South East Queensland Stabling Site Selection Report January 2014

South East Queensland Stabling Site Selection Report January 2014 1

Contents Page 1. Introduction... 3 2. Project Background... 3 2.1 Stabling Options... 3 3. Site Selection Process... 4 4. Site Assessment against Key Criteria... 5 4.1 Robina, Banyo and Elimbah... 5 4.2 Nambour and Woombye... 6 4.3 Other Sites... 7 5. Financial Assessment... 8 6. Scenario Analysis... 9 6.1 North Coast Line Scenarios... 9 6.2 Total Capacity Analysis... 11 4. Recommendations... 11 5. Appendices... 12 Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Assessments... 13 A-1 Assessment Criteria... 13 A-2 Robina, Banyo and Elimbah... 15 A-3 Woombye and Nambour... 18 Appendix B: Financial Assessment... 21 2

1. Introduction This document has been prepared to provide a set of recommendations for the staging and implementation of the SEQ Stabling Program to enable procurement activities, design and construction to commence with certainty. In providing such recommendations this document considers the inputs of various stakeholders, the requirements of the New Generation Rollingstock Program and the various technical feasibility studies. 2. Project Background The SEQ Stabling Program s objective is to develop a number of rail stabling facilities to accommodate the expansion of the existing rollingstock fleet, to improve operational efficiency through reduced dead running, and to strategically prepare for projected future growth of the SEQ rail network. The combined program must ensure sufficient stabling capacity is provided in time for the delivery of NGR, while also ensuring that operational efficiencies are achieved by strategically locating each site. A range of studies have been completed to date which has informed the program s objectives. These are as follows: - The South East Queensland Stabling Strategic Investigation (SEQ SSI) which identified sites as potentially suitable for outer network stabling; - Dead running and Stabling Analysis and Citytrain Stabling Strategy, considering the implementation of the January 2014 timetable; and - The South East Queensland Stabling Feasibility Study Part 1 investigated the technical and operational feasibility of 16 sites across the network. - The South East Queensland Stabling Feasibility Study Part 2 investigated in detail, including on-site evaluations, a shortlist set of sites at Nambour, Woombye, Elimbah, Banyo, Rosewood, Thorneside and Robina. In addition the project team has undertaken stakeholder briefings and information sessions to socialise the potential sites and gain feedback from a community and stakeholder perspective. 2.1 Stabling Options From the above listed studies and activities a final set of Stabling Sites that are considered in this paper as potential for delivery are listed below in Table 1. Note that this does not preclude additional sites being investigated in the future. 3

Site Location Capacity Thorneside Cleveland Line North Yard 6 x 6 car or South Yard 12 x 6 car Banyo Shorncliffe Line 6 x 6 car Elimbah Caboolture Line 8 x 7 car equivalents (ultimate capacity of 11 x 9 cars) Nambour Sunshine Coast Line 7 x 7 car equivalents Rosewood Rosewood Line 6 x 6 car (ultimate capacity of 15 x 9 cars) Robina Gold Coast Line 4 x 6 car Ormeau Gold Coast line 8 x 6 car (ultimate capacity of 10 x 9 cars) Woombye Sunshine Coast Line 4 x 7 car equivalents (ultimate capacity of 8 x 9 cars) Table 1: Proposed Stabling Options 3. Site Selection Process Site selection was conducted by grouping sites according to how ready each site was to go to market considering if the technical feasibility work was complete, the operational priority of the site and potential statutory and environmental approvals required. In this process the sites were grouped as follows: - Robina, Banyo and Elimbah market ready; - Nambour and Woombye market ready pending strategic preference and final technical feasibility work; and - Thorneside, Rosewood and Ormeau multiple risks or low priority not market ready. Based on these groupings a core team of Queensland Rail and DTMR representatives assessed the sites following the process as illustrated in Figure 1. 4

Figure 1: Site Selection Process 4. Site Assessment against Key Criteria The key criteria that each site was assessed against are detailed in Appendix A. These criteria cover the four areas of: - Strategic Rail Planning; - Social and Community; - Constructability, and - Rail Operations. 4.1 Robina, Banyo and Elimbah The Multi-criteria assessment of Robina, Banyo and Elimbah is included in Appendix A. The studies completed of these sites have indicated no high risks that may impede delivery, as detailed in Figure 2. Additionally as the land is within existing rail corridor, with the exception of road reserve required to access Elimbah Stabling, design and construction can commence without delay. 5

