DOCSLIB.ORG

Auspinets07c

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Auspinets07c TAR GET’S STATE MENT AUSPINE LIMITED Auspine Directors ABN 48 004 289 730 recommend that YOU REJECT GUNNS’ OFFER For personal use only www.auspine.com.au How to REJECT the IMPORTANT NOTICES Gunns’ Takeover Offer TO SHAREHOLDERS Nature of this document This document is a Target Statement issued by Auspine Limited 1 Take no action under Part 6.5 Division 3 of the Corporations Act and in response to Gunns Limited’s Bidder Statement and Offer dated 13 June 2007. If you are in any doubt as to how to deal with this document, you should consult your broker or other professional adviser as soon 2 Ignore all as possible. Defined Terms documents Capitalised terms and certain abbreviations used in this Target sent to you Statement are defined in the Glossary and Interpretation on page 38. Investment Advice Disclaimer by Gunns This Target Statement does not take into account the individual investment objectives and constraints of any Auspine shareholder or any other person and as such should not be relied upon as the To make a fully informed decision, sole basis of any investment decision regarding the proposed you should read this Target’s takeover offer. Independent financial and taxation advice should be sought before making any investment decision. Statement in its entirety. If you have any questions, please send an email to the Forward-Looking Statements Disclaimer Auspine Shareholder email helpline: Some of the statements appearing in this Target Statement are [email protected] or visit our website forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, key considerations, uncertainties, at www.auspine.com.au assumptions and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Auspine to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. Other than required by law, neither Auspine nor any other person gives any representation, assurance or guarantee that the occurrence of the events expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement in this Target Statement will actually occur or that other events will not occur. The forward-looking statements in this Target Statement reflect views held only as at the date of this Target Statement. ASIC Disclaimer A copy of this Target Statement has been lodged with ASIC. For personal use only Neither ASIC nor any of its officers take any responsibility for the content of this Target Statement. Key dates Date of Gunns’ Bidder’s Statement 13 June 2007 Date of this Target’s Statement 12 July 2007 Gunns Offer expires (unless extended) 7pm AEST on 27 July 2007 CHAIRMAN’S LETTER 12 July 2007 Dear Auspine Shareholder, The Board of Auspine unanimously recommends that you REJECT the Gunns’ Takeover Offer. On the 15th May 2007, Gunns Limited (“Gunns”) announced it had entered into an agreement with a small number of Auspine Limited (“Auspine”) shareholders to acquire approximately 25% of the issued shares in Auspine. The Gunns’ Takeover Offer merely discharges its legal obligation to make an offer on the same terms and conditions as its bid for the 25% minority shareholding in Auspine. This Target’s Statement sets out your Directors’ reasons for recommending that you REJECT the Gunns’ Takeover Offer, as follows: 1 Mr Adrian de Bruin, the Company’s largest Shareholder has rejected the Offer; 2 The Independent Expert’s Valuation considers that the offer is – NOT FAIR; 3 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer considerably undervalues the net assets and strategic benefits available to Gunns upon 100% acquisition of Auspine; 4 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer is opportunistic; 5 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer has adverse tax implications for Auspine Shareholders; and 6 If you accept the Gunns’ Takeover Offer you will be unable to accept a higher alternative offer. Mr de Bruin and your Board consider that as a result of the sale of a 25% minority interest in the Company to Gunns, Auspine is now “in play” and is likely to be acquired either by Gunns for an increased consideration or another party for an increased consideration. In the unanimous opinion of your Board, if Gunns wishes to acquire Auspine it should make another offer which is both fair and is conditional upon acquiring at least 90% of the Company such that Gunns can be certain: • it will gain the full benefit of business synergies; • it can eliminate Auspine’s deferred tax liability of $74.2 million, which is