Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

Publishing

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

It is impossible to unpublish something. Unpublish is not even a word.

To attempt to unpublish something is worse than futile. Please, just consider the last of the famous to try.

Book burning – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

Book burning (also biblioclasm or libricide) is the practice of destroying, often …. A much-quoted line in Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is Fahrenheit 451, stating, “It follows then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly,

Then, please consider basic human law:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia, the

en.wikipedia.org/…/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit…

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an

My suggestion: if you do not like the truth that has been published, please create a better reality for us.  Thank you.

by Daniel Brouse

Baby Formula

Friday, June 29th, 2012

Equation for The Meaning Of Live

Ironically, the Brouses coined the phrase “In God We Trust” for the United States Mint.

What is the meaning of life? What makes man different from other animals?

Baby Formula: Equation for the Meaning of Life .mp4 Video



Australia Carbon Tax

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

On July 1, 2012 Australia will impose a price on carbon emissions.

A price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to reduce pollution. This means our economy can continue to prosper – without our pollution continuing to grow. The Government’s plan for a clean energy future includes four key components. Firstly, the establishment of a carbon price. Secondly, support for renewable energy. Thirdly, to support improvements in energy efficiency. And fourthly, to store carbon through changed land-use practices. So, they’re the four key foundations, if you like, of our plan for a clean energy future. A carbon price has got a very important role to play because it puts a price tag on pollution. For the first time in our economy, the largest polluters will have to pay a price for every tonne of pollution that they put into the atmosphere, and that creates the incentive to cut pollution and it also creates the pressure to innovate, the pressure to invest in cleaner energy sources. And that’ll be very important for the future of our country and our economy and our living standards, because it’s the countries in the 21st century that have innovated and that have got clean energy as a key part of their economic future that will be the most competitive, and that’s very important for our future as well.

More on Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade and Emissions Trading
More on Global Warming and Climate Change

Questions Answered

Q. Where will the money raised from the carbon price go?

A.

More than half of the money raised will be used to assist households. The majority of households will receive tax cuts, increased assistance payments  or both. With the rest of the money, the Government will be supporting jobs in the most affected industries and investing in our clean energy future. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

Q. Will I have to pay the carbon price?

A.

No, it’s not a tax on households or small businesses - Australia’s biggest polluters will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism. They account for around 60 per cent of our carbon pollution. For more information on Australia’s biggest polluters. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

An environmental problem with an economic solution

Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognized by economists from around the world, and respected institutions such as the OECD and the Productivity Commission. Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment. A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia’s largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution, by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating. It encourages businesses across all industries to find the cheapest and most effective way of reducing carbon pollution, rather than relying on more costly approaches such as government regulation and direct action.

A carbon price means a strong and growing economy

The economy will continue to grow as Australia embraces a clean energy future. Treasury modelling estimates that under a carbon price:

  • Average incomes grow strongly under a carbon price. Average incomes are expected to increase by about 16 per cent from current levels by 2020, an increase of around $9000 in today’s dollars. By 2050, the increase is expected to be more than $30,000.
  • National employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020.


Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth

The carbon price is the first element of the Government’s plan for a clean energy future: it will trigger a broad transformation of the economy. Our economy has successfully handled comparable structural changes over its history. In fact, transformative changes – new products and technologies, and the integration of our economy into the global economy set in train by the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s – have underpinned rising prosperity and sustainable growth in Australia. Treasury modelling shows that, under a carbon price, the economy continues to grow.

Figure 1: Gross National Income with and without the carbon price

Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth For more information see: Chapter 3 – Putting a price on carbon pollution. For further details about a carbon price see:

↑ Back to Top

Education In The Western World

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

“We have not come here to be lectured on our inadequacies.”
– the Europeans

Space X Launches Historic Mission

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012
Space X Rocket Launch

Space X Rocket Launch

Hawthorne, CA – Today, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket carrying a Dragon spacecraft to orbit in an exciting start to the mission that will make SpaceX the first commercial company in history to attempt to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station — something only a handful of governments have ever accomplished.

At 3:44 a.m. Eastern, the Falcon 9 carrying Dragon launched from SpaceX’s launch pad at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Now, the Dragon heads toward the International Space Station. On that journey, it will be subjected to a series of tests to determine if the vehicle is ready to berth with the station.

Broadcast quality videos, including video inside of the SpaceX factory, may be downloaded at vimeo.com/spacexlaunch and high-resolution photos are posted at spacexlaunch.zenfolio.com.