Strategic Rail Planning Social and Community Constructability Rail Operations Robina Banyo Elimbah Figure 2: Robina, Banyo, Elimbah Assessment Summary (Green = no risk, Orange = medium risk, Red = high risk) 4.2 Nambour and Woombye The Nambour and Woombye sites were both identified in the feasibility studies as potential sites, however both sites required further strategic and technical assessment before a preferred site could be nominated. The Multi-criteria assessment of Nambour and Woombye, informed by both the technical feasibility studies completed by Parsons Brinkerhoff and strategic assessments conducted by Queensland Rail is included in Appendix A and summarised in Figure 3 below. Strategic Rail Planning Social and Community Constructability Rail Operations Nambour Woombye Figure 3: Nambour and Woombye Assessment Summary (Green = no risk, Orange = medium risk, Red = high risk) From the Multi Criteria Assessment a number of risks for both sites were identified, these are detailed further below coupled with management options. Nambour: - The design for Nambour Stabling currently imposes significant changes in vertical alignment for the proposed Landsborough to Nambour (L2N) duplication and impacts on the future upgrade of a local road. In its current form the design is unacceptable and requires a redesign of both the Nambour Stabling and the Landsborough to Nambour duplication in order to proceed. Redesign of Nambour will require gaining agreement between Queensland Rail and DTMR on a new scope and set of requirements for both the stabling and L2N duplication in the tightly constrained Nambour site, this will incur additional design expense and an agreed solution is unlikely within a reasonable timeframe. 6

- Construction of Nambour Stabling requires closure of the existing 3 x 6 car stabling sites resulting in a need to find alternative stabling, additional paths and additional crew hours during construction of the new site. It is anticipated that a management strategy could be put in place during this period however this will incur additional operational costs and construction time. - The Nambour site most likely requires relocation of a major trunk sewer main, the full extent of this work has not yet been quantified, introducing additional risk to proceeding with Nambour. - The social and community impact of Nambour is assessed as Medium; however the Sunshine Coast regional council has expressed specific concerns over Nambour due to the proximity of the site to the town center and long term impact on future town uplift programs. It is anticipated that if this site is selected significant management effort will be required with the local authority to understand and respect their interests and future aspirations for Nambour. Woombye: - The rural location of Woombye, is advantageous as the stabling site will have no direct residential neighbours, however it is anticipated that the local community will have concerns over the noise and visual amenity of the stabling site. This is likely to require additional noise mitigation measures and potential landscaping and urban design solutions to minimise the impact on the community. - The feasibility study for Woombye identified that supplementary flood mitigation measures may be required. The concept design includes a drainage design that in the next phase of design will require refinement and most likely additional drainage measures. This risk has been considered in the P50 cost estimate. Based on this assessment the key issues remaining are the misalignment between the Nambour Stabling site and the Landsborough to Nambour Duplication, the anticipated stakeholder management with the local authority and community for both Nambour and Woombye and the management of construction issues at Nambour. A significant effort in redesign is required to proceed with Nambour, which may not result in a workable solution. As Woombye delivers essentially the same benefits as Nambour, is a less constrained site, allows flexibility in long term strategic planning and all identified issues are manageable, it is recommended that Woombye is the preferred site to support Sunshine Coast line services. 4.3 Other Sites The other sites considered in the feasibility study (Table 1) either have multiple risks that, at this stage, prevent the site proceeding to delivery or are a low priority operationally, as detailed below. Thorneside: Multiple risks including odour management and ecological sensitivity. Redlands City Council does not support this site due to the proximity to the Sewage Treatment Plant and potential growth of the plant. Strategy is to reassess alternate sites on the Cleveland Line. 7

