
Why this picturesque Aussie city could soon be wiped off the map
Business advocacy group Townsville Enterprise said the ripple effects could put up to 17,000 jobs at risk across the Northern Queensland economy.
Mount Isa, a city with a population of about 20,000 in the state's Gulf Country region, is largely dependent on mining, in particular Glencore's copper and silver-lead zinc facilities.
A memo circulated to staff on Wednesday painted a bleak outlook. Glencore's interim CEO warned the company is 'fast reaching the point' where it must place both facilities into care and maintenance unless a rescue deal is reached.
'To date Glencore has been absorbing losses hopeful that a viable solution could be found,' the memo stated.
'However, we are fast reaching the point at which Glencore cannot continue to absorb these losses. We need to know in the coming weeks whether there is a viable solution on the table from governments.'
The closure of the two copper operations would directly impact around 550 Glencore workers, with an additional 500 jobs under threat at Dyno Nobel's Phosphate Hill operations.
Roland Lobegeiger, field services manager at mechanical firm Isadraulics, said the consequences for Mount Isa would be far-reaching. 'Without it, the town's not going to be here,' he told news.com.au.
'There are other mines, there would be other work in the area, but would the town recover? It's hard to say,' he said.
'It would be a significant change for a lot of businesses, homes, house prices – you name it. It's definitely a bit of a dark cloud over the area. Everyone's still optimistic that they won't shut it down, but no one knows.'
Senior Glencore executive Suresh Vadnagra told The Australian the miner was still hopeful of a partnership with government to keep the sites alive, potentially including a public equity stake.
'We have been engaging with government for the past five months,' he said.
'We need to know in the coming weeks whether there is a viable solution on the table from governments or whether we start to planning to transition the copper smelter and refinery into care and maintenance. Time is running out.'
Glencore expects the two copper assets could lose billions of dollars over the next seven years, citing rising costs and an increasingly uncompetitive business environment.
The warning comes amid broader struggles across Australia's smelting sector. Rio Tinto-owned Tomago, the nation's largest aluminium smelter, is also seeking government support as it battles soaring energy prices and competition from China.
Industry Minister Tim Ayres signalled the federal government was open to stepping in, telling The Australian Financial Review.
'The truth is, if these facilities didn't exist, governments would be trying to build them,' he said.
Meanwhile, Dr John Coyne, Director of National Security Programs at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned the closure could risk national security.
'Without access to local smelting, transport and processing costs will increase, threatening their viability and accelerating the decline of Australia's domestic metals processing sector.' Coyne said.
He argued that China, the United States and Europe were moving to secure their own supply chains, in the case of a crisis.
'Australia's failure to think strategically puts its long-term prosperity at risk. Copper demand is expected to double over the next decade' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the London Stock Exchange: its struggles are symptoms of a broken growth model
'We are, it is admitted, the financial centre of the world,' said the chairman of the Union Bank of London in 1903. Back then, the City of London was the world's banker, and its stock exchange was worth as much as the New York and Paris exchanges combined. Today, the stock market is shrinking at its fastest rate since 2010. While the mining company Glencore's recent decision to retain its London listing provided a temporary boost, it won't stem the tide. Companies are increasingly ditching London and moving to Europe and the US. Rachel Reeves hopes to revive the exchange by pushing stock ownership, encouraging people to become their own portfolio managers. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has its own proposals, including tax breaks and looser bonus rules. Both of these plans are based on deregulation, and neither addresses the underlying problem: Britain's ailing stock market is both a cause and consequence of stubbornly low business investment and a broken growth model. In theory, the stock exchange gives companies access to capital, which they invest in their businesses, making those more productive and causing the economy to grow. Pension funds and savers who buy their shares gain from this growth (as do workers, whose wages are supposed to go up as productivity rises). But the stock exchange isn't providing enough access to capital, and listed companies aren't investing to boost growth. British pension funds, once major buyers of UK equities, have retreated. Many have shifted to gilts, or headed to the US to take advantage of the tech boom. In 1997, UK pension schemes allocated 53% of their assets to UK equities; today, that figure just is 6%. British businesses have grown more slowly. At the same time, their shareholders have pushed aggressively for dividend payments, producing a toxic spiral of stagnant growth and diminishing prosperity. Instead of boosting investment, this has redistributed wealth upwards. Dividend payments grew nearly six times faster than real wages between 2000 and 2019, and British companies now spend less on research and development than their European equivalents. The dividend yield is about twice as high for UK shares as it is for US stocks. The British economy excels at rentierism – less so at the investment that would boost productivity. Firms listed in Britain are consequently vulnerable to foreign and private equity takeovers, while