At a press conference held after the launch, SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk began, “I would like to start off by saying what a tremendous honor it has been to work with NASA. And to acknowledge the fact that we could not have started SpaceX, nor could we have reached this point without the help of NASA… It’s really been an honor to work with such great people.”

The vehicle’s first stage performed nominally before separating from the second stage. The second stage successfully delivered the Dragon spacecraft into its intended orbit. This marks the third consecutive successful Falcon 9 launch and the fifth straight launch success for SpaceX.

“We obviously have to go through a number of steps to berth with the Space Station, but everything is looking really good and I think I would count today as a success no matter what happens with the rest of the mission,” Musk said.

He continued by expressing his gratitude to the more than 1,800 SpaceX employees. “People have really given it their all.” Describing the scene inside of SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California, he said, “We had most of the company gathered around SpaceX Mission Control. They are seeing the fruits of their labor and wondering if it is going to work. There is so much hope riding on that rocket. When it worked, and Dragon worked, and the solar arrays deployed, people saw their handiwork in space operating as it should. There was tremendous elation. For us it is like winning the Super Bowl.”

Explaining the significance of the day, Musk stated, “This mission heralds the dawn of a new era of space exploration, one in which there is a significant commercial space element. It is like the advent of the Internet in the mid-1990s when commercial companies entered what was originally a government endeavor. That move dramatically accelerated the pace of advancement and made the Internet accessible to the mass market. I think we’re at a similar inflection point for space. I hope and I believe that this mission will be historic in marking that turning point towards a rapid advancement in space transportation technology.”

This is SpaceX’s second demonstration flight under a 2006 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) agreement with NASA to develop the capability to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station. Demonstration launches are conducted to determine potential issues so that they might be addressed; by their very nature, they carry a significant risk. If any aspect of the mission is not successful, SpaceX will learn from the experience and try again.

Mission Highlights: During the mission, Dragon must perform a series of complex tasks, each presenting significant technical challenges (dates subject to change):

  • May 22/Launch Day: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket launches a Dragon spacecraft into orbit from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
  • May 23: Dragon orbits Earth as it travels toward the International Space Station.
  • May 24: Dragon’s sensors and flight systems are subjected to a series of complicated tests to determine if the vehicle is ready to berth with the space station; these tests include maneuvers and systems checks in which the vehicle comes within 1.5 miles of the station.
  • May 25: NASA decides if Dragon is allowed to attempt berthing with the station. If so, Dragon approaches. It is captured by station’s robotic arm and attached to the station, a feat that requires extreme precision.
  • May 25 – 31: Astronauts open Dragon’s hatch, unload supplies and fill Dragon with return cargo.
  • May 31: After approximately two weeks, Dragon is detached from the station and returns to Earth, landing in the Pacific, hundreds of miles west of Southern California.

About SpaceX

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches the world’s most advanced rockets and spacecraft. With a diverse manifest of 40 launches to deliver commercial and government satellites to orbit, SpaceX is the world’s fastest growing launch services provider. In 2010, SpaceX became the first commercial company in history to put a spacecraft into orbit and return it safely to Earth. With the retirement of the space shuttle, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft will soon carry cargo, and one day astronauts, to and from the Space Station for NASA. Founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and Valor Equity Partners. The company has over 1,800 employees in California, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Florida. For more information, visit www.SpaceX.com.

Mortgage Bankers Paying for Fraud and Crimes

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

Even foreign companies have to pay for crimes committed in the good ole US of A.

HUD, HUD INSPECTOR GENERAL AND U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCE
$202 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH DEUTSCHE BANK AND MORTGAGEIT
Civil Fraud case alleged reckless mortgage lending and false claims

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”).

The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. Among other things, the suit accused the defendants of having submitted false certifications to HUD, including false certifications that MORTGAGEIT was originating mortgages in compliance with HUD rules when in fact it was not. In the settlement announced today, MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Complaint, including that, contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

MORTGAGEIT also admitted that it submitted certifications to HUD stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; that FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and that HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted. The defendants also agreed to pay $202.3 million to the United States to resolve the Government’s claims for damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. The settlement was approved today by United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK treated FHA insurance as free Government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules. Participation in the Direct Endorsement Lender program comes with requirements that are not mere technicalities to be circumvented through subterfuge as these defendants did repeatedly over the course of a decade. Their failure to meet these requirements caused substantial losses to the Government – losses that could have and should have been avoided. In addition to their admissions of responsibility, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT have agreed to pay damages in an amount that will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery stated: “This is an important settlement for the United States, both in terms of obtaining substantial reimbursement for the FHA insurance fund for wrongfully incurred claims, and in obtaining the defendants’ acceptance of their role in the losses they caused to the taxpayers.”

