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy of the rehabilitated pastures at each mine and to (SPECTRO P+M, Spectro Analytical Instru- minimise variation within each plot. All plots had ments, Kleve, Germany). Cation exchange a uniform cover of buffel grass, the dominant capacity (CEC) and exchangeable sodium per- pasture species. Daily rainfall and maximum and centage (ESP) were calculated from exchange- minimum temperatures were recorded at each able cation analysis. Soil pH (1:5 in H2O) and site over the experimental period. electrical conductivity (EC) were also deter- mined. Net primary productivity sampling and analysis Particle size distribution (proportion of clay, Plots were slashed to a height of 2.5 cm above silt, fine sand and coarse sand) was determined ground level in early spring (September–October) using the pipette method on the <2 mm fraction of 2000, prior to the commencement of the (Klute 1982). Water holding capacity (WHC) was growing season, and plant material removed. determined at field capacity (P = 10 kPa) and at Plots were then sampled monthly until late April permanent wilting point (P = 1500 kPa) from 2001. At each sampling, dry matter (DM) yields 3 replicates for each sample at each depth using a of regrowth were measured from 3 quadrats pressure plate apparatus (Klute 1982). (1m × 1m) in each plot, by cutting to a height of Slope was determined for each plot using an 5 cm and weighing after oven-drying at 80°C for inclinometer and aspect was determined using a 48 hours. At the initial sampling, placement of compass. quadrats was at random. At subsequent samplings, quadrats were placed 50 cm from the Determination of rainfall use efficiency previously cut location, so that successive samplings sampled progressively older regrowth. Rainfall use efficiency (RUE), defined as the At each sampling, care was taken to avoid distur- amount of DM biomass produced on 1 hectare bance of areas scheduled for future cutting. per millimetre of rain (Le Houerou 1984), was Peak DM yield, the highest yield recorded for calculated as follows: each plot over the growing season, was used to RUE = Peak DM yield (kg/ha)/ determine the primary productivity (Redman cumulative rainfall (mm) 03/04 - Bisrat Page 49 Tuesday, March 9, 2004 2:17 PM NPP and RUE of pastures on mined lands 49 Cumulative rainfall refers to that falling from well below the long-term average of 640 mm. initial slashing to achievement of peak yield. Goonyella/Riverside mine received 744 mm of RUE values were then regressed against the rainfall, well above the long-term average of range of measured plot parameters in order to 608 mm, although most of the rain fell at the investigate the factors most affecting RUE. beginning of the growing season between Parameters significantly related to RUE were October and December 2000 in heavy, short- then used in a multiple step-wise linear regres- duration events. Rainfall at Norwich Park mine sion to predict RUE. Where parameters were (824 mm) exceeded the long-term average of correlated with each other, the parameter least 723 mm. The July–September quarter was the related to RUE was omitted from the analysis. driest period at all 3 mines. Determination of safe stocking rates Pasture DM yield, surface cover and rainfall use Average long-term annual pasture growth for efficiency pasture systems at the 3 mines was calculated Of the 18 experimental plots, one exclosure at from the mean RUE value and the mean seasonal Norwich Park was grazed by cattle in November rainfall (October–April). Safe stocking rates were 2000 and was excluded from subsequent calculated for each mine by assuming a sustain- measurements and analyses. Seasonal peak able pasture utilisation rate of 30% of seasonal DM yields among the 17 plots ranged from forage growth (McKeon et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 ACARP Report
    2020 THE COAL INDUSTRY’S RESEARCH PROGRAM WWW.ACARP.COM.AU 1 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT ACARP’s role is to identify the coal industry’s research needs; Welcome to our 2020 ACARP Report. select and award research projects; and manage the research Ken Singer Manager Mine Control (UMM) BMA Much has been and will be written of 2020 with the impacts program, including communicating the outcomes to the industry of COVID-19 far reaching. ACARP was not immune. Saleable in a way that best accelerates their implementation. The focus Peter Smith General Manager HS Centennial Coal production recorded by ACARP for FY20 was 444.8 million tonnes continues to be on improving safety, boosting productivity and and ACARP funded $18.7 million in direct research spend. During minimising the environmental impacts of mining. Considerable Trevor Stay General Manager Gas Anglo American the second half of 2020 coal production reduced in response to focus this year has included research of dust particulate matter depressed coal demand. COVID-19 has had a minimal impact Andrew Swiericzuk Project Manager-Studies, Coal Australia Rio Tinto measurement, impacts and prevention and mine site rehabilitation on ACARP operations as we elected to curtail some service and the re-purposing of final voids in post mining landscapes. activities such as face to face meetings and travel. Reduced work A number of significant projects included in this report are funding approved 2015 arrangements introduced by Researchers including access to continuing, and we believe that these too will provide great workplaces and laboratories, travel restrictions limiting access benefits to the industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowen Basin Coalfields of Central Queensland (Figure 1)