successful companies are heading overseas to raise money. The British semiconductor firm Arm was worth £24bn when Japan's Softbank bought it in 2016. Despite desperate lobbying from politicians, Arm couldn't be persuaded to list its shares in London when it went public. Instead, the UK-based company listed on the US Nasdaq, and has since gained approximately £85bn in value, most of which accrued to investors overseas. The CBI wants Ms Reeves to coax pension funds into investing more in British businesses. An influx of pension capital would help, but it isn't going to fix an economic model skewed towards wealth extraction. Public investment must form part of the solution. Government-backed regional banks could lend money to upstart companies outside London. Ms Reeves should also do more to force existing firms to invest in productive activities. Taxes on share buybacks would be a good starting point. So too would mandating employee directors on company boards. But such proposals would require a sense of political imagination – something that the current government doesn't seem to possess. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Chile's ENAMI opens door to investors for $1.7 bln smelter
SANTIAGO, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Chile's state-run mining company ENAMI has kicked off a process to draw in investors for a $1.7 billion smelter in exchange for copper cathode supply, it said on Wednesday. The Hernan Videla Lira smelter in the Atacama region is undergoing renovations that will give it the capacity to process 850,000 metric tons of copper concentrate a year and produce 240,000 tons of copper cathodes, ENAMI said. The company is analyzing various financing options, and has brought on Chilean financial adviser Asset to gauge interest from investors in the coming weeks, it said. ENAMI also created a new business unit to develop the smelter, called Proyecta ENAMI. Chile is the world's biggest copper producer, and sends the majority of its concentrate for processing in China.


The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Qantas has devalued its frequent flyer points. What should you do now?
Qantas was back in the spotlight this week with news that affected members of its frequent flyer program. The airline has made significant changes to its loyalty program, effectively devaluing its frequent flyer points. While we don't know the full extent or the specifics of the changes, airline loyalty program experts estimate a 20% average increase in the number of points needed to redeem a seat. Qantas has given us a few examples, including that a Classic Rewards economy seat on a Sydney-Melbourne flight has risen to 9,200 points plus $55 in fees, from 8,000 points plus $55 in fees. So, will the Qantas promise of more rewards seats available to flyers make the additional expense worth it? Or are people better off spending their points on shopping instead of flights? Flagging the changes in January, the chief executive officer of the frequent flyer program, Andrew Glance, said: 'A lot has changed in the last six years.' He suggested the changes would mean the airline could increase the number of Classic Rewards and Classic Plus Rewards seats available to be booked with frequent flyer points. Qantas has for some time fielded complaints about the scarcity of Classic Rewards seats in general, especially in premium classes. The airline has acknowledged the changes would force many members to spend more points and more cash on fees. However, Qantas said it hadn't adjusted the value of its loyalty scheme since 2019, and that the August changes were only the second since 2004. Daniel Sciberras, who works for the guide website Point Hacks, says the latest increase is 'relatively reasonable', even if customers aren't happy about it, because the program 'needs to remain viable'. In his view, this is because the average 15% to 20% jump in the number of points needed to book flights works out to about a 2% to 3% rise a year since 2019 – roughly in line with inflation. The specifics of what each Classic Rewards seat will cost under the new scheme have not yet been revealed. However, Sciberras says his tips for consumers in general haven't changed. He says there's no difference to 'the general rule' – that redeeming points for premium seats on long-haul fights is the 'best bang for your point'. 'So, you're still going to get great value when it comes to flights, especially in those long-haul premium cabins.' He says people are generally better off redeeming points on business-class seats than paying for an economy seat and using points to get an upgrade. His advice remains the same when it comes to domestic bookings too: use your points on routes with less competition. Sciberras says this is because busy domestic routes with lots of competition – such as flights between Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide – generally have lower ticket prices. The amount of points needed to redeem a seat is fixed, and based on distance, he says. This means you're better off using points to book domestic flights that would otherwise be more expensive, such as to destinations like Hamilton Island, Uluru or Broome. Not if you want to get the best value for money, Sciberras says. 'You're always going to get more value by redeeming your points for flights than other things: accommodation, car hire, anything from the shopping mall,' he says. This is because points – when worked out in dollar terms – end up being worth more when used to book flights, he says. Sciberras says points usually work out to be about 1c in value when used to book flights. 'But … if you want to get a $50 gift card, it'll be like 10,000 points, right? That gives you half a cent in value,' he says. 'Short-haul domestic might be only around 0.7c per point, so it's not much more. But if you're going international first class, you could get 4c or 5c in value, or even more per point.'