C0148
Ang Claim
“Sinubukang gastusan ang $3.3 milyon sa isang grant sa pag-aaral ng pagkana para sa subsidiya sa isang bagong coal generator. Ang kumpanya na magtatayo nito ay walang karanasang may kaugnayan. Ang pamantayan ng grant ay isinulat pagkatapos na magdesisyon ang pamahalaan na ibibigay ang pera sa kumpanyang ito. Ang mga naunang pag-aaral ng pagkana ay nagpakita na ang proyekto ay masyadong mapanganib at hindi kumikita para sa pribadong sektor. Hindi rin ito kwalipikado sa sariling programa ng pamahalaan na Underwriting New Generation Investment. Sinabi ng pamahalaan na ang bagong generator na ito ay magpapababa ng presyo ng kuryente para sa mga taga-rehiyon Queensland, ngunit mayroon lamang isang wholesale price ng kuryente para sa buong Queensland, at ito ay 50% mas mura kaysa sa halaga ng bagong coal generation.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
### Halaga ng Grant
### Grant Amount
Sinabi ng claim na "$3.3 milyon" ngunit ito ay hindi kumpleto. The claim states "$3.3 million" but this is incomplete.
Inanunsyo ng pamahalaan ang "hanggang $4 milyon" sa Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure (SREI) Program noong Pebrero 2020 [1]. The government initially announced "up to $4 million" in the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure (SREI) Program in February 2020 [1].
Gayunpaman, ang huling ibinigay na halaga sa Shine Energy ay **$3.636 milyon** noong Hunyo 2020 [1][2]. However, the final awarded amount to Shine Energy was **$3.636 million** in June 2020 [1][2].
Ang $3.3 milyon na pigura ay tila sumasalamin sa isang yugto ng intermediary bago pa natukoy ang huling award. The $3.3 million figure appears to reflect an intermediate stage before the final award was determined.
### Programa at Timeline ng Grant ### Grant Program and Timeline
Ang grant ay hindi bahagi ng UNGI (Underwriting New Generation Investments) program kundi isang hiwalay, ad-hoc program na tinatawag na Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure (SREI) Program [1]. The grant was not part of the UNGI (Underwriting New Generation Investments) program but rather a separate, ad-hoc program called the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure (SREI) Program [1].
Natapos ang pagsusuri ng UNGI program noong Marso 2019, at HINDI nailista ang Collinsville mula sa 66 nakikipagkumpetensyang proposal—nabigo ito sa merit-based evaluation nang pipiliin lamang ang 12 proyekto (walang isa sa mga ito ang bagong coal plants) [3]. The UNGI program evaluation had concluded in March 2019, and Collinsville was NOT shortlisted from 66 competing proposals—it failed merit-based evaluation when only 12 projects were selected (none of which were new coal plants) [3].
Kapansin-pansin, ang tanging coal project na napili sa ilalim ng UNGI ay isang power station upgrade, hindi bagong coal build [3]. **Timeline ng mga kaganapan:** - Pebrero 8, 2020: Inanunsyo ng pamahalaan ang available na pondo para sa isang feasibility study para sa Collinsville [1] - Pebrero 10, 2020: Inimbitahan ang Shine Energy na mag-apply ng pormal—dalawang araw MATAPOS ang anunsyo [1][2] - Marso 9, 2020: Paunang deadline ng aplikasyon (hindi na-extend) [1] - Hunyo 2020: Pormal na ibinigay ang grant sa halagang $3.636 milyon [1] Ang timeline na ito ay nabinberipikahan nang malaya ng Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Performance Audit Report [4]. Notably, the only coal project selected under UNGI was a power station upgrade, not a new coal build [3].
**Timeline of events:**
- February 8, 2020: Government publicly announces funding available for a feasibility study for Collinsville [1]
- February 10, 2020: Shine Energy is invited to formally apply—two days AFTER the announcement [1][2]
- March 9, 2020: Initial application deadline (later extended) [1]
- June 2020: Grant formally awarded at $3.636 million [1]
This timeline is independently verified by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Performance Audit Report [4].
### Pamantayan at Proseso ng Grant ### Grant Criteria and Process
Ang claim na ang pamantayan ng grant ay "isinulat pagkatapos na magdesisyon ang pamahalaan na ibibigay ang pera sa kumpanyang ito" ay bahagyang beripikado. The claim that grant criteria was "written after the government decided that they would give the money to this company" is partially verified.
Nakita ng ANAO audit na: 1. The ANAO audit found that:
1.
Ang mga partikular na alituntunin ng grant para sa SREI Program ay pinalista MATAPOS ang pampublikong anunsyo ng pondo ngunit BAGO pormal na mag-aplay ang Shine Energy [4] 2. Grant-specific guidelines for the SREI Program were finalized AFTER the public announcement of funding but BEFORE Shine Energy formally applied [4]
2.