Rosewood: Flooding risks still to be adequately addressed and agreed with Ipswich City Council. Site is now a low operational priority as sufficient stabling is provided on the Ipswich corridor when recently released operations of the Wulkuraka Depot are considered. Strategy is to reassess priority if additional NGR fleet is ordered and services increase on this line. In the interim the site will be protected for future transport requirements. Ormeau: Ormeau was identified as a potential site strategically as an alternative to Beenleigh Stabling, and until such time as services increase on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast Line, Ormeau stabling is a low priority. Strategy is to reassess priority if additional NGR fleet is ordered or services increase on this line. In the interim the site will be protected for future transport requirements. As these sites are not ideal candidates to implement as part of the first stage of the SEQ Stabling Program, they will not be further considered in this report. Stabling on the Cleveland line is however becoming a critical issue and will be addressed separately to this first stage of the program. 5. Financial Assessment A financial assessment of each corridor and associated scenarios was conducted as summarised in Table 2 below. The capital cost estimates were conducted as part of the technical feasibility study for each site and adjusted for a P50 risk assessment. A separate dead running analysis, based on an average train cost / km was conducted for each scenario, with potential savings for each site indicated below. Considering capital costs, dead running savings and operational costs a Net Present Value (NPV) and payback calculation was completed for each corridor scenario to ensure value for money is achieved. The detailed calculations for each scenario are included in Appendix B. Scenario Capital Cost (P50) Dead Running Payback NPV Saving Period Robina $7,900,000 1 $2,463,716 23,624,823 4 years Banyo $25,900,000 $525,962-20,164,405 38 years Elimbah $27,000,000 $2,807,766 9,103,727 9 years Elimbah + Woombye $53,100,000 2 $4,567,563 10,620,362 10 years Elimbah + Nambour $59,100,000 3 $4,717,838 5,127,130 11 years Table 2: Stabling Site Financial Assessment For the North Coast line scenarios (Elimbah, Elimbah + Woombye and Elimbah + Nambour) the analysis indicates that while Elimbah has a shorter payback period, for the life of the stabling yards 1 Robina P50 estimate based on Varsity Lakes Stabling estimate (similar scope and size), as a P50 estimate for Robina was completed only for a significantly larger site that is not to be constructed. 2 Woombye P50 estimate is $26.1 million for 6 x 6 cars; note that a minimum of 4 x 7 cars is required operationally 3 Nambour P50 estimate is $33.2 million for 7 x 6 cars. 8

the Elimbah + Woombye scenario is the preferred option. Additionally it is expected that some savings will be realized at Woombye by reducing the overall capacity to 4 x 7 car equivalents, further strengthening the NPV and Payback period for this scenario. An anomaly in this analysis is Banyo; with minimal savings in dead running costs (due to the proximity to Mayne and length of the Shorncliffe line) the NPV would suggest not to proceed with the site. Despite this result, as detailed in the scenario analysis (section 6) it is proposed to proceed with Banyo to increase essential stabling capacity on the Shorncliffe line. The Banyo site will also provide an opportunity for day time stabling. 6. Scenario Analysis The scenario analysis identifies the ideal suite of stabling sites to be delivered to achieve both program objectives of providing sufficient stabling capacity for the growth in the rollingstock fleet and improving efficiency on the network by reducing dead running. The scenario analysis considered both North Coast line scenarios and a total capacity analysis. 6.1 North Coast Line Scenarios The scenario options considered for the North Coast Line are: 1. Elimbah only: 8 x 7 cars, this site would cater for the existing services starting at Caboolture and trains to dead run from Elimbah for the existing services starting at Nambour. It does not allow for any service growth. 2. Elimbah 8 x 7 cars and Woombye 4 x 7 cars, this scenario would cater for the existing and growth services starting at Caboolture and existing services starting at Nambour with a small amount of dead running between Nambour and Woombye. 3. Elimbah 8 x 7 cars and Nambour 7 x 7 cars, this scenario would cater for the existing and growth services starting at Caboolture and existing services starting at Nambour. Table 3 below outlines the potential benefits and issues with each scenario, work shopped with key Queensland Rail Operational representatives. Additionally a financial comparison of the options was completed and summarised in Appendix B. Cost: $27,000,000 NPV: 9,103,727 Payback period: 9 years Benefits Scenario 1: Elimbah 8 roads Issues - Reduced capital and operating cost - No spare capacity on day 1 - Dead running still to occur between Elimbah and Nambour for 4 morning services Scenario 2: Elimbah 8 roads & Woombye 4 roads Cost: $53,100,000 (note cost is for 6 roads so some cost reduction is expected for 4 roads) 9