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky stated: “This case demonstrates that HUD has the ability to identify fraud patterns and work with our partners at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to pursue appropriate remedies. HUD would like to commend the work of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in achieving this settlement, which is a substantial recovery for the FHA mortgage insurance fund. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the Department of Justice and the SDNY to combat mortgage fraud. The mortgage industry should take notice that we will not sit silently by if we detect abuses in our programs.

HUD Inspector General David A. Montoya stated: “We expect every Direct Endorsement Lender to adhere to the highest level of integrity and accountability. When the combined efforts and attention of the Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD OIG are focused upon those who fail to exercise such integrity in connection with HUD programs, the end result will be both unpleasant and costly to the offending party.

The following allegations are based on the Complaint and Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in Manhattan federal court by the Government in this case:

Between 1999 and 2009, MORTGAGEIT was a participant in the DEL program, a federal program administered by the FHA. As a Direct Endorsement Lender, MORTGAGEIT had the authority to originate, underwrite, and endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. If a Direct Endorsement Lender approves a mortgage loan for FHA insurance and the loan later defaults, the holder of the loan may submit an insurance claim to HUD for the costs associated with the defaulted loan, which HUD must then pay. Under the DEL program, neither the FHA nor HUD reviews a loan before it is endorsed for FHA insurance. Direct Endorsement Lenders are therefore required to follow program rules designed to ensure that they are properly underwriting and endorsing mortgages for FHA insurance and maintaining a quality control program that can prevent and correct any deficiencies in their underwriting. These requirements include maintaining a quality control program, pursuant to which the lender must fully review all loans that go into default within the first six payments, known as “early payment defaults.” Early payment defaults may be signs of problems in the underwriting process, and by reviewing early payment defaults, Direct Endorsement Lenders are able to monitor those problems, correct them, and report them to HUD. MORTGAGEIT failed to comply with these basic requirements.

As the Complaint further alleges, MORTGAGEIT was also required to execute certifications for every mortgage loan that it endorsed for FHA insurance. Since 1999, MORTGAGEIT has endorsed more than 39,000 mortgages for FHA insurance, and FHA paid insurance claims on more than 3,200 mortgages, totaling more than $368 million, for mortgages endorsed for FHA insurance by MORTGAGEIT, including more than $58 million resulting from loans that defaulted after DEUTSCHE BANK AG acquired MORTGAGEIT in 2007. As alleged in the Complaint, a portion of those losses was caused by the false statements that the defendants made to HUD to obtain FHA insurance on individual loans. Although MORTGAGEIT had certified that each of these loans was eligible for FHA insurance, it repeatedly submitted certifications that were knowingly or recklessly false. MORTGAGEIT failed to perform basic due diligence and repeatedly endorsed mortgage loans that were not eligible for FHA insurance.

The Complaint also alleges that MORTGAGEIT separately certified to HUD, on an annual basis, that it was in compliance with the rules governing its eligibility in the DEL program, including that it conduct a full review of all early payment defaults, as early payment defaults are indicators of mortgage fraud. Contrary to its certifications to HUD, MORTGAGEIT failed to implement a compliant quality control program, and failed to review all early payment defaults as required. In addition, the Complaint alleges that, after DEUTSCHE BANK acquired MORTGAGEIT in January 2007, DEUTSCHE BANK managed the quality control functions of the Direct Endorsement Lender business, and had its employees sign and submit MORTGAGEIT’s Direct Endorsement Lender annual certifications to HUD. Furthermore, by the end of 2007, MORTGAGEIT was not reviewing any early payment defaults on closed FHA-insured loans. Between 1999 and 2009, the FHA paid more than $92 million in FHA insurance claims for loans that defaulted within the first six payments.

***

Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,

MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:

MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;
MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;
MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and
MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;
One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

* * *

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud, including mortgage fraud.