    The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering John V Simmons and Peter J Simpson COMPOSITE FAILURE MECHANISMS IN COAL MEASURES ROCK MASSES – MYTHS AND REALITY John V Simmons Sherwood Geotechnical and Research Services Peter J Simpson BMA Coal Pty Ltd Central Queensland Office 1. INTRODUCTION Excavated slopes in open pit coal mines are designed to be as steep as possible consistent with stability and safety requirements. Slope failures occur for many reasons, including oversteepening. This paper is concerned with slope design and excavation experience in the Bowen Basin coalfields of central Queensland (Figure 1), Bowen Basin Coalfields Figure 1 Location of Bowen Basin open pit coal mines in eastern Australia Page 31 The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering John V Simmons and Peter J Simpson but it deals with many issues that are common to open pit coal mining generally. After more than three decades of operational experience and technological advances in the Bowen Basin mines, sudden rock slope failures still occur in circumstances where personnel and equipment are at extreme risk. The circumstances of a selection of these sudden failures are reviewed in this paper, and some concerning trends emerge. Classical structurally-controlled slope failures occur quite rarely in the Bowen Basin, but rock mass structures appear to exert important controls on the sudden failures that are more widely experienced. The term "composite" is used in this paper to describe failures involving combinations of intact rock material fracture and shear movement on defects (Baczynski, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Queensland Government Submission to the Industry Commission Black
    Submission to the Industry Commission inquiry into the black coal industry QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION TO THE INDUSTRY COMMISSION BLACK COAL INQUIRY PREPARED BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT November 1997 Queensland Government - November 1997 Submission to the Industry Commission inquiry into the black coal industry ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document has been compiled by the Department of Mines and Energy on behalf of the Queensland Government. Contributions have been received from Queensland Treasury, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Economic Development and Trade, Department of Training and Industrial Relations, Department of Transport, Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environment. Requests for further information or explanation of the position paper should be directed to: Mr Stephen Matheson A/Manager Resources Economics and Analysis Unit Resource Development Division Department of Mines and Energy Ph: (07) 3237 1614 Fax: (07) 3237 0470 Email: [email protected] Queensland Government - November 1997 Submission to the Industry Commission inquiry into the black coal industry TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 VISION OF THE CO AL INDUSTRY ................................ ................................ ..........1 2.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECO MMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ 3 3.0 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............5 4.0 THE COAL INDUSTRY IN QUEENSLAND ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Gas Drainage Efficiency at the Grasstree Mine
    THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND Bachelor of Engineering Thesis Evaluation of the Gas Drainage Efficiency at the Grasstree Mine Student Name: Michael VAN DER MEER Course Code: MINE4123 Supervisor: Associate Professor Mehmet Kizil and Doctor Saiied Aminossadati Submission date: 6 November, 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) degree in Mining Engineering (Extended Major) UQ Engineering Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology i ABSTRACT Inappropriate coal mine gas management has the potential to cause catastrophic disasters resulting in multiple fatalities. Gas is naturally released into the mining work environment during production and development; pre- and post-drainage form the basis of gas management. The Grasstree Mine site located in the Bowen Basin is an underground coal mine that utilises both pre- and post-drainage techniques. Unique to Grasstree is the high gas content of the mining and adjacent seams. This project studies the methane capture efficiency of the GC906 longwall panel against critical events that affect the gas management and ventilation of the mine. The aim is to identify the most effective gas management techniques for future longwall blocks with reduced ventilation at the Grasstree Mine. The data utilised in this project was post-drainage flows and concentrations provided from measurements and recordings taken for the full duration of GC906 mining. Methane capture efficiency was calculated for each hour for the duration of GC906 longwall mining; 18/11/2016-21/06/2017. The critical events analysed were: Initial longwall square-up period; Transitioning from two to three return gateroads; Full duration of a HGH well transitioning from long to short goaf gas drainage; The restriction of a return roadway to improve goaf dynamics; and Analysis of the effects of vertical post-drainage holes over the maingate side on the overall gas drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Galilee Infrastructure Corridor Project ...5
    Appendix 8 Disclaimer The illustrations appearing in this document are conceptual and are not drawn to scale, and they are not representative of a particular region or location and should not be construed as a facsimile of a conceptual multi user infrastructure corridor. This document has been prepared by East West Line Parks Limited (EWLP) based upon available information in the public domain and content supplied by specialist consultancies that have subject matter expertise in their knowledge domain. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward looking and involve risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurances that such statements will prove accurate. Actual results and events could differ materially from those anticipated in statements. EWLP does not assume the obligation to update any forward looking statement. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................... 2 GALILEE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT ....................... 5 1. Introduction ...................................................................... 5 2. The Proponent ................................................................. 10 3. The Nature of the Proposal ............................................. 11 4. The Location of Key Project Elements ............................. 32 5. Description of the Existing Environment ......................... 33 6. Potential Impacts of the Project ...................................... 41 7. Environmental Management - Mitigation Measures ......