worth $1.38 per share; and • any Auspine Shareholders accepting a scrip for scrip offer will be certain to gain Capital Gains Tax rollover relief. To reject the Gunns’ Takeover Offer, simply TAKE NO ACTION and IGNORE all documents sent to you by Gunns. Your Directors continue to work in your best interest. We will continue to keep you informed of all material developments. For personal use only Yours sincerely Paul Teisseire Chairman of Directors AUSPINE LIMITED TARGET’S STATEMENT 1 CONTENTS TITLE PAGE The Reasons Why you should Reject the Offer 3 Detailed Reasons for Directors’ Recommendation 4 Frequently Asked Questions 24 Information Relating to your Directors 27 Independent Experts Report 30 Your Choices as an Auspine Shareholder 31 Auspine Business Overview 32 Other Material Information 35 Authorisation of Target Statement 37 Glossary and Interpretation 38 ANNEXURE A – Independent Expert’s Report 39 AUSPINE DIRECTORS RECOMMEND THAT YOU REJECT GUNNS’ OFFER For personal use only 2 THE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD REJECT THE OFFER 1 Auspine’s major Shareholder, Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer and founder Mr Adrian de Bruin does not intend to accept the Gunns’ Takeover Offer. 2 The Independent Expert’s Report has assessed the Gunns’ Takeover Offer to be NOT FAIR. 3 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer considerably undervalues the net assets, tax benefits and dominant position in the softwood industry available to Gunns upon 100% acquisition of Auspine. 4 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer is opportunistic. 5 The Gunns’ Takeover Offer has adverse tax implications for Auspine Shareholders. 6 If you accept the Gunns’ Takeover Offer you will be unable to accept a higher offer if such an offer emerges from a third party. For personal use only AUSPINE LIMITED TARGET’S STATEMENT 3 DETAILED REASONS FOR DIRECTORS’ RECOMMENDATION 1 Auspine’s major Shareholder, Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer and founder Mr Adrian de Bruin does not intend to accept the Gunns’ Offer. On the 18th April 2007 a small number of Auspine Shareholders (Participating Shareholders) invited professional and sophisticated investors to tender for approximately 25% of Auspine, subject to the provisions of ASIC Policy Statement 102. The policy statement requires that a successful tenderer must proceed to make an offer to acquire the remaining shares in the Company and must obtain relief from ASIC to complete any acquisition. Under the terms of the relief granted, ASIC required Gunns to make a full takeover bid within 30 days of the tender acquisition and that the terms of that offer be no less favourable than those offered to Participating Shareholders and include a cash offer alternative. This Offer from Gunns merely discharges its legal obligation to make an offer on the same terms and conditions of its successful bid for a 25% minority position in Auspine. Auspine’s major Shareholder, Mr Adrian de Bruin who controls 29.3% of Auspine shares, does not intend to accept this Gunns Takeover Offer as it does not represent adequate value. Accordingly, Gunns will not achieve the 80% acceptance threshold necessary to permit Auspine Shareholders (who elects to accept the Gunns’ Takeover Offer by scrip for scrip transfer) to obtain Capital Gains Tax (CGT) rollover relief. Furthermore, Gunns will not be able to obtain any of the synergies that would flow from gaining 100% control of Auspine including the elimination of the deferred tax liability of $74.2 million as it will not be able to consolidate Auspine for taxation purposes. In your Board’s opinion, if Gunns now wishes to acquire 100% of Auspine it should make an offer which is fair and reflects the full value that all Shareholders should expect from a bid that results in Gunns acquiring 100% of Auspine’s Shares. For personal use only 4 DETAILED REASONS FOR DIRECTORS’ RECOMMENDATION $7.20 $7.00 $7.09 $6.80 $6.60 $6.40 $ per share $6.20 $6.00 $6.15 $5.80 Gunns’ Offer Price *Adjusted Net Assets (Highpoint Value) * Adjusted Net Assets per share (as assessed by the Independent Expert in its valuation) and after adjusting for the elimination of the deferred tax liability “Auspine’s major Shareholder does not intend to accept the Gunns Offer in its present form.” 2 The Independent Expert Report has assessed the Gunns Takeover Offer to be NOT FAIR1. i) The Independent Expert engaged by the Auspine Board, Lonergan Edwards, has concluded the Gunns’ Takeover Offer is NOT FAIR. The Independent Expert has assessed the fair market value of Auspine Shares to be in the range of $6.21 to $6.79. The Gunns’ Takeover Offer is less than the Independent Expert’s valuation range. This Target’s Statement includes, in Annexure A, a copy of the Independent Expert’s Report. Auspine Directors recommend that you read that report in full. For personal use only Whilst there is no statutory requirement for Auspine to obtain an Independent Expert’s Report (IER), the Directors of Auspine have requested that Lonergan Edwards & Associates Limited (Lonergan Edwards) prepare an IER stating whether, in Lonergan Edward’s opinion, the Offer is “fair and reasonable”. Note 1: It should be noted, the independent expert has concluded that the Gunns’ offer is reasonable in the absence of a superior offer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Clearcut Case: How the Kyoto Protocol Could Become a Driver For
    omslag CLEARCUT 31-10-2000 15:35 Pagina 1 THE CLEARCUT CASE: HOW THE KYOTO PROTOCOL Greenpeace International WWF Climate Change Campaign Native Forest Network Climate Campaign Director Southern Hemisphere Keizersgracht 176 Jennifer Morgan Beth Gibbings, Tim Cadman COULD BECOME A DRIVER 1016 DW Amsterdam c/o WWF US PO Box 301, Deloraine The Netherlands 1250 24th Street, NW Tasmania 7304 Tel: +31 20 523 6222 Washington DC 20037 FOR DEFORESTATION Fax: +31 20 523 6200 USA Phone: +61 3 6369 5474 www.greenpeace.org Phone: +1 202 861 8388 Fax: +61 3 6369 5150 Fax: +1 202 331 2391 ISBN: 90-73361-65-6 www.panda.org/climate www.nfn.org.au A report for Greenpeace International and WWF by Tim Cadman Design: Suggestie & illusie, www.illusie.nl Photos: top right - © Tim Cadman, top left - © Greenpeace/Perrine, bottom right - © Greenpeace/Vielmo, bottom left - © Tim Cadman Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 The use of plantations to respond to climate change in Australia 7 The Federal Government 7 Clearance of native forests for “carbon” plantations in Tasmania 8 State Government, associated agencies and plantation establishment 8 Case Studies 10 NORTH Forest Products, TEPCO and the Tamar Tree Farms Project 10 Gunns Ltd 10 Other forestry companies 10 Plantation Investments investigated in Tasmania (my emphasis) 10 Conclusions 16 Sources consulted in preparation of this report 17 Definition of Terms 18 Author: Tim Cadman, M.A. About the Author Tim Cadman M.A. is a graduate of Girton College, Cambridge, and a Ph.D student in Applied Science at Canberra University.He specialises in research into sustainable forest management and certification and labelling.
    [Show full text]
  • For Personal Use Only Use Personal For
    22 November 2011 The Manager Companies Australian Securities Exchange Limited Company Announcements Office Level 4 20 Bridge Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir/Madam RE: Woolworths Limited – Corporate Responsibility Report 2011 Attached is a copy of the Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Report for 2011. For and on behalf of WOOLWORTHS LIMITED PETER J HORTON Group General Counsel and Company Secretary For personal use only Corporate Responsibility Report 2011 Closer every day. For personal use only Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Report 2011 CONTENTS Key Indicators – 2011 2 Statement from the CEO and CEO Designate 4 Understanding our Stakeholders and What is Important to Them 6 Issues of Public Interest 8 Our Business 10 Responsible Retailing 12 Our Community 20 Our Environment 24 Our People 34 Our Approach to Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability 49 Independent Assurance Statement 51 United Nations Global Compact 54 Global Reporting Initiative 55 Store and Trading Area Analysis 57 Glossary 58 Company Directory 59 For personal use only www.woolworthslimited.com.au ABN 88 000 014 675 Scope of Awards and Report Recognition Unless otherwise stated, — Woolworths Supermarkets — Association of Chartered — Woolworths and CHEP won this report covers all of our is Australia’s most valuable Certified Accountants the 2011 NZ Environmental operations in Australia and brand, valued at $7.59 billion (ACCA) Australia and and Packaging Award for New Zealand for the 2011 by Brand Finance in New Zealand Sustainability Supply Chain Influence on financial year (1 July 2010 accordance with the Reporting Awards 2010: Best Packaging Systems with our to 30 June 2011). Data for International Organization for Report in the Retail Sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunns' Proposed Tamar Valley Pulp