Pinanatili ng Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) na ito ay "normal practice," ngunit ang pagkakasunod-sunod ay hindi karaniwan—inaanunsyo ang pondo nang pampubliko bago pa inimbitahan ang kumpanya na mag-aplay [4] 3. The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) maintained this was "normal practice," but the sequencing is unusual—the funding was announced publicly before the company was invited to apply [4]
3.
Ang aplikasyon ng Shine Energy ay hindi kumpleto nang isuri at natanggap pagkatapos ng mga extension sa deadline [4] 4. Shine Energy's application was incomplete when assessed and received after deadline extensions [4]
4.
Ibinigay ang award sa kabila ng mga natuklasan sa pagsusuri ng departamento na ang aplikasyon ay "hindi nakamit ang isa sa mga kinakailangan sa pagiging karapat-dapat ng aplikante" [4] Gayunpaman, HINDI eksplisitong sinabi sa ulat ng ANAO na ang mga pamantayan ng grant ay partikular na "iniuri" para sa Shine Energy—sa halip, nakita ng audit na ang proseso ng pagsusuri at pagbibigay ng award ay kulang sa tamang pangangasiwa at transparency [4]. The award was made despite departmental assessment findings that the application "did not meet one of the applicant eligibility requirements" [4]
However, the ANAO report does NOT explicitly state that the grant criteria were specifically "tailored" to Shine Energy—rather, the audit found that the assessment and award process lacked proper oversight and transparency [4].
### Karanasan ng Kumpanyang Shine Energy ### Shine Energy Company Experience
Sinabi ng claim na "Ang kumpanya na magtatayo nito ay walang karanasang may kaugnayan." Ito ay bahagyang tumpak [1]: Ang Shine Energy ay inilarawan bilang isang pribadong pag-aari, 100% Australian company na itinakda bilang isang First Nation Traditional Owner company na itinatag upang suportahan ang pagpapasya ng ekonomiya ng mga Birriah [5]. The claim states "The company who would build it have no relevant experience." This is partially accurate [1]:
Shine Energy is described as a privately owned, 100% Australian company designated as a First Nation Traditional Owner company established to support the Birriah people's economic self-determination [5].
Pinangunahan ng kumpanya si CEO Ashley Dodd (Indigenous) at nagmungkahi ng pakikipagsosyo sa Glencore sa proyekto [1][5]. The company was led by CEO Ashley Dodd (Indigenous) and proposed partnering with Glencore on the project [1][5].
Gayunpaman: 1. However:
1.
Tila ang kumpanya ay itinatag pangunahin para sa proyektong Collinsville—may limitadong pampublikong dokumentasyon ng naunang karanasan sa power generation [1][5] 2. The company appears to have been established primarily for the Collinsville project—there is limited public documentation of previous power generation experience [1][5]
2.
Ang sariling payo ng Shine Energy sa DISER noong Marso 17, 2020 ay nagkumpirma na "ang bankable feasibility study ay hindi makukumpleto sa pondong $4 milyon," gayunpaman ang huling grant ay $3.636 milyon lamang, mas mababa pa sa hindi sapat na halaga [1] 3. Shine Energy's own advice to DISER on March 17, 2020 confirmed that "a bankable feasibility study could not be completed with funding of $4 million," yet the final grant was only $3.636 million, even less than the insufficient amount [1]
3.
Partikular na itinanda ng ANAO audit ang "malaking panganib" na hindi makukumpleto ng Shine Energy ang feasibility study na dapat sanang pondohan ng grant [4] The ANAO audit specifically flagged "significant risk" that Shine Energy would be unable to complete the feasibility study the grant was supposed to fund [4]
### Naunang mga Pag-aaral sa Pagkana at Pagiging Maaasahan ### Previous Feasibility Studies and Viability
Ang mga naunang pag-aaral sa mga proyekto ng Collinsville ay tinukoy ngunit may limitadong detalye sa claim: 1. **ARENA-funded study (bago ang 2020):** Nagsuri sa pag-convert ng retired 180 MW Collinsville Power Station sa hybrid solar thermal/gas. Previous studies on Collinsville projects are referenced but with limited detail in the claim:
1. **ARENA-funded study (prior to 2020):** Assessed converting the retired 180 MW Collinsville Power Station to hybrid solar thermal/gas.
Natapos ang pag-aaral na HINDI MAASAHAN sa panahong iyon dahil sa hindi sapat na technical at economic viability [6]. 2. **Sariling feasibility work ng Shine Energy (2020 onwards):** Ang $3.636 milyong grant ay nakatakda para sa mga yugto ng komprehensibong feasibility study sa isang iminungkahing bagong 1,000 MW HELE (High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions) coal power station. This study concluded the conversion was NOT FEASIBLE at the time due to insufficient technical and economic viability [6].
