1 / 12

Greenfield Irrigation Development Public Private Partnerships

Greenfield Irrigation Development Public Private Partnerships. Irrigation Australia 2014 Chris Thompson Managing Director , M acquarie Franklin. Background .

bina
Download Presentation

Greenfield Irrigation Development Public Private Partnerships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Greenfield Irrigation DevelopmentPublic Private Partnerships Irrigation Australia 2014 Chris Thompson Managing Director , Macquarie Franklin

  2. Background • In Tasmania – we have approx 12% Australia surface water runoff – generally not where the usage is !! – predominance of stream diversion as method of irrigation supply • Sustainable greenfield development in Tasmania is $2000 per ML upwards • Irrigated agriculture is expanding rapidly • Existing supplies under stress

  3. Political Intervention to augment supplies and support water infrastructure • Public – Private partnership as the way forward

  4. Thank you Chris Thompson Macquarie Franklin cthompson@macfrank.com.au

  5. Why PPP When done properly • Best (I believe !) process to implement • Best method of valuing, managing and apportioning risk – apply the risk to those who can appreciate/manage/afford it !!

  6. Risk issues • Approval Risks (EPBCA 1999 and the contingent outcomes in state acts) • Stakeholder Risks – ie “buy in” from irrigators and communities, government instrumentalities and “third parties” • Financing risks – “impatient capital”, returns to investors, Project lifespans • Engineering risks – technical and budgeting risks – aggressive or conservative ? • Environmental Risks – real or perceived – often mismanaged and poorly understood • Agricultural risks – understanding future markets and needs • Climate risk !!!!! – impact on both water availability and growing conditions

  7. The outcome • 5 projected completed 3 others underway • Around $350 M spent approx 60/40 Govt private • All on time and under budget

  8. Thank you Chris Thompson Macquarie Franklin cthompson@macfrank.com.au

More Related