True benefit for Montserrat from mining sector

Let’s talk money figures:

The plans for a potential jetty on Isles Bay beach may be forgotten by some, but certainly not by residents of Old Towne and Isles Bay Hill

H.E The Governor, in his February 2012  press conference said:

  • for the time being the Plymouth jetty is used
  • Isles Bay jetty: not interested at the moment

This clearly indicates that the plans for an Isles Bay jetty are still alive. The only unknown is the “moment” timing…

 

The data quoted below is from the Oxford/OPM DFID funded report using reduced export figures from Belham EIA report.

 
Financial Comparison of 3 options:

1) Isles Bay jetty:

Estimated construction cost 4 M EC$, written off in 10 years (sanded pier due to lahars), thus yearly cost is 0.40 M EC$

yearly mining industry contribution for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$

to subtract:
0.40 M EC$ yearly write off IB jetty investment
2.14 M EC$ being 75% loss of income from Belham Valley villa owners reducing spending to minimal upkeep as their house is no longer a suitable venue to live or spend holidays in tranquillity and dust free.

yearly loss for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$ – 2.54 M EC$ = -1.54 M EC$
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$ – 2.54 M EC$ = -0.74 M EC$

 
2) Plymouth jetty and sand excavation above Belham bridge with processing plants in the Delvins area:

yearly mining industry contribution for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$ (2EC$ only until end march 2012)
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$ (2EC$ only until end march 2012)

to subtract:
nothing, except for some more road damage in zone C.

yearly profit for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$

Indirect profit for GoM:
Belham Valley villa owners will again perform major house renovation works and inject several million EC$s currently put on hold seen the current mining threat.  A true pending boost for the private construction sector that will start as soon as GoM gives 100% certainty that any planned jetty at Isles Bay beach is dropped.
Potential re-opening of the Vue Pointe hotel (no more mining threat). Another +50 more jobs created in the private sector

3) Trants jetty:

Estimated construction cost 10 M EC$, written off in 10 years thus yearly cost is 1.00 M EC$

yearly mining industry contribution for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$

to subtract:
1.00 M EC$ yearly write off Trants jetty investment

yearly profit for GoM:
250,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.00 M EC$ – 1.00 M EC$ = 0.00 EC$
450,000 tonnes / year: 4 EC$ / tonne = 1.80 M EC$ – 1.00 M EC$ = 0.80 EC$

Indirect profit for GoM:
Belham Valley villa owners will again perform major house renovation works and inject several million EC$s currently put on hold seen the current mining threat.  A true pending boost for the private construction sector that will start as soon as GoM gives 100% certainty that any planned jetty at Isles Bay beach is dropped.
Potential re-opening of the Vue Pointe hotel (no more mining threat). Another +50 more jobs created in the private sector

 

All these solutions are dependant upon volcanic behaviour, because the sand is on the volcano flanks and adjacent rivers & ghauts.  Export of sand is only sustainable when a stockpile for 6 months export is kept in the safe zone. An ideal spot could be South of Bottomless Ghaut on the East coast and not very far from the Trants mining site

When the volcano is active the Plymouth jetty will probably close first, shortly followed by other potential locations seeing that the risk is fairly similar (Trants, Isles Bay beach) as proven with past evacuations.

It is hoped that common sense will prevail.

 

What respect is shown by the Government of Montserrat for investments made in the past?

Initial Investment in Belham Valley houses:  300,000 US x 100 = 30 M US$ or 81 M EC$ previous investments put at stake

Yearly spending of villa owners at Belham Valley hill sides (= benefit for Montserrat): 95 (villas) x 50% (occupancy) x 200,000 EC$ (spending/villa) = 9.5 M EC$

Net GoM revenue per year:

9.5 M EC$ x 30% (tax revenue estimate)= 2.85 M EC$. At least 75% of this yearly recurring income is put at stake with the shipping of sand from a planned Isles Bay jetty

 

Mining companies: Initial investment in mining: 5 plants and equipment x 100,000 US = 0.5 M US$ or 1.35 M EC$

Year 2009 reference:

  • export of 120,000 tonnes
  • GoM revenue excluding road repairs: 305,455 EC$ was shown as income (fig 2.3 p.17 source Montserrat Inland Revenue – OPM report).

In fact this revenue may be a loss if one includes the road repair costs.

 

What makes GoM believe that shipping sand from an Isles Bay jetty is beneficial for Montserrat?

 

Why this disrespect to residents on the Belham Valley flanks from Lower Friths to the sea?

 

Comments are closed.