2. **Shine Energy's own feasibility work (2020 onwards):** The $3.636 million grant was intended to fund stages of a comprehensive feasibility study into a proposed new 1,000 MW HELE (High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions) coal power station.
Hanggang Enero 2025, ang pag-aaral na ito ay hindi pa nakukumpleto, na ang "pagkukumpleto ay inaasahan para sa 2025" ayon sa pinakabagong update ng Shine Energy [5]. 3. **Natuklasan ng ANAO sa feasibility:** Natapos ng audit na ang halaga ng grant ay "hindi sapat upang matiyak na makukumpleto ng Shine Energy ang isang bankable feasibility study" [4]. As of January 2025, this study remains incomplete, with "finalisation anticipated for 2025" according to Shine Energy's latest update [5].
3. **ANAO finding on feasibility:** The audit concluded the grant amount was "insufficient to ensure that Shine Energy could complete a bankable feasibility study" [4].
Tinukoy ng claim na "Ang mga naunang pag-aaral sa pagkana ay nagpakita na ang proyekto ay masyadong mapanganib at hindi kumikita para sa pribadong sektor," ngunit ang ARENA study lamang (para sa solar thermal conversion) ang dokumentado na nagkonkludeng hindi maaasahan ang proyekto. The claim references that "Previous feasibility studies have shown that the project is too risky and unprofitable for the private sector," but only the ARENA study (for solar thermal conversion) is documented as concluding the project was not feasible.
Maaaring maging mas tukoy ang claim tungkol sa aling mga pag-aaral ang mga ito. The claim could be more specific about which studies these were.
### Hindi Pagiging Kwalipikado sa UNGI Program ### UNGI Program Ineligibility
Tumpak sa teknikal na kahulugan ang claim na ang proyekto ay "hindi kwalipikado sa sariling programa ng pamahalaan na Underwriting New Generation Investment program" ngunit mapanlinlang. The claim that the project "is not eligible for the government's own Underwriting New Generation Investment program" is technically correct but misleading.
Ang Collinsville ay HINDI hindi kwalipikado para sa UNGI—ito lamang ay HINDI NAPILI sa pamamagitan ng merit-based competitive evaluation process [3]. Collinsville was NOT ineligible for UNGI—it simply was NOT SELECTED through the merit-based competitive evaluation process [3].
Animnapu't anim na proposal ang isinumite, at ang programa ay pumili ng 12 proyekto para sa karagdagang pagsusuri [3]. Sixty-six proposals were submitted, and the program selected 12 projects for further evaluation [3].
Ang Collinsville ay kabilang sa mga hindi matagumpay na proposal. Collinsville was among the unsuccessful proposals.
Mahalagang pagkakaiba: nabigo ang proyekto na matugunan ang competitive threshold sa isang merit-based evaluation; ito ay hindi pormal na inideklarang hindi kwalipikado. This is an important distinction: the project failed to meet the competitive threshold in a merit-based evaluation; it was not formally declared ineligible.
### Mga Paghahabol sa Presyo ng Kuryente ### Electricity Pricing Claims
Ang claim ay naglalaman ng dalawang assertion tungkol sa presyo ng kuryente sa Queensland: **Claim 1:** "Mayroon lamang isang wholesale electricity price para sa buong Queensland" Ito ay TUMPAK [7]. The claim makes two assertions about Queensland electricity pricing:
**Claim 1:** "There is only one wholesale electricity price for all of Queensland"
This is ACCURATE [7].
Ang National Electricity Market ng Queensland ay may isang nodal pricing system kung saan ang mga wholesale price ay tinutukoy ng supply at demand sa buong rehiyon, hindi region-specific pricing [7]. **Claim 2:** Sinabi ng pamahalaan na ang generator ay magpapababa ng "presyo ng kuryente para sa mga taga-rehiyon Queensland" Kailangan ng konteksto ang claim na ito. Queensland's National Electricity Market has a single nodal pricing system where wholesale prices are determined by supply and demand across the entire region, not region-specific pricing [7].
**Claim 2:** The government claimed the generator would "reduce power prices for regional Queenslanders specifically"
This claim requires context.