To date, the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit has brought four civil fraud lawsuits against major lenders under the False Claims Act alleging reckless residential mortgage lending. Three of the four cases have settled, and today’s settlement represents the third, and largest, settlement. On February 15, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud lawsuit against CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for $158.3 million. On February 24, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud suit against FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B. for $132.8 million. The Government’s lawsuit against ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORP. and two of its officers remains pending. With today’s settlement, the Government has achieved settlements totaling $493.4 million in the last three months. In each settlement, the defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint. The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit is handling all three cases as part of its continuing investigation of reckless lending practices.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Mr. Bharara thanked HUD and HUD-OIG for their extraordinary assistance in this case. He also expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division in Washington, D.C.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lara K. Eshkenazi, Pierre G. Armand, and Christopher B. Harwood are in charge of the case.

British Invasion 2012: Stockholder Revolt and Investor Protests

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

Occupy Wall Street may want to wake-up and take notice of how to effectively protest and change corporate misbehavior. The bloody limey are taking over the pay of top executives.

Mining company Xstrata, hedge fund Man Group, banks Credit Suisse, UBS and Barclays have had significant *NO* votes on remuneration packages. Today, they ousted the CEO of Aviva.

The London Dow Jones office reports, “Aviva became the fourth FTSE 100 company ever to have its remuneration report rejected, and Tuesday the British insurance group said that Chief Executive Moss, whose GBP2.69 million pay packet was also rejected in the non-binding vote, would stand down with immediate effect.”

Dear Mark Zuckerberg

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

It is my understanding that you have stolen my Intellectual Property Rights, as well as, a host of other crimes. I can prove that you have stolen my property… and, I want my money back. More importantly, I have many friends. You have stolen from them, too.

In the process of your theft, you committed many other even more serious crimes having to do with basic human rights, the Constitution of the United States of America (including the Bill Of Rights) and a multitude of specific local criminal activity.

Not only do we want our money back, we insist on additional restitution and time in jail.

Please turn yourself in.

Thank you,
Victim

PS Are your evil ways why you, and your friends, spend so much of our money on private protection and security… while you are violating ours?

About The Need For Security.

This is a reference to the Mayor of New York’s Bloomsberg report  pointing out the most stockholder money being spent on personal security. The only person mentioned spending more:

Zynga Outspends Many To Protect CEO Pincus

Why are these guys so afraid?

Independent resource The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120409-707108.html

online.wsj.com

From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.

No FaceBook Ads On My Page

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

PHILADELPHIA, PA — One of the pioneers of the world wide web has come out against the advertising practices of FaceBook.

The primary reason: “Sponsors violate you (as well as, your friends) privacy and security.  In a criminal sense, Sponsors (in conspiracy with FaceBook)  violate basic human rights.  Not only is it a crime in the United States of America, it is recognized as an international crime.”

* Did you know your name shows up under sponsored links?
* Did you know you expose your friends through sponsored links?

WARNING: If you are a FaceBook user, make certain that you understand the privacy settings.  They are purposely set to violate you.

LETTER TO MY FRIENDS:

Dear Friends,
FaceBook is getting ready to sell your content. How much are they paying you? I suggest not. Have you seen this?

Facebook’s IPO Priced Up to $35, Seeks to Raise $13.6B
www.pcmag.com

Facebook said Thursday that it set the price for its public offering at between
Dear FaceBook Sponsors: I intend to report on your bad practices. I plan on pointing out how stupid sponsors are for putting ads on my page and point out how you are getting tricked out of money.  Therefore, I suggest you do not advertise on my personal page.

RESPONSE TO INPUT:

      • Daniel Brouse seth, more importantly… i do not like what facebook is about to do to my musician and IP (intellectual property right owner) friends. in about two weeks, they are going to sell all their facebook content and keep the money. for shame!
      • oh yeah, and for the kids out there.. under 18… special laws apply to your privacy.
      • did you know the IRS and health insurance companies will audit your facebook posts? (just to name a couple concerns)
      • salt in the wound: a goodly portion of the facebook IPO proceeds for your intellectual property is being raised to pay Mark Zuckerberg’s tax bill on the money he stole from you.

Opels Lose Their Luster

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

Australia’s historic opal industry dying off

By Brigid Andersen

Updated March 22, 2012 01:40:41

Opal miner Branko Brankovic checks his conveyer next to his opal mine. Photo: Opal miner Branko Brankovic checks the conveyer at his opal mine in the Queensland outback town of Opalton. (Mick Tsikas: AAP)

As the mining boom roars on, a small, historic part of the industry has been forgotten.

The vast, arid gem fields of South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland are some of the few places in the world where opals can be found.

But this iconic piece of Australian history is being killed off as tourism figures decline and the number of people taking up the opal mining trade plummets.