    [Show full text]
  • Aurizon Network Access Undertaking (2010)
    April 2013 Aurizon Network Access Undertaking (2010) Draft Amending Access Undertaking Reference Tariff for the GAPE System Aurizon Network / Reference Tariff for the GAPE System 1 Contents Contents ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Preamble ................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Background .............................................................................................................................. 5 3. Scope of Works ........................................................................................................................ 7 4. Aurizon Network’s Undertaking ............................................................................................ 11 5. Volumes .................................................................................................................................. 12 6. Incremental Costs and their Allocation ................................................................................ 13 7. Contribution to Common Costs ............................................................................................ 25 8. Reference Train Characteristics ........................................................................................... 26 9. Reference Tariffs ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ironbark No.1 Coal Mine Project Initial Development Plan
    Ironbark No.1 Coal Mine Project Initial Development Plan 25 October 2017 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Overview of the activities during the term of the ML .......................................................................... 3 3 Project Phases ....................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 11 5 The nature and extent of activities proposed for each year of the Plan ............................................ 18 6 Where the activities are proposed ..................................................................................................... 19 7 The location and estimate of the resource ........................................................................................ 19 8 Standards and Procedures used to make the estimate...................................................................... 33 9 Rate and amount of proposed mining ................................................................................................ 39 10 Proposed mining start date ................................................................................................................ 39 11 Schedule for proposed mining during the initial five-year period
    [Show full text]
  • Geotechnical Data from Geophysical Logs: Stress, Strength and Joint Patters in NSW and QLD Coalfields
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Engineering and Information Coal Operators' Conference Sciences 2014 Geotechnical data from geophysical logs: stress, strength and joint patters in NSW and QLD coalfields Stacey Pell McElroy Bryan Geological Services Ross W. Seedsman University of Wollongong, [email protected] Kim Straub McElroy Bryan Geological Services Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal Recommended Citation Stacey Pell, Ross W. Seedsman, and Kim Straub, Geotechnical data from geophysical logs: stress, strength and joint patters in NSW and QLD coalfields, in Naj Aziz and Bob Kininmonth (eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Coal Operators' Conference, Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong, 18-20 February 2019 https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal/496 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] 2014 Coal Operators’ Conference The University of Wollongong GEOTECHNICAL DATA FROM GEOPHYSICAL LOGS: STRESS, STRENGTH AND JOINT PATTERNS IN NSW AND QLD COALFIELDS Stacey Pell1, Ross Seedsman2 and Kim Straub3 ABSTRACT: In order to appreciate the geotechnical regimes operating at any mine site a comprehensive database accessing all available borehole data is crucial. An extensive geotechnical database across the mine site area must be considered for mine planning and design. Some geotechnical parameters can be defined through the analysis of an appropriate suite of geophysical logs, including the acoustic scanner and sonic velocity logs and by incorporating a strict hybrid logging classification system. The acoustic scanner tool is becoming part of the standard geophysical logging suite used today in all stages of exploration drilling.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Queensland Workforce Development Initiatives
    REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA Central Queensland Workforce Development Initiatives Regional Engagement Project Prepared by Jenny Descovich Heather Norris June 2012 This report was produced on behalf of Regional Development Australia Mackay Whitsunday Inc and Regional Development Australia Fitzroy and Central West Inc and was funded by the Queensland Government. General Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the Regional Development Australia and the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing. Any references to legislation are not an interpretation of the law. They are to be used as a guide only. The information in this publication is general and does not take into account individual circumstances or situations. Where appropriate, independent legal advice should be sought. Research for this project was completed prior to the Queensland Election in March 2012 therefore references and hyperlinks relate to government structures prior to the election. They have not been altered to reflect recent changes in Government agencies as it will be some before these changes are finalised and web sites amended. It is envisaged that these links will be redirected to new sites as they are established. Maps and other research material provided by the Queensland Government display the relevant department names and logos at the time they were produced and shall remain in that format which is appropriate for the timestamp displayed on that material. [2] Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Study Tour 2009