NPV: 10,620,362 Payback period: 10 years Benefits - Reduced dead running - Reduced crew hours approx. 16h/day - Improved crew facility to house simulator and training rooms (move from Nambour existing accommodation to Woombye) - Increased capacity on single line section for both freight and passenger services - Reduced non-atp crosses (safety improvement and potential saving in crew hours - More efficient Rollingstock use - Increased on-track possession time - Alignment with train crew optimisation program Cost: $59,100,000 NPV: 5,127,130 Payback period: 11 years Benefits - Reduced dead running - Reduced crew hours approx. 16h/day - Improved crew facility to house simulator and training rooms (move from Nambour existing accommodation) - Increased capacity on single line section for both freight and passenger services - Improved disruption management with trains located at the terminus - Reduced non-atp crosses (safety improvement and potential saving in crew hours - More efficient Rollingstock use - Increased on-track possession time Issues - Increased capital cost to build additional site - Increased operational costs to maintain two sites - Still requires a small amount of dead running and operational management between Nambour and Woombye Scenario 3: Elimbah 8 roads & Nambour 7 roads - Alignment with train crew optimisation program Table 3: North Coast Line Scenarios Issues - Increased capital cost to build additional site - Significant amount or in corridor work to close and relocate existing stabling - Current design does not align with L2N duplication requiring re-design and changing of assumptions - Sunshine Coast Regional Council is concerned over alignment of site with long term strategic town planning - Loss of Stabling for duration of construction - Reduced flexibility in terms of potential future station / track upgrades at Nambour. Based on the analysis and extensive consultation with key Queensland Rail stakeholders, the Scenario 2, Elimbah and Woombye is recommended as these two sites provide the best solution to adequately meet the objectives of the program and the best overall value for money solution. 10

6.2 Total Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis with the proposed sites was completed to ensure the total program was providing sufficient stabling capacity, in the right locations, for the expansion of the rollingstock fleet. Figure 4 below outlines the ideal scenario comprising of Banyo 6 roads, Elimbah 8 roads, Robina 4 roads and Woombye 4 roads, to provide sufficient and contingency capacity with the following assumptions: - NGR delivery rates correct as at December 2013. - Fleet retirement rates as planned by Rollingstock Projects - Stabling Site delivery timeframes in accordance with the PB feasibility study findings - 5 stabling roads available at Wulkuraka Maintenance Depot - 10 x 6 car stabling sites provided a Kippa Ring with the Moreton Bay Rail Project. 350 Scenario: Banyo 6x6, Elimbah 8x6, Robina 4x6, Woombye 4x6 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 May 16 Jun 16 Jul 16 Aug 16 Sep 16 Oct 16 Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18 Jun 18 Jul 18 Aug 18 Sep 18 Oct 18 Nov 18 Existing Stabling Stabling Robina Dec 15 Stabling Banyo Mar 16 Stabling Wulkuraka Stabling Elimbah Aug 16 Stabling Woombye Aug 16 Stabling Kippa Ring Dec 16 Fleet Total 4. Recommendations Figure 4: Stabling Scenario Capacity Analysis Through detailed analysis of the SEQ Stabling options to ensure the key objectives of the program can be achieved it is recommended to proceed to procurement, design and delivery with the following sites: - Robina: 4 x 6 cars - Elimbah: 8 x 7 car equivalents - Banyo: 6 x 6 cars 11

- Woombye: 4 x 7 car equivalents In regards to 7 car equivalents, DTMR have advised that where possible on the North Coast line the design shall allow for 7 car equivalents, however construction is required for 6 car lengths only. In practice the extent / allowance for 7 car lengths will be assessed on a case by case basis as it may be economically beneficial to complete some work for 7 car lengths during construction. This will be refined in the detailed design phase of the project. 5. Appendices - Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Assessments - Appendix B: Financial Assessments 12

Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Assessments A-1 Assessment Criteria Consideration Strategic Rail Planning Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria Site aligns with future strategic rail plans (SEQCI, CAMCOS, Underground Bus and Train, Rail Investment Strategy) Site allows for future growth and planned corridors as necessary such as Landsborough to Nambour Ensuring there is a general agreement between the Local and State Authorities for the development of the Stabling Yard Social and Community Ensure that any noise and vibration impacts can be adequately mitigated against, such that the site is compliant with all relevant noise legislation Ensuring that the requirements of the local authority are understood and achievable, including but not limited to: Traffic management requirements Land impacts - alignment to local planning objectives Visual amenity Social impact Ensuring that the land acquisition process is achievable for private land, Local Authority land and State land Environmental Approvals and Environmental Impact - ensure that the required environmental approvals are achievable and that as far as possible the site minimises the impact to the local environment Flood Impacts - ensure that any flood impacts can be managed within the requirements of local and state authorities Constructability Access for construction - Ensure the site has adequate access for construction vehicles Assessment and acceptance of the overall construction requirements for the site including but not limited to; geotechnical conditions, contaminated land, extent of earthworks, service relocation, overall ease of construction Schedule - Ensure that the timeframes for approvals and construction are such that the required stabling capacity can be delivered in line with operational requirements Rail Operations The proposed alignment meets operational and network maintenance requirements The site is an operational priority in terms of dead running and aligns to the overall SEQ Stabling Strategic Outcomes 13