Naghahabol ang pamahalaan tungkol sa lokal na benepisyo sa ekonomiya (6,800 construction jobs, 600+ operational positions), ngunit ang partikular na claim tungkol sa "pagpapababa ng presyo sa rehiyon" ay tila pinagsasama ang dalawang magkahiwalay na argumento: - Retorika ng pamahalaan tungkol sa "lokal na benepisyo sa ekonomiya" at "suporta sa rehiyon ng Queensland" - Ang technical/economic argument tungkol sa mga wholesale price Ang aktwal na mga paghahabol ng pamahalaan ay nakasentro sa stimulus at pag-unlad ng rehiyon sa halip na regional price reductions [1][5]. **Claim 3:** Ang mga wholesale price sa Queensland ay "50% mas mura kaysa sa halaga ng bagong coal generation" Ang claim na ito ay PRAKTIKAL NA TUMPAK batay sa datos ng 2020 [1][8]: - Ang mga wholesale spot prices sa Queensland noong 2020-21 ay bumaba sa napakababang antas (mga 30-40% ng antas noong 2018-19), na kumakatawan sa pinakamababang halaga sa 8 taon sa panahong iyon [1] - Halaga ng bagong coal generation (Levelized Cost of Electricity): $87-118 bawat MWh minimum ayon sa mga pagtatantya ng CSIRO GenCost 2021-22 [8] - Mga wholesale price sa Queensland noong 2020 sa humigit-kumulang $40-50 bawat MWh sa average [1] Ito ay kumakatawan sa humigit-kumulang 40-55% ng mga halaga ng bagong coal generation, na nakahanay sa paglalarawan ng "50% mas mura" [1][8]. The government did make claims about local economic benefits (6,800 construction jobs, 600+ operational positions), but the specific claim about "reducing regional prices" appears to conflate two separate arguments:
- Government rhetoric about "local economic benefits" and "regional Queensland support"
- The technical/economic argument about wholesale prices
The government's actual claims centered on economic stimulus and regional development rather than regional price reductions per se [1][5].
**Claim 3:** Queensland wholesale prices are "50% cheaper than the cost of new coal generation"
This claim is SUBSTANTIVELY ACCURATE based on 2020 data [1][8]:
- 2020-21 Queensland wholesale spot prices fell to historically low levels (approximately 30-40% of 2018-19 levels), representing the lowest cost in 8 years at that time [1]
- New coal generation cost (Levelized Cost of Electricity): $87-118 per MWh minimum according to CSIRO GenCost 2021-22 estimates [8]
- 2020 Queensland wholesale prices at approximately $40-50 per MWh on average [1]
This represents roughly 40-55% of new coal generation costs, which aligns with the "50% cheaper" characterization [1][8].
Ito ay nagpapahintulot sa bagong coal na hindi makikipagkumpetensya sa ekonomiya sa panahong iyon [1][8]. --- This made new coal economically uncompetitive at that time [1][8].
---
Nawawalang Konteksto
### Ano ang Hindi Ganap na Tinatalakay ng Claim
### What the Claim Doesn't Fully Address
1. **Indigenous Enterprise Dimension:** Hindi binabanggit ng claim na ang Shine Energy ay isang Indigenous-owned enterprise na itinatag upang suportahan ang pagpapasya sa ekonomiya ng mga Birriah [5]. 1. **Indigenous Enterprise Dimension:** The claim does not mention that Shine Energy is an Indigenous-owned enterprise established to support the Birriah people's economic self-determination [5].
Bagama't hindi ito nagpapawalang-bisa sa anumang kabiguan sa pamamaraan, nagbibigay ito ng konteksto kung bakit maaaring prayoridadin ng pamahalaan ang kumpanyang ito. While this doesn't excuse any procedural failures, it provides context for why the government may have prioritized this company.
Sinabi ni CEO Ashley Dodd sa pampubliko na pinilit siya ng pamahalaan na umalis pabor sa "isang puting CEO," na nagmumungkahi ng pampolitikang presyon sa pamumuno ng kumpanya [5]. 2. **Pakikipagsosyo sa Glencore:** Iniiwan ng claim na ang Glencore ay nakalista bilang iminungkahing "project partner" sa proposal ng Shine Energy [5]. CEO Ashley Dodd publicly stated the government had pressured him to step aside in favor of "a white CEO," suggesting political pressure on the company's leadership [5].
2. **Glencore Partnership:** The claim omits that Glencore was listed as the proposed "project partner" in the Shine Energy proposal [5].
Ang paglahok ng Glencore bilang isang may karanasang energy company operator ay bahagyang tinatalakay ang puna sa "walang karanasan," bagama't ang Glencore ay magiging operator, hindi ang developer. 3. **Mga Lehitimong Argumento sa Pag-unlad ng Rehiyon:** Bagama't ang argumento sa wholesale price ay wasto, ang aktwal na mga paghahabol ng pamahalaan ay nakatuon sa regional employment (6,800 construction jobs, 600+ permanent positions) at stimulus sa ekonomiya para sa regional Queensland [5]. Glencore's involvement as an experienced energy company operator partially addresses the "no relevant experience" criticism, though Glencore would be the operator, not the developer.