    Australia Study tour 2009 1 Australia 2009 Contents • Participants 3 • Study tour intro 4 • Tour program 5 • Coppabella Mine 6 • Bucyrus 8 • Kestrel Mine 10 • Curragh Mine 12 • Gemfields 14 • Goonyella Riverside Mine 15 • Oaky Creel Coal Complex 16 • Wilky Creek Mine 18 • Travel Pictures 19 • University of Queensland 20 • Gympie Gold 22 • CRC Mining 25 • Northparks Mine 26 • Simtars 28 • Sponsor page 29 Australia 2009 2 Participants Students and Staff Staff Students Hans de Ruiter Koen Aberkrom Ko Korenromp Peter Berkhout Daan van Berkel Stephanie Lier Stanley Kierle Louis Carlier Ruben Logister Evert Dolman Mathijs Mol Andrina Drost Laurens van der Sluijs Jeroen van Eldert Pieter Sturm Richard Hontelez Thomas Waterman 3 Australia 2009 Study tour 2009 Each year the Resource Engineering Section of the Department of Applied Earth Sciences of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands organises an excursion for their students and staff members. The aim is to get a clear impression of the mining, extractive metallurgy and recycling industry in a particular country, its importance for Europe and the role it plays world-wide. The focus is always on the technological and economical aspects as well as on the cultural and geographical specialties of the country which is visited. This year Australia was chosen as the excursion target. The following report summarizes the information which was collected during the visit. Hans de Ruiter Australia 2009 4 Program 04/07 Sydney 05/07 Brisbane 06/07 University of Queensland CRC mining 07/07 Wilkie Creek Mine 08/07 Simtars 09/07 Gympie Gold 10/07 Curragh Mine 11/07 Airlie Beach 12/07 Whitsunday Islands 13/07 Bucyrus 14/07 Coppabella Mine 15/07 Goonyella Riverside Mine 16/07 Kestrel Mine Oaky Creek Coal Complex Gemfields 17/07 Brisbane 18/07 Sydney 19/07 Sydney 20/07 Sydney 21/07 Sydney 22/07 Northparks 5 Australia 2009 or coal separation plant.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP Billiton Group SEC Form 20-F
    Part A is to be read in conjunction with Part B For presentation purposes the Form 20-F presented here is the Form 20-F filed on 3 October 2005, as amended by the Form 20-F/A filed on 10 November 2005 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. FORM 20-F/A Amendment No.1 (Mark One) REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR ⌧ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2005 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number: 001-09526 Commission file number: 001-31714 BHP BILLITON LIMITED BHP BILLITON PLC (ABN 49 004 028 077) (REG. NO. 3196209) (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA ENGLAND AND WALES (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organisation) (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organisation) 180 LONSDALE STREET, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA NEATHOUSE PLACE, VICTORIA, LONDON, UNITED 3000 AUSTRALIA KINGDOM (Address of principal executive offices) (Address of principal executive offices) Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act. Title of each class Name of each exchange on Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered which registered American Depositary Shares* New York Stock Exchange American Depositary Shares* New York Stock Exchange Ordinary Shares** New York Stock Exchange Ordinary Shares, nominal value New York Stock Exchange US$0.50 each** * Evidenced by American Depositary Receipts.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Economics for the Queensland Competition Authority
    CENTRAL QUEENSLAND COAL RAILINGS FORECAST Abridged Version A report prepared by Energy Economics for the Queensland Competition Authority October 2015 Energy Economics Pty Ltd 65 Wentworth Avenue Killara, NSW, Australia 2071 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 3 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 7 3 DOMESTIC COAL DEMAND.................................................................................................... 8 3.1 ELECTRICITY SECTOR .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Renewable energy ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Gas-fired generation ........................................................................................................ 12 3.1.3 Coal-fired generation ....................................................................................................... 13 3.2 NON-FERROUS METALS SECTOR .................................................................................................. 14 3.3 SELECTED OTHER QUEENSLAND COAL DEMAND .............................................................................. 15 4 INTERNATIONAL COAL MARKETS ........................................................................................ 16 4.1 QUEENSLAND
    [Show full text]