    GUNNS’ PROPOSED TAMAR VALLEY PULP MILL SAGA: Timeline of Key Events: 2003 - 2017 The saga of the pulp mill began in June 2003 with then Deputy Premier Paul Lennon spotted having dinner with John Gay, CEO of Gunns Limited, with documents sighted on the table which referred to a proposal to build a pulp mill. Following that revelation both the State and Federal Labor and Liberal parties were in lock-step support for the pulp mill despite growing community outrage and dissent. Below are a few key ‘highlights’ over the last 14 years that the toxic pulp mill cloud has hung over Tasmania, blighting Tasmanian politics, community, and reputation. ▪ June 2003 – Gunns’ intentions for a pulp mill were leaked to then-Greens Leader Peg Putt, who subsequently ‘blew the whistle’ on the plans by raising the matter in the State Parliament. ▪ November 2003 - guidelines for the mill were released by the government. ▪ June 2004 – revised environmental guidelines for a pulp mill in Tasmania released. ▪ June 2004 – Media reports that “Prime Minister John Howard has promised $5 million to Tasmanian timber giant Gunns Ltd if it goes ahead with its proposed $1 billion pulp mill.” ▪ August 2004 – Lennon Labor government announced that a pulp mill “co-ordinating unit” would be housed within the Department of Economic Development. The Unit would be headed by Mr Bob Gordon, formerly the Forestry Tasmania General Manager of Marketing, and would be known as the Pulp Mill Taskforce. ▪ November 2004 – Premier Lennon announces the Gunns’ pulp mill proposal to be assessed as a Project of State Significance under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (at Gunns Ltd’s request), ▪ November 2004 – also revealed that Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd had entered into a pulp mill wood supply agreement before any pulp mill plans were made public.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regional Forest Agreement and the Use of Publicly Owned
    The Regional Forest Agreement and the use of publicly owned native forests in Tasmania: an investigation into key decision making processes, policies, outcomes and opportunities. By Ula Majewski BA (Hon.) University of Tasmania A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Environmental Management Degree at the School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania (November, 2007). it 1 • ■ .• 4.4 i'M40 • II.' l'I'll i 1 1 • 40 ' i', • . J! I' or. jo s 4 4,-,. c I , • lei / .• 1 • •• i • • . , • 4, : 1 % ,11;1441,. ' ,I • 11 i 0 r i• Ai, . ' • 1 4 r ' • ' 4 , i0 • Yr 4 kiti , ,A , , . .4, . to t ir w , Dedicated to my dear friend Ben Morrow, A whose fine intellect, courage, passion and spirit 4 % 1. • r , are a continual inspiration. ,112 a11 d , \PS 4 I f 4 I ; .,„:,,„,„ ••■4 •' 40 ,:vi 1,,s,i4 DECLARATION This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any tertiary institution, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. Ursula Majewski BA (Hon) iv ABSTRACT The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement is a defining policy tool that governs the use and management of the publicly owned native forests positioned at the centre of one of the most protracted and conflict-ridden debates over natural resource management in Australia's history. Drawing on multi-disciplinary discourses and data, and employing a qualitative approach including interviews with prominent participants in the RFA process and implementation, this thesis examines key aspects of the conflict, positions Tasmania's forestry system within a national and global environmental policy context, and undertakes a critical analysis of the scientific, political and governance processes and outcomes generated by the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Versus Power: Tasmania's Forest Policy Network and Gunn's