3. **Legitimate Regional Development Arguments:** While the wholesale price argument is valid, the government's actual claims focused on regional employment (6,800 construction jobs, 600+ permanent positions) and economic stimulus for regional Queensland [5].
Ito ay magkahiwalay mula sa, at hindi pinalalampas ng, ang argumento sa wholesale pricing efficiency. These are separate from, and not invalidated by, the wholesale pricing efficiency argument.
Ang pag-unlad ng ekonomiya sa rehiyon at ang efficiency ng wholesale market ay magkakaibang konsiderasyon sa patakaran. 4. **Konteksto ng Coal Industry:** Ang industriya ng coal sa Queensland ay (at nananatiling) makabuluhan—humigit-kumulang 29,000 manggagawa at $11 bilyong taunang kontribusyon sa ekonomiya noong panahon ng 2020 [1]. Regional economic development and wholesale market efficiency are distinct policy considerations.
4. **Coal Industry Context:** Queensland's coal industry was (and remains) significant—approximately 29,000 workers and $11 billion annual economic contribution as of the 2020 period [1].
Ang proyekto ay isinaad bilang pagsuporta sa mga kasalukuyang coal regions na nakakaranas ng mga presyon sa transisyon. 5. **Grant bilang Feasibility vs. The project was framed as supporting existing coal regions facing transition pressures.
5. **Grant as Feasibility vs.
Commitment:** Ang $3.636 milyon ay eksplisitong isinaad bilang pondo para sa isang FEASIBILITY STUDY, hindi isang commitment na itayo ang proyekto. Commitment:** The $3.636 million was explicitly framed as funding a FEASIBILITY STUDY, not a commitment to build the project.
Walang construction ang pinondohan, at walang operational approval na ibinigay [1]. No construction was funded, and no operational approval was granted [1].
Ang grant ay para lamang sa paunang technical at economic analysis. --- The grant was for preliminary technical and economic analysis only.
---
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
### Mga Orihinal na Pinagmulang Ibinigay
### Original Sources Provided
Ang Guardian Australia ay isang mainstream media outlet na nag-ooperate sa Australia na may transparent na kaliwang-leaning editorial stance sa environmental at climate policy [9][10]. The Guardian Australia is a mainstream media outlet operating in Australia with a transparent left-leaning editorial stance on environmental and climate policy [9][10].
Ayon sa pagtatasa ng Media Bias/Fact Check, ang The Guardian ay may "Mataas" na rating sa factual accuracy batay sa komprehensibong pagsusuri sa fact-checking [10]. **Pagbberipika ng mga tukoy na claim ng Guardian:** 1. **Timeline ng "two days after announcement":** ✅ BERIPIKADO - Malayang pagkumpirma ng ANAO audit report [4], RenewEconomy (specialist energy media), at Global Energy Monitor international database [5] 2. **Mga iregularidad sa proseso:** ✅ BERIPIKADO - Malaya na kinumpirma ng ANAO audit na ang grant ay ibinigay sa kabila ng hindi kumpletong aplikasyon at partial criterion compliance [4] 3. **Mga kritikal na natuklasan ng ANAO:** ✅ TUMPAK NA NAIULAT - Ang pag-uulat ng Guardian sa mga natuklasan ng ANAO ay nakahanay sa opisyal na audit report [4] **Editorial perspective:** Ang coverage ng Guardian ay binibigyang-diin ang mga alalahanin sa kapaligiran at mga kabiguan sa pamamaraan, na sumasalamin sa kanilang kilalang editorial stance sa mga isyu sa climate/enerhiya. According to Media Bias/Fact Check assessment, The Guardian holds a "High" factual accuracy rating based on comprehensive fact-checking analysis [10].
**Verification of Guardian's specific claims:**
1. **"Two days after announcement" timeline:** ✅ VERIFIED - Independent confirmation by ANAO audit report [4], RenewEconomy (specialist energy media), and Global Energy Monitor international database [5]
2. **Process irregularities:** ✅ VERIFIED - ANAO audit independently confirmed grant was awarded despite incomplete application and partial criterion compliance [4]
3. **ANAO critical findings:** ✅ ACCURATELY REPORTED - Guardian's reporting of ANAO's findings aligns with the official audit report [4]
**Editorial perspective:** The Guardian's coverage emphasizes the environmental concerns and procedural failures, which reflects their known editorial stance on climate/energy issues.
Ito ay hindi paglikha kundi editorial choice tungkol sa aling mga katotohanan ang bigyang-diin. **Kredibilidad para sa claim na ito: MATAAS** - Ang mga pangunahing factual claim ng Guardian ay nabinberipikahan nang malaya ng government audit (ANAO), bagama't ang kanilang interpretasyon ay binibigyang-diin ang mga negatibong aspekto na naaayon sa kanilang environmental editorial perspective. --- This is not fabrication but rather editorial choice about which facts to emphasize.