Consideration Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria Day to day operations including train crew rostering and driver changeover can be adequately managed with the site NGR Project Co Requirements - Ability to provide the Project Co stabling requirements for NGR if necessary Assessment Scoring Rating Description Low Risk to achieving Program Stabling site presents no issue to the relevant Objectives consideration Medium Risk to achieving Program Objectives High Risk to achieving Program Objectives Stabling site presents some minor issues to the relevant consideration Stabling site presents some major issues to the relevant consideration 14

A-2 Robina, Banyo and Elimbah Consideration Strategic Rail Planning Social and Community Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria Site aligns with future strategic rail plans (SEQCI, CAMCOS, Underground Bus and Train, Rail Investment Strategy) Site allows for future growth and planned corridors as necessary such as Landsborough to Nambour Ensuring there is a general agreement between the Local and State Authorities for the development of the Stabling Yard Ensure that any noise and vibration impacts can be adequately mitigated against, such that the site is compliant with all relevant noise legislation Robina Banyo Elimbah Comments Banyo: the local member raised concerns over noise and traffic impact. This can be managed through design and installation of noise walls. Elimbah: the local councilor raised concerns over noise, visual amenity and anticipated a negative reaction from the local community. The local member felt that the site is a good discrete location, separated from the local community by a main road and vegetation screening. Letters were sent to adjacent residents however no feedback was received. Banyo: Likely to require noise walls Elimbah: May require noise walls or vegetation to mitigate visual amenity concerns

Consideration Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria Robina Banyo Elimbah Comments Ensuring that the requirements of the local authority are understood and achievable, including but not limited to: Traffic management requirements Land impacts - alignment to local planning objectives Visual amenity Social impact Ensuring that the land acquisition process is achievable for private land, Local Authority land and State land Environmental Approvals and Environmental Impact - ensure that the required environmental approvals are achievable and that as far as possible the site minimises the impact to the local environment Banyo: Existing noise restrictions on site. Not specifically relevant to stabling site, however to be managed with the local community. Elimbah: EPBC referral required for flora and fauna however not considered a risk to the project. Constructability Flood Impacts - ensure that any flood impacts can be managed within the requirements of local and state authorities Access for construction - Ensure the site has adequate access for construction vehicles Assessment and acceptance of the overall construction requirements for the site including but not limited to; geotechnical conditions, contaminated land, extent of earthworks, service relocation, overall ease of construction Schedule - Ensure that the timeframes for approvals and construction are such that the required stabling capacity can be delivered in line with operational requirements Elimbah: Significant earthworks / cut for the site. On-site sewage treatment required as no main sewer connection available.

Consideration Rail Operations Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria The proposed alignment meets operational and network maintenance requirements The site is an operational priority in terms of dead running and aligns to the overall SEQ Stabling Strategic Outcomes Day to day operations including train crew rostering and driver changeover can be adequately managed with the site NGR Project Co Requirements - Ability to provide the Project Co stabling requirements for NGR if necessary Robina Banyo Elimbah Comments Banyo: Most likely significant power and signalling upgrades required to support the site Banyo: Dead running saving is less than other sites as closer to Mayne Stabling

