Comments on Solid Energy

Salsy 7
22 February 2013 at 7:53 am

But how about each company getting broken up and sold by National? Perhaps Shanxi Coal (bidders on the sensitive asset Pike River) and the Quinghua group (who apparently had 10 billion to spend on lignite in 2011) finally get what they have been patiently waiting for…

Perhaps this was the plan all along..



clashman 14
22 February 2013 at 8:39 am

I can see the nats using this as a justification to continue with asset sales;
a) we dont have the money to cover the losses the only way we can get it is to monetize some assets
b) We can halve the countries exposure to this type of risk by selling 49% of as many state owned assets as possible
c) Govts shouldn’t be in business, this would have never happened if solid energy was privately owned.
And the sheeple will lap it up.



Skinny 15
22 February 2013 at 9:20 am

The excessively overpaid Don Elder & his Management team have benefited nicely out of all this & have been paid handsomely on their way out the door. Meanwhile the blue collars & the taxpayer are paying the price as a result. Now National will mothball most of the mines, cutting hundreds of more jobs pretty quickly. This is the corporate model, introduce mechanization improvements so the business runs leaner, with a quarter of the previous workforce. Do this while the coal price cycle is down, never mind the years of record profits or the social costs to small communities. The flow on will be savage cuts elsewhere health, education, public service etc, we all know what’s coming as National head towards a ‘landslide’ loss ( and it will be a landslide) at the next election.



Bill 16
22 February 2013 at 9:32 am

At the risk of being slammed as being naive….why bail it out? If bailing it involves clearing 3/4 Billion of debt, why not just shut it all down? Why not spend time on some lateral thinking and some money on creating infrastructure and jobs for Solid Energy employees and their families/communities?

Fossil industry has no future – cannot be allowed a future according to the best science we have. (That’s that 4 degrees C warming by 2040-50 again. Minor detail…a mere annoyance, I know).

But anyway, why not grasp this as an opportunity to begin the fundamental and radical shift we urgently need to make with regards our economy and the way our society interacts with it?
Reply
AAMC 16.1
22 February 2013 at 9:46 am

Exactly, this is an interesting dilemma for both Left and Right no?

Perhaps we should listen to the market and instead of spending money on bailing out a dying and destructive industry, put that money into some forward thinking / green infrastructure. The rest of the world is adding renewable capacity at an increasing pace, why not follow suit, utilize the high dollar and China’s solar trade war.

But likely, the Left will want to save the jobs to prevent the short term pain, and the Nat’s'll prove that really they don’t believe in creative destruction when their mates are involved.

And both will prove themselves worthy of the dictionary definition of Conservative.