Now, before anyone in coal country starts unlocking their gun cabinet and come hunting for The Hog it might be worth considering what’s actually proposed.

First, it is necessary to understand what’s likely to happen if protestors are successful in limiting the development of new coal mines – less coal, in an ideal world, means a higher price for what’s available.

Delaying new projects means that mines already in production stand to benefit, and that’s when the second boost for investors kicks in; increased takeover activity which will lift the price of existing mines.

Nothing in that double-barrelled proposition is rocket science and some of the elements behind the thesis have been aired before. The missing ingredient is time and the uncertainty of how long it will take for the lack of new coal mines to affect the price of the material.

What started this line of thought was the latest setback for the Indian-backed Carmichael coal project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.

That was followed by the release of a study into coal by the accounting firm Ernst & Young (EY) which found that merger and acquisition (M&A) activity was the next phase for the industry.

First the Carmichael situation, because keeping its coal in the ground is the primary aim of the environmental movement which has reached deep into its bag of tricks to make several levels of Australian government looked grossly incompetent.

The latest stunt, claiming that the wellbeing of a snake and a lizard had not been properly considered, is a classic in stalling tactics and while the case might have no merit it’s a guide as to how the next stages of the process works.

In a way, what the protestors have discovered is that strict laws, the so-called “black letter” laws, which are designed to protect one party in a dispute are often used by another party because so much in law is open to interpretation and precedent.

What that means is that the snake and the lizard could soon be joined by a bird and a wallaby as animals potentially threatened by Carmichael, before moving on to a type of tree, shrub or even a weed.

Bankers, another delicate species involved in the coal debate, have been heading for the exits as the protest movement grinds on with National Australia Bank this week giving Carmichael the cold shoulder.

Annoying as this activity is for anyone wanting to develop a new coal mine the situation does have its positives or, as a very successful lawyer and corporate raider once told The Hog sometime in the 1980s: “I love black letter law because it’s so easy to work around it”

Into this delicious cocktail of serious financial matters, and the flim-flam silliness of the environmentalist which government just can’t fathom, entered EY which reckons that the Australian coal industry is poised for a period of sweeping consolidation over the next six-to-12 months.

What led EY to that conclusion is that the biggest of the current crop of coal miners are losing interest in the industry thanks to the ongoing phase of depressed prices and the ongoing battle with the environmental movement.

At some point, according to the logic of the accountants, a head office decision will be made to either get out of the industry, or get bigger to achieve the necessary economies of scale and increased productivity (lower costs) to ride out the downturn.

Basically that leads to the questions of who buys who, and who’s left standing after the coal dust has settled.

EY’s view is that coal is travelling the same M&A road as the gold industry which has also been whacked around the corporate ears by low prices and high costs – followed by a sharp burst of consolidation led by companies such as Northern Star and Evolution.

According to EY gold is a precursor to a burst of coal M&A which would “ripple through the mining sector for the next few years”, adding that most coal miners in Australia are open to sale discussions at the right price.

First signs of the takeover wave can already be seen with small deals in the Hunter Valley and Bowen Basin.

But, what no-one seems to have considered is that if the EY hypothesis is correct then every deal must have a buyer as well as a seller – in other words the people buying see value in coal, albeit at a lower entry and operating cost.

Mix that EY analysis with the likelihood that very few, if any, new coal mines will be developed for some time and you have a fascinating situation which points, eventually, to reduced coal supplies and higher prices.