A-3 Woombye and Nambour Consideration Strategic Rail Planning Social and Community Assessment Criteria Detailed Criteria Site aligns with future strategic rail plans (SEQCI, CAMCOS, Underground Bus and Train, Rail Investment Strategy) Site allows for future growth and planned corridors as necessary such as Landsborough to Nambour Ensuring there is a general agreement between the Local and State Authorities for the development of the Stabling Yard Ensure that any noise and vibration impacts can be adequately mitigated against, such that the site is compliant with all relevant noise legislation Ensuring that the requirements of the local authority are understood and achievable, including but not limited to: Traffic management requirements Land impacts - alignment to local planning objectives Visual amenity Social impact Nambour Woombye Comments Nambour: The stabling design currently does not align with the planned Landsborough to Nambour (L2N) duplication. To proceed with Nambour a redesign of both the stabling yard and the L2N alignment is required. This includes agreeing alternative design criteria for L2N. A timely agreement on a revised scope is unlikely, and will incur additional design costs without a guaranteed outcome. Nambour: Local authority expressed concern that site impacts future town planning and uplift. Woombye: Local authority expressed concern over visual amenity and impact on local town. Nambour: Located in the town centre some noise mitigation may be required, however the site is surrounded by commercial use Woombye: Noise mitigation is highly likely, however with no direct residential neighbours mitigation efforts are likely to be sufficiently effective. Nambour: Issues to be managed include land use and planning, impact on local creek system and visual amenity. Woombye: Issues to be managed include visual amenity and social impact noting that the site is located adjacent to the existing rail and on the opposite side from the town.

Consideration Constructability Assessment Criteria Nambour Woombye Comments Detailed Criteria Ensuring that the land acquisition process is achievable for private land, Local Authority land and State land Environmental Approvals and Environmental Impact - ensure that the required environmental approvals are achievable and that as far as possible the site minimises the impact to the local environment Flood Impacts - ensure that any flood impacts can be managed within the requirements of local and state authorities Access for construction - Ensure the site has adequate access for construction vehicles Assessment and acceptance of the overall construction requirements for the site including but not limited to; geotechnical conditions, contaminated land, extent of earthworks, service relocation, overall ease of construction Schedule - Ensure that the timeframes for approvals and construction are such that the required stabling capacity can be delivered in line with operational requirements Nambour: Acquisition of a property that currently houses a trade school, may require additional management effort to relocate trade school. Details to be further investigated. Nambour: offsets to local creek and drainage to be managed. Woombye: environmental approvals likely to be required, however can be managed Woombye: Additional design work required to mitigate flood impacts. Reduction from 9 to 7 car sets will reduce the impact. P50 Cost estimate has included a risk adjustment for flooding; anticipate any additional cost will be within the P50 estimate range. Nambour: Construction access restricted through town centre and low clearance bridges. Woombye: Construction access restricted by low clearance bridge, alternative but longer route available Nambour: Construction requires closure of the existing Nambour Stabling and a larger proprtion of Brown Field Works which adds to the construction risk of the site. Nambour also requires extensive trunk sewer relocation of which the details are currently unknown Nambour: Time for acquisitions may impact overall schedule due to relocation of trade school Woombye: Ok on the assumption that acquisition takes place by agreement and is not challenged through court, however this is considered low risk as only the process can be challenged and the site is directly adjacent to the L2N corridor.

Consideration Assessment Criteria Nambour Woombye Comments Detailed Criteria The proposed alignment meets operational and network maintenance requirements Woombye: Will require additional management as will act as a satellite site to Nambour. Rail Operations The site is an operational priority in terms of dead running and aligns to the overall SEQ Stabling Strategic Outcomes Day to day operations including train crew rostering and driver changeover can be adequately managed with the site NGR Project Co Requirements - Ability to provide the Project Co stabling requirements for NGR if necessary Woombye: Site is a high priority, however compared to Nambour will incur a small amount of additional dead running