Kev Phillips has been mining opals in Queensland since the 1980s and says he is struggling to see a future for the industry.

“It’s a very colourful industry; we’ve got people from all walks of life, doctors, teachers, immigrants, it’s classic,” he said.

It’s not an occupation, it’s a vocation. It’s very seldom people in their life can find something that they love.

Opal miner Kev Phillips

“It’s a fantastic sort of industry and it’ll be a tragedy to lose this iconic way of life and the people involved.

“But it is happening.”

He jokes of how he was born with a natural love for gems.

“As a child I’ve had a genetic interest – coming from a long line of criminals – in gemstones,” he said.

He says it is love not money that moves people to some of the hottest, remote parts of the country to dig for opals.

“It’s not an occupation, it’s a vocation,” he said.

“It’s very seldom people in their life can find something that they love.

“You wouldn’t do it for the money.

“I’d earn more money working for the coal seam gas companies.”

Opal miners near Quilpie Photo: A couple of opal miners take a break in the gem fields near Quilpie. (Kev Phillips)

He says young people interested in opal mining are now lured away by the fat pay cheques offered by big mining companies.

And Mr Phillips says many of the older opal miners have been forced out of business by a mountain of fees and paperwork imposed by state governments.

“In this term of the Bligh Government we have seen fee increases and legislation pushed through without any consultation whatsoever,” he said.

“They’ve imposed these costs and now we have to just live with them, which is deterring small scale mining from progressing and being a substantial part of the economics of regional Queensland.”

Mr Phillips, who is also head of the Queensland Small Miners Council, says opal miners have been unfairly restricted by laws aimed at the coal seam gas industry.

“We’re only very low impact operations generally, we have to rehabilitate our sites,” he said.

“We had an interest in being involved in this new legislation but the Department didn’t even contact us to see how these new laws for coal seam gas would affect our industry.

“We met with (Queensland Environment Minister) Kate Jones and she more or less implied to us about our concerns that we were environmental vandals and put us in the same boat.

“We were astonished.”

He says unless legislation is wound back, the future for all small miners is bleak.

“It’s not only opal, it’s sapphires and small gold miners,” he said.

“For us it’s been a way of life.

“It’s a lifestyle that’s historical part of Queensland’s identity since day dot.

“What’s happening is the Government is slowly taking away that right in favour of large mining with unionised staff.”

The Hammonds opal mine Photo: The Hammonds opal mine near Quilpie is over 100 years old and is still operational. (Kev Phillips)

Away from the rough mining camps of inland Australia, the opal trade is also struggling on the tourist glitter strips of the coast.

Marketed as Australia’s national gemstone, opals have always been a hit with overseas visitors.

I’ve been doing this for 25 years and this is definitely the toughest period that I’ve seen.

Opal retailer Scott Coggan

But with tourist numbers dropping since the global financial crisis, the economies of tourist centres like Cairns and the Gold and Sunshine coasts are hurting.

Scott Coggan, an opal cutter and manager of Opals Down Under on the Sunshine Coast, says times are tough for opal retailers.

“I’ve been doing this for 25 years and this is definitely the toughest period that I’ve seen,” he said.

Mr Coggan says the industry is facing a massive change.

“It’s a different type of tourist that we’re getting through. For us here on the Sunshine Coast the Americans that are not travelling here at the moment, that’s certainly made a big dent,” he said.

Coober Pedy opals Photo: Opals for sale in Coober Pedy, South Australia (Emma Pedler)

“We’ve had to change tack and look at other avenues. We’re predominantly targeting a lot of the interstate markets – a lot of Sydney, Melbourne people, the younger market.”

He is confident the industry can survive the retail slump, so long as the mining trade can attract some young blood.

“The biggest challenge for the industry is getting some incentive for young people to get into the mining sector,” he said.

“Anyone that was doing that has now headed off to the resources boom. They can get a steady $100,000 pay cheque without risking their lives underground.”

Mr Phillips agrees.

He says unless the Government steps in, the colourful existence of the opal miner will be consigned to Australia’s history.

“For the small battler like myself that came through the ranks and had an interest in gemstones as a child and got into it as a hobby and then a career path – for it to be over-regulated as it is is just taking that right away,” he said.

“It’s a tragic day for our country when that happens.”

Topics: mining-industry, industry, business-economics-and-finance, mining-rural, states-and-territories, tourism, opalton-4735, qld, australia, quilpie-4480



Home | Contact Us | Internet & Advertising Services