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
### Gumawa ba ng Kahalintulad ang Labor?
### Did Labor Do Something Similar?
**Isinagawang paghahanap:** "Labor government energy spending grants renewable coal support," "Labor Home Insulation Program spending," "Labor ARENA CEFC establishment" **Natuklasan:** Ang Labor ay may kumplikadong kasaysayan sa paggastos sa enerhiya at infrastructure grants na nagbibigay ng mahalagang konteksto: **Search conducted:** "Labor government energy spending grants renewable coal support," "Labor Home Insulation Program spending," "Labor ARENA CEFC establishment"
**Finding:** Labor has a complex history with energy spending and infrastructure grants that provides important context:
#### Hindi Pagkakapare-pareho ng Patakaran ng Labor sa Coal (2020) #### Labor's Coal Policy Inconsistency (2020)
Sa parehong oras na pinalalakas ng pederal na Labor ang Collinsville grant noong Agosto 2020, ang pederal na pamumuno ng Labor sa ilalim ni Anthony Albanese ay nagpoposisyon bilang tugma sa pagpapatuloy ng coal mining at exports, na nagrereklaamo na ang Australian coal production ay hindi nagdudulot ng global emissions dahil ang coal ay kukunin sa ibang lugar kung hindi susuportahan ng Australia [11]. At the same time federal Labor criticized the Collinsville grant in August 2020, Labor's federal leadership under Anthony Albanese was positioning itself as compatible with continued coal mining and exports, arguing that Australian coal production was not causing global emissions since coal would be sourced elsewhere if Australia didn't supply it [11].
Aktibong sinuportahan ng Queensland Labor (Bligh government 2006-2012) ang pamumuhunan sa coal infrastructure, na naglaan ng $1.4 bilyon sa coal rail transport investment at naglabas ng CoalPlan 2030 upang gabayan ang coal-related development [12]. Queensland Labor (Anna Bligh government 2006-2012) had actively supported coal infrastructure investment, allocating $1.4 billion in coal rail transport investment and releasing CoalPlan 2030 to guide coal-related development [12].
Kumakatawan ito sa antas ng kaginhawahan sa pampolitika sa puna ng Labor—pinalalakas ang suporta ng Coalition sa coal habang hindi kumukuha ng prinsipyadong posisyon laban sa coal. This represents a degree of political convenience in Labor's criticism—criticizing Coalition's coal support while not taking principled stands against coal themselves.
#### Mga Pangunahing Programa sa Paggastos sa Enerhiya ng Labor #### Labor's Major Energy Spending Programs
**ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency:** Itinatag noong Hulyo 2012 na may $3.2 bilyong paglalaan ng pondo hanggang 2020 (naipasa noong Nobyembre 2011 na may suporta ng cross-party) [13]. **ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency):** Established July 2012 with $3.2 billion funding allocation to 2020 (passed parliament November 2011 with cross-party support) [13].
Competitive grant-based program para sa renewable energy innovation. **CEFC (Clean Energy Finance Corporation):** Itinatag noong 2012 na may $10 bilyong paunang capital allocation [14]. Competitive grant-based program for renewable energy innovation.
**CEFC (Clean Energy Finance Corporation):** Established 2012 with $10 billion initial capital allocation [14].
Nagbigay ng financing para sa clean energy projects gamit ang competitive assessment processes. **Home Insulation Program (HIP):** Programang stimulus noong 2009-2010 na may $2.45-2.8 bilyong paglalaan. Provided financing for clean energy projects using competitive assessment processes.
**Home Insulation Program (HIP):** 2009-2010 stimulus program with $2.45-2.8 billion allocation.
Ito ay direktang maihahambing sa diskarte ng Coalition sa pagtatakda ng pondo para sa isang partikular na teknolohiya/outcome [15]: - Natuklasan ng Royal Commission na ang programa ay minadali na may hindi sapat na disenyo sa kaligtasan [15] - 4 na kamatayan ng installer ang direktang naiugnay sa mahinang disenyo ng programa [15] - 1.16 milyong installation sa halagang $1.45 bilyon [15] - Natuklasan ng Auditor-General na binaba ng departamento ang mga panganib sa hindi nireregulate na industriya [15] Ang HIP ay kumakatawan sa isang kaso kung saan ang mga desisyon sa paggastos sa imprastraktura ng Labor ay nagkaroon ng mas malubhang negatibong kahihinatnan kaysa sa grant sa pag-aaral ng pagkana ng Collinsville. This is directly comparable to the Coalition's approach of earmarking funds for a specific technology/outcome [15]:
- Royal Commission found the program was rushed with inadequate safety design [15]
- 4 installer deaths directly attributed to poor program design [15]
- 1.16 million installations at $1.45 billion cost [15]
- Auditor-General found department underestimated risks in unregulated industry [15]
The HIP represents a case where Labor's infrastructure spending decisions had more severe negative consequences than the Collinsville feasibility study grant.
