sp, page-2

the acland issue is frightening a few ppl. thats all...

This from Morningstar.
The Australian ran a story on last Thursday suggesting Acland mine expansion will not be allowed. But the article seems to reiterate what was Liberal National Party (LNP) policy prior to last week's overwhelming victory – no mining on strategic cropping land. The vast majority of the proposed Acland expansion is not on such land.

Business Impact: NHC has shown a willingness to revise plans to accommodate planning concerns with the decision to move its rail siding. Premier Newman apparently said it was inappropriate to expand the mine though a direct quote was not given and we have seen nothing to suggest he is against Acland’s expansion on principle. Obviously if his remarks are clarified to be completely against expansion, it will be a significant blow for NHC. The definition of ‘strategic cropping land’ is crucial. Of our $5.70 a share valuation, $3.05 or 54% relates to Acland. We assume the mine expands from 6Mt to 10Mt by 2016. Maintaining output at 6Mt a year will deny NHC increased profits and potential productivity gains through economies of scale. A reduction in capital expenditure is a partial offset and NHC may be able to redirect its $1.5bn cash pile to other projects in the portfolio or go offshore. We estimate stopping the expansion would cut our Acland valuation by one third to $2.05 and lower the overall valuation 18% to $4.70 a share. That includes 70c for potential coal to liquids development. If this was to also come under political threat, the valuation could fall further to $4.00 a share. We have not yet seen anything to suggest coal to liquids as a concept is under threat, just that a coal to liquids project proposed by French company Ambre energy is unlikely to go ahead on important agricultural land.