pulp mill invalid, page-149

Don't under-rate GNS land quality with the "last sales rule-of-thumb method" of valuation. GNS have been persistently attacked by anti-forestry parties in Tasmania for converting "prime agricultural land" into plantations. The land base is not that good (i.e. "prime"), but it is still much better than the typical mainland pasture-to-plantation land the likes of TIM and GTP purchased. Tasmania has high and reliable rainfall (often above 1000 mm per year) and often volcanic (basaltic) soils that, if they were in better locations, (eg closer to sea level) would be growing spuds. Average yields and MAIs are consequently much higher.

The value of rural land is the measure of its potential to generate revenue and provide profit.

I think that in terms of forestry promises GNS stands out from the pack in that it didn't exaggerate its expected yields, had the most realistic rotation length, it was the lowest price hectare on the MIS block, and it's over delivered on the 2000 and 2001 project thinnings (ha yields from thinnings are as much as many GTP's clearfalls at final harvest in WA).