#### Green Loans Program #### Green Loans Program
Naglaan ang budget ng Labor para sa 2008-09 ng $300 milyon para sa subsidized home assessments at interest-subsidized loans hanggang $10,000. Labor's 2008-09 budget allocated $300 million for subsidized home assessments and interest-subsidized loans up to $10,000.
Kumakatawan din ang programang ito sa Labor na "pumipili" ng isang teknolohiya (home efficiency improvements) para sa stimulus spending. **Komparatibong Pagtatasa:** | Programa | Tagapagtaguyod | Halaga | Uri | Resulta | |------------|---------------|--------|-----|---------| | Collinsville Grant | Coalition | $3.6M | Feasibility study | Ongoing na pag-aaral (2025) | | Home Insulation | Labor | $2.45-2.8B | Consumer stimulus | 4 na kamatayan, safety failures, fraud | | ARENA | Labor | $3.2B | Renewable grants | Competitive, malawak na pinuri | | CEFC | Labor | $10B | Clean finance | Competitive, commercially viable | | Green Loans | Labor | $300M | Consumer loans | Na-discontinue ang programa, mahinang uptake | **Pangunahing natuklasan:** Ang diskarte ng Labor sa paggastos sa enerhiya ay halo-halo. This program also represents Labor "picking" a technology (home efficiency improvements) for stimulus spending.
**Comparative Assessment:**
| Program | Sponsor | Amount | Type | Outcome |
|---------|---------|--------|------|---------|
| Collinsville Grant | Coalition | $3.6M | Feasibility study | Study ongoing (2025) |
| Home Insulation | Labor | $2.45-2.8B | Consumer stimulus | 4 deaths, safety failures, fraud |
| ARENA | Labor | $3.2B | Renewable grants | Competitive, widely praised |
| CEFC | Labor | $10B | Clean finance | Competitive, commercially viable |
| Green Loans | Labor | $300M | Consumer loans | Program discontinued, poor uptake |
**Key finding:** Labor's approach to energy spending has been mixed.
Bagama't gumamit ng mga competitive process ang ARENA at CEFC (depensable), ang HIP ay nagpapakita na ang Labor ay kapwa may kakayahang gumawa ng mga desisyon sa paggastos ng pamahalaan na "pumipili ng mga nanalo" na may mahinang resulta. While ARENA and CEFC used competitive processes (defensible), the HIP demonstrates Labor is equally capable of making government spending decisions that "pick winners" with poor outcomes.
Ang mga kahihinatnan ng HIP (4 na kamatayan, safety failures) ay mas malala kaysa sa mga kahihinatnan ng Collinsville grant (isang feasibility study na nananatiling hindi kumpleto). --- The HIP's consequences (4 deaths, safety failures) were more severe than the Collinsville grant's consequences (a feasibility study that remains incomplete).
---
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
### Isinaad na Rason ng Pamahalaan at Pagiging Lehitimo ng mga Argumento
### Government's Stated Rationale and Legitimacy of Arguments
Bagama't pinalalakas ng mga kritiko (kabilang ang Labor at Greens) ang mga wastong punto tungkol sa proseso at pagiging economically viable ng Collinsville grant, ang mga argumento ng pamahalaan para sa pag-suporta dito ay nararapat na pag-isipan: 1. **Regional Economic Support:** Ang industriya ng coal sa Queensland ay nakaranas ng mga tunay na presyon sa transisyon. While critics (including Labor and the Greens) raised valid points about the Collinsville grant's process and economic viability, the government's arguments for supporting it warrant consideration:
1. **Regional Economic Support:** Queensland coal industry faced genuine transition pressures.
Isinaad ito ng pamahalaan bilang pagsuporta sa mga kasalukuyang rehiyon ng coal habang nagbabago ang merkado, hindi bilang isang permanenteng patakaran sa enerhiya. The government framed this as supporting existing coal regions during market transition, not as a permanent energy policy.
Ito ay isang depensableng rasyon kahit na ang partikular na proyekto ay hindi economically viable [5][12]. 2. **Suporta sa Indigenous Enterprise:** Ang Shine Energy ay isang Indigenous-owned company na itinatag para sa pagpapasya ng mga Birriah. This is a defensible rationale even if the specific project was uneconomic [5][12].
2. **Indigenous Enterprise Support:** Shine Energy is an Indigenous-owned company established for Birriah people's self-determination.
Ang suporta sa pamahalaan para sa mga Indigenous enterprises ay isang sinasabing layunin sa patakaran [5]. Government support for Indigenous enterprises is a stated policy goal [5].
