Not only that, it was said, unchallenged, by people from a very similar background, one that could be called “coal-unfriendly”

What happened is that an organisation called the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis produced a document titled Indian Power Prices, which concluded that coal from the Galilee would be “prohibitively expensive” for Indian power generators, and that mines planned for the Galilee were likely to prove to be “uncommercial”

Primary focus of the coal aspects of the paper, as opposed to Indian power prices, were the mine plans of the Adani Group, and its rival GVK.

Taken at first blush, which is all the time most journalists have these days to digest what look like worthy documents from organisations with impressive names, and the headlines just drop smoothly into place.

That is why readers of the Sydney Morning Herald were greeted on Tuesday by a story topped with these words: “Doubts raised over financial viability of Galilee basin coal mine proposal”, and by these words in The Australian: “Wake up call on new coal projects”

Perhaps some people did wake up after reading those headlines but The Hog had a creepy feeling that he had read it all before – several times, in fact.

So, to satisfy his curiosity he visited the website of IEEFA and sure enough there was a report published in November last year titled: “Remote prospects: A financial analysis of Adani’s Gamble in Australia’s Galilee Basin”

The key finding of that document was that Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine in the Galilee would be “uneconomic”

As far as The Hog is concerned the Adani and GVK projects might indeed by unprofitable at current coal prices.

No prize is awarded to anyone who can see that when the price of a commodity is cut in half, which is what’s happened to thermal coal over the past few years, the economics of every mine producing that material collapses.

But, what is more interesting than stating the bleeding obvious is the reason why the bleeding obvious is being repeated, and who is doing the repeating, questions which go to the motives of the IEEFA and another awfully similar organisation, the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Britain’s Oxford University.

Peas from the same pod is one way of describing IEEFA and the Smith School because both have as a primary focus that can only be called a green agenda.

The Smith School paper was co-authored by Ben Caldecott (see Dryblower, December 20, 2013), a man described as “a leading thinker of the green movement” – say no more.

The IEEFA paper is written by Tim Buckley, co-founder and managing director of Arkx Investment Management, a company specialising in investing in clean energy companies.

Arkx website (http://arkx.com/home) is especially useful in gaining a greater understanding in Buckley’s background and environmental beliefs.

Of special interest is the allocation of funds under management as shown in the portfolio reports available on the website with a major allocation of funds to sectors such as: energy efficiency and renewables.

Unsurprisingly, there does not appear to be any allocation of funds to coal, oil, gas or nuclear.

If that seems like enough has been said about the background of IEEFA, you are wrong, because it really is worth digging further by visiting the parent website of what is a US-based organisation (http://www.ieefa.org/) to seek a greater understanding of what it is.

Under the “about” heading all is revealed because IEEFA declares that its “mission” is to “accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy and to reduce dependence on coal and other non-renewable energy resources”

There you have it. IEEFA is just another green group with a single purpose in life, the death of the coal industry, an objective it will undoubtedly try to achieve in whatever way it can.

In a way, The Hog has no problem with an opponent squaring up for a fight. After all, it is what Australians do when they vigorously disagree. Just as James Packer and David Gyngell did a few days ago.

Where there is an issue it is when people do not openly declare their position, and use nebulous names such as IEEFA, perhaps to minimise questioning of what really is a political agenda.