    Planning Versus Power: Tasmania’s Forest Policy Network and Gunn’s Tamar Valley Pulp Mill Dr Fred Gale University of Tasmania Launceston Tasmania Please do not cite without permission. Comments are welcome and should be forwarded to [email protected] Introduction When Gunns announced its intention to build a pulp mill at Bell Bay in Northern Tasmania in mid-2004, it plunged the state into a socio-political crisis from which it has yet to recover. The proposal has re-opened the state’s forest wars—barely healed from the bruising battle over the state’s Regional Forestry Agreement (RFA)—further polarising the community (Ajani 2007; Buckman 2008). As each faction battles for the hearts and minds of ‘ordinary’ Tasmanians, the truism that truth is its first victim of warfare is once again illustrated. For the past five years Tasmanians have been bombarded with claims and counterclaims concerning the pulp mill’s economic, social and environmental impacts (i.e. via the Government sponsored Pulp Mill Task Force newsletters and contributors to the online newspaper Tasmanian Times). A concerted media blitz by the government, Gunns and unions spruiking the mill’s benefits has been countered by a diverse array of sources ranging from conservationists to religious figures to academics (Gale 2008). In this paper, I do not intend to assess the merits of the arguments made by these protagonists. Instead, I aim to take advantage of the opportunity the pulp mill presents to analyse the actors, institutions and ideologies of Tasmania’s forest policy network. In addressing the general question of how Tasmania’s forest policy network secures its interests, I will argue that it does so by enmeshing itself within a range of public and private institutions that enhances the legitimacy of individual actors and enables them to collectively achieve their objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Document: Having Regard to Matters Raised by Senator Kroger Relating To
    Re: The Referral to the Senate Committee of Privileges of a matter concerning Senators Brown and Milne Second Submission on behalf of Senators Brown and Milne in relation to Senator Kroger’s allegations Introduction 1. This submission, which has also been settled by Ron Merkel QC and Frances Gordon of counsel, is the second submission1 provided in response to the letters dated 24 November 2011 from Senator Johnston to Senators Brown and Milne seeking their comments in respect of a matter referred to the Committee of Privileges relating to “political donations made by Mr Graeme Wood, arrangements surrounding the sale of the Triabunna woodchip mill by Gunns Ltd and questions without notice asked by Senators Brown and Senator Milne” (the “referred matter”). Comments were sought on the “terms of reference and, in particular, on the matters canvassed in Senator Kroger’s letter to the President” (the “Kroger letter”). 2. This submission is provided in the context of the following explanation of the present process, provided by the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Pye, in a letter dated 6 January 2012: It is important to note that in this initial stage the committee is not investigating any particular allegations; rather it is seeking to establish the facts of the matters referred… Should the committee consider that any particular allegations arise against any person which require investigation, the committee is bound to pursue those allegations in accordance with the Senate Privilege Resolutions, which include provisions directed at procedural fairness or natural justice. 3. Accordingly, Senators Brown and Milne understand that the present task of the Committee is to consider whether the matter referred to it “gives rise to any 1 The first submission, provided to the Committee on 8 February 2012, addressed the requirements of procedural fairness.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption and the Securitisation of Nature1
    www.crimejusticejournal.com IJCJ&SD 2017 6(4): 55‐70 ISSN 2202–8005 Corruption and the Securitisation of Nature1 Rob White University of Tasmania, Australia Abstract This article considers corruption in Australia in relation to the exploitation and preservation of natural resources. In doing so, it examines issues pertaining to a proposed pulp mill and the forestry industry in Tasmania, the development of mining and ports in Queensland, and international agreements pertaining to deep‐sea oil drilling in the Timor Sea. Corruption relating to the environment is interpreted in this article as implying both moral corruption and/or direct corruption. Gaining unfair advantage, protecting specific sectoral interests and over‐riding existing environmental regulations are all features of the types of corruption associated with the exploitation of natural resources. The result is lack of transparency, a substantial democratic deficit, and expenditure of public monies, time and resources in support of environmentally and socially dubious activities. Keywords Natural resources; corruption; securitisation; state‐corporate crime. Please cite this article as: White R (2017) Corruption and the securitisation of nature. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 6(4): 55‐70. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i4.449. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. As an open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non‐ commercial settings. ISSN: 2202‐8005 © The Author(s) 2017 Rob White: Corruption and the Securitisation of Nature Introduction This article considers corruption in Australia in relation to the exploitation and preservation of natural resources. In doing so, it examines issues pertaining to a proposed pulp mill and the forestry industry in Tasmania, the development of mining and ports in Queensland, and international agreements pertaining to deep‐sea oil drilling in the Timor Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011 Closer Every Day
    Annual Report 2011 Closer every day. Woolworths Limited Annual Report 2011 CONTENTS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Chairman’s Report 11 Managing Director’s Report 12 Successful completion of Highlights 14 The Results in Brief 18 $704 million off market Food, Liquor and Petrol 20 share buyback and sales of General Merchandise 26 Hotels 32 approximately $390 million Overheads, Expenses and Balance Sheet 33 in property assets. Capital Management and Outlook 34 Board of Directors 36 Management Board 2011 41 EARNINGS Directors’ Statutory Report 42 Remuneration Report 45 Auditor’s Independence Declaration 68 Corporate Governance Statement 69 5.1% Financial Report to Shareholders 80 increase Shareholder Information 167 in net profit after tax to $2,124.0 million (6.4% excluding natural disaster costs). www.woolworthslimited.com.au ABN 88 000 014 675 CASH FLOWS Solid increase in operating cash flows. EARNINGS 6.5% 6.6% 6.3% increase increase increase in earnings per share in earnings before in earnings before to 174.6 cents. interest, tax, depreciation interest and tax to and amortisation. $3,276.4 million. SALES DIVIDENDS 4.7% 6.1% increase increase Sales of $54,143 million, in fully franked up 4.7% including petrol dividend to 122 cents (excluding petrol, up 4.1%). per share. 1 Woolworths Limited Annual Report 2011 Thousands of shelf prices reduced during the year We’re knocking down prices every week… 63% rise in online sales over the last year We’re making online shopping easier and more accessible… 2 …so meal time is more about the family and less about the cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation Into the United States of Unprocessed Pinus Logs and Chips from Australia
    United States Department of Pest Risk Assessment Agriculture Forest Service of the Importation into Forest Health Protection the United States of Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Unprocessed Pinus Logs July 2006 and Chips from Australia FHTET 2006-06 Abstract The unmitigated pest risk potential for the importation of unprocessed logs and chips of species of Pinus (Pinus radiata, P. elliottii Engelm. var. elliottii, P. taeda L., and P. caribaea var. hondurensis, principally) from Australia into the United States was assessed by estimating the likelihood and consequences of introduction of representa- tive insects and pathogens of concern. Eleven individual pest risk assessments were prepared, nine dealing with insects and two with pathogens. The selected organisms were representative examples of insects and pathogens found on foliage, on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood of Pinus. Among the insects and pathogens assessed for logs as the commodity, high risk potentials were assigned to two introduced European bark beetles (Hylurgus ligniperda and Hylastes ater), the exotic bark anobiid (Ernobius mol- lis), ambrosia beetles (Platypus subgranosus, Amasa truncatus; Xyleborus perforans), an introduced wood wasp (Sirex noctilio), dampwood termite (Porotermes adamsoni), giant termite (Mastotermes darwiniensis), drywood termites (Neotermes insularis; Kalotermes rufi notum, K. banksiae; Ceratokalotermes spoliator; Glyptotermes tuberculatus; Bifi ditermes condonensis; Cryptotermes primus, C. brevis, C. domesticus, C. dudleyi, C. cynocepha- lus), and subterranean termites (Schedorhinotermes intermedius intermedius, S. i. actuosus, S. i. breinli, S. i. seclusus, S. reticulatus; Heterotermes ferox, H. paradoxus; Coptotermes acinaciformis, C. frenchi, C. lacteus, C. raffrayi; Microcerotermes boreus, M. distinctus, M. implicadus, M. nervosus, M. turneri; Nasutitermes exitiosis).