Appendix B: Financial Assessment See attached spreadsheet 21

Input Data Robina Banyo Elimbah Woombye Elimbah + Elimbah + Nambour Woombye Nambour Capital Cost $ 7,900,000 $ 25,900,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 26,100,000 $ 53,100,000 $ 33,200,000 $ 59,100,000 Operating Cost $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 190,000 $ 95,000 $ 190,000 Dead Running km (week day) 161980 34580 184600 300300 310180 Cost/km (excluding crew) 15 15 15 15 15 Dead Running Saving / year $ 2,463,716 $ 525,962 $ 2,807,766 $ 4,567,563 $ 4,717,838 Crew Saving specifically for NCL Scenarios $ - $ - $ - $ 410,265 $ 410,265 Yearly Cost/Saving $ 2,368,716 $ 430,962 $ 2,712,766 $ 4,787,828 $ 4,938,103 Robina Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Capital Cost $K - 7,900,000 Cost/Savings $K 2,368,716 2,427,934 2,488,632 2,550,848 2,614,619 2,679,985 2,746,984 2,815,659 2,886,050 7,942,960 Net Cash Flow $K - 7,900,000 2,368,716 2,427,934 2,488,632 2,550,848 2,614,619 2,679,985 2,746,984 2,815,659 2,886,050 7,942,960 Cum Net Cash Flow $K - 7,900,000-5,531,284-3,103,351-614,718 1,936,129 4,550,748 7,230,733 9,977,717 12,793,376 15,679,426 223,012,717 Discount Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Discounted Net Cash Flow $K - 7,900,000 2,157,900 2,014,993 1,881,550 1,756,945 1,640,591 1,531,943 1,430,490 1,335,756 1,247,295 75,145 NPV 23,624,823 Payback Period 4 years Banyo Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Capital Cost $K - 25,900,000 Cost/Savings $K 430,962 441,736 452,779 464,099 475,701 487,594 499,784 512,278 525,085 1,445,134 Net Cash Flow $K - 25,900,000 430,962 441,736 452,779 464,099 475,701 487,594 499,784 512,278 525,085 1,445,134 Cum Net Cash Flow $K - 25,900,000-25,469,038-25,027,302-24,574,523-24,110,424-23,634,723-23,147,129-22,647,346-22,135,068-21,609,983 16,112,030 Discount Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Discounted Net Cash Flow $K - 25,900,000 392,606 366,606 342,327 319,657 298,487 278,720 260,262 243,026 226,932 13,672 NPV - 20,164,405 Payback Period 38 years Elimbah Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Capital Cost $K - 27,000,000.0 Cost/Savings $K 2,712,766 2,780,585 2,850,100 2,921,352 2,994,386 3,069,246 3,145,977 3,224,626 3,305,242 9,096,655 Net Cash Flow $K - 27,000,000 2,712,766 2,780,585 2,850,100 2,921,352 2,994,386 3,069,246 3,145,977 3,224,626 3,305,242 9,096,655 Cum Net Cash Flow $K - 27,000,000-24,287,234-21,506,649-18,656,549-15,735,197-12,740,811-9,671,565-6,525,588-3,300,962 4,280 237,452,227 Discount Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Discounted Net Cash Flow $K - 27,000,000 2,471,330 2,307,666 2,154,841 2,012,136 1,878,883 1,754,454 1,638,265 1,529,771 1,428,462 86,060 NPV 9,103,727 Payback Period 9 years Elimbah + Woombye Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Capital Cost $K - 53,100,000 Cost/Savings $K 4,787,828 4,907,524 5,030,212 5,155,967 5,284,866 5,416,988 5,552,413 5,691,223 5,833,504 16,054,913 Net Cash Flow $K - 53,100,000 4,787,828 4,907,524 5,030,212 5,155,967 5,284,866 5,416,988 5,552,413 5,691,223 5,833,504 16,054,913 Cum Net Cash Flow $K - 53,100,000-48,312,172-43,404,648-38,374,437-33,218,469-27,933,603-22,516,615-16,964,203-11,272,980-5,439,476 413,638,295 Discount Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Discounted Net Cash Flow $K - 53,100,000 4,361,711 4,072,857 3,803,132 3,551,270 3,316,087 3,096,479 2,891,415 2,699,931 2,521,128 151,889

NPV 10,620,362 Payback Period 10 years Elimbah + Nambour Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Capital Cost $K - 59,100,000 Cost/Savings $K 4,938,103 4,938,103 5,061,555 5,188,094 5,317,797 5,450,742 5,587,010 5,726,685 5,869,852 16,154,952 Net Cash Flow $K - 59,100,000 4,938,103 4,938,103 5,061,555 5,188,094 5,317,797 5,450,742 5,587,010 5,726,685 5,869,852 16,154,952 Cum Net Cash Flow $K - 59,100,000-54,161,897-49,223,794-44,162,239-38,974,145-33,656,348-28,205,607-22,618,597-16,891,911-11,022,059 410,667,013 Discount Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Discounted Net Cash Flow $K - 59,100,000 4,498,612 4,098,235 3,826,830 3,573,398 3,336,750 3,115,773 2,909,431 2,716,754 2,536,837 152,836 NPV 5,127,130 Payback Period 11 years Data CPI Rate per annum 2.50% Cost per Km 15.21 Discount Rate 8.90%