Hindi sapat na kinikilala ng puna ang dimensyong ito. 3. **Feasibility Study Lamang:** Ang grant ay pinalista para sa paunang pagsusuri, hindi construction. The criticism doesn't adequately acknowledge this dimension.
3. **Feasibility Study Only:** The grant funded preliminary analysis, not construction.
Walang pinondohan na construction, at walang ibinigay na operational approval. No operational approval was given.
Pinanatili ng pamahalaan na ang feasibility study ay magbibigay ng mahahalagang impormasyon para sa pagpapasya [4]. The government maintained the feasibility study would provide crucial information for decision-making [4].
### Mga Lehitimong Puna na Naberipikahan ng Malayang Audit ### Legitimate Criticisms Verified by Independent Audit
Ang ANAO audit ay malayang nakumpirma ang ilang puna: 1. **Mga iregularidad sa proseso:** Ang pagkukumpleto ng mga alituntunin ng grant pagkatapos ng anunsyo ngunit bago ang aplikasyon ay hindi karaniwan [4] 2. **Hindi kumpletong aplikasyon:** Ang aplikasyon ng Shine Energy ay hindi nakamit ang lahat ng eligibility criteria nang isuri [4] 3. **Hindi sapat na pondo:** Ang halaga ng grant ($3.636M) ay hindi sapat para sa isang bankable feasibility study, ayon sa sariling payo ng Shine Energy [4] 4. **Mga isyu sa conflict of interest:** Gumamit si Minister Angus Taylor ng personal na email para sa confidential documents na may kaugnayan sa desisyon, na nagdudulot ng mga tanong sa pamamahala [4] 5. **Hindi makatotohanang mga inaasahan:** Itinanda ng ANAO ang "malaking panganib" na ang pag-aaral ay hindi makukumpleto ayon sa intensyon [4] Ang mga puna na ito ay maaasahan at kumakatawan sa mga tunay na kabiguan sa pamamahala. The ANAO audit independently confirmed several criticisms:
1. **Process irregularities:** Grant criteria finalized after announcement but before application was unusual [4]
2. **Incomplete application:** Shine Energy's application didn't meet all eligibility criteria when assessed [4]
3. **Insufficient funding:** The grant amount ($3.636M) was insufficient for a bankable feasibility study, per Shine Energy's own advice [4]
4. **Conflict of interest issues:** Minister Angus Taylor used personal emails for confidential documents related to the decision, raising governance questions [4]
5. **Unrealistic expectations:** ANAO flagged "significant risk" that the study wouldn't be completed as intended [4]
These criticisms are substantial and represent genuine governance failures.
### Komparatibong Konteksto: Hindi Ito Kakaiba sa Coalition ### Comparative Context: This Is Not Unique to Coalition
Ang karanasan ng Labor sa paggastos sa enerhiya ay nagpapakita na ang pamahalaan na "pumipili ng mga nanalo" o sumusuporta sa mga partikular na teknolohiya/kumpanya ay hindi kakaiba sa Coalition: 1. **Home Insulation Program:** Ang diskarte ng Labor sa technology-specific spending ay humantong sa mas masamang resulta (4 na kamatayan, safety failures) [15] 2. **Hindi pagkakapare-pareho sa patakaran sa coal:** Pinalalakas ng Labor ang Collinsville habang sinusuportahan ang coal mining at exports sa ilalim ni Albanese; sinuportahan ng Queensland Labor ang paggastos sa coal infrastructure [11][12] 3. **Kaginhawahan sa pampolitika:** Ang puna ng Labor sa Collinsville grant ay tila naglalaman ng isang elemento ng oportunidad sa pampolitika sa halip na prinsipyadong pagtutol sa suporta sa coal, dahil sa kanilang sariling suporta sa coal mining [11] **Pangunahing natuklasan:** Ang mga desisyon sa paggastos sa imprastraktura ng pamahalaan na nagsasangkot ng pagpili ng mga partikular na kumpanya o teknolohiya ay nangyayari sa parehong partido. Labor's experience with energy spending demonstrates that government "picking winners" or supporting specific technologies/companies is not unique to the Coalition:
1. **Home Insulation Program:** Labor's approach to technology-specific spending led to worse outcomes (4 deaths, safety failures) [15]
2. **Coal policy inconsistency:** Labor criticized Collinsville while supporting coal mining and exports under Albanese; Queensland Labor had supported coal infrastructure spending [11][12]
3. **Political convenience:** Labor's criticism of the Collinsville grant appears to contain an element of political opportunity rather than principled opposition to coal support, given their own coal mining support [11]
**Key finding:** Government infrastructure spending decisions that involve selecting specific companies or technologies occur across both parties.
Ang tanong ay ang kalidad ng proseso at pamamahala, hindi kung ang praktika mismo ay kakaiba