    [Show full text]
  • Processing and Material Properties of Tasmanian Yellow Gum, Eucalyptus Johnstonii
    T.C. Innes 121 Processing and material properties of Tasmanian yellow gum, Eucalyptus johnstonii T.C. Innes1,2 1Timber Research Unit, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1324, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia 2Email: [email protected] Revised manuscript received 7 March 2005 Summary Methods Boards of native forest Tasmanian yellow gum (Eucalyptus Sampling johnstonii) were processed using current commercial best practice. Boards were evaluated before and after processing to determine Forestry Tasmania supplied the Lindsay St, Launceston, sawmill 3 parameters such as board shrinkage, appearance grade and drying of Gunns Ltd with 27 m of construction grade Tasmanian yellow degrade. Bending strength and stiffness were determined by gum logs in June 2003. The logs had been cut from Denison coupe standard tests on thirty small clear sections, while Janka hardness 10G, co-ordinates MGA94 477040/5246000, at an altitude of was measured at two points on each of ten specimens. Yellow about 600 m. Log sizes are unavailable. Gunns sawed the logs, gum boards proved prone to collapse shrinkage and distortion on randomly selected 108 boards 29 mm thick, 80–150 mm wide drying. The results showed that the species produces much denser, and 3.0 m long, and supplied them as a wrapped pack to the stronger and harder timber than the Tasmanian oak group of laboratory. eucalypts, with seasoned strength rating according to Australian Standards of strength group SD2 (compared with SD4 for the Sawing species group) and mean Janka hardness 10.9 kN (compared to 6.1 kN). The boards were all quartersawn (i.e. milled with growth rings close to perpendicular to the wide faces of the board).
    [Show full text]
  • TEACHING NOTES by LAURA GORDON Praise for Into the Woods
    “Anna Krien’s inti- mate, urgent book pulsates with life & truth.” CHLOE HOOPER the battle for tasmania’s forests TEACHING NOTES BY LAURA GORDON Praise for Into the Woods ‘Anna Krien’s intimate, urgent book pulsates with life and truth.’—Chloe Hooper ‘Anna Krien is Australia’s young, female Hunter S. Thompson.’—Amanda Lohrey ‘Closely observed and beautifully written.’—The Monthly ‘A beautifully wrought, deeply thoughtful on-the-ground look at the struggle over Tasmania’s forests’—Bookseller + Publisher ‘A highly readable book … that comprehensively explains the causes, history and the “truths” of logging in Tasma- nia.’—The Big Issue ‘Krien has produced a riveting piece of reportage.’— The Herald Sun ‘[A] penetrating, insightful account of the history and current state of the decades-long battle over Tasmania’s endangered forests.’—The Advertiser “Anna Krien has proven herself a willing student, a brave and balanced reporter/researcher, a gifted writer, and an exciting new voice in the tradition of female literary jour- nalists.”—Literary Journalism Studies To view footage of Anna Krien speaking about Into the Woods and download free teaching resources visit www. blackincbooks.com/teachers Black Inc. Books Teaching Notes www.blackincbooks.com Into the Woods: The Battle for Tasmania’s Forests By Anna Krien When asked what first made her interested in the forest debate Anna Krien cites some “ugly” footage that was sent to her by a friend. “The video (filmed by a forest activist hiding in a tree) shows Tasmanian logging contractors smashing a gutted car that is blocking a forest access road in the Florentine valley with sledge hammers.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Society Pulp Mill Information Night Tue 28 April 2009 - Launceston Tailrace Centre
    Wilderness Society Pulp Mill Information Night Tue 28 April 2009 - Launceston Tailrace Centre. It was a meeting at short notice. 6:00pm. Not yet winter. But cold and just about dark. No time for tea. Get home, chill out, hit the West Tamar Hwy. Look out for the cameras. Stay at 70kph. News comes on. Someone drives past in a hurry. You know where they’re going. You can tell by the stickers. You’re going to the same place - The Tailrace. When: 6pm–7:30pm Tuesday 28 April. Where: Tamar Room, Tailrace Centre, West Tamar Highway, Riverside. Meet at the Tailrace cafe at 5:30pm for an informal cup of coffee prior to the meeting. We are holding an information night for our members and supporters so you can find out more about Gunns’ attempts to secure finance and about the company’s plans for a 50% joint venture partner. Discover how Tasmanian Government agreements for the pulp mill mean that Gunns and any potential foreign investment partner will effectively own our forests and water resources for the next twenty years. And find out how this could jeapordise Tasmania’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise the regional impacts of climate change. Speakers include: • Vica Bayley, Tasmanian campaign director • Paul Oosting, pulp mill campaigner • Gemma Tillack, climate change and forests campaigner Come along and find out how you can help to protect our forests and our water, and what you can do to help secure a safe and prosperous Tasmania for your children and future generations. I hope to see you there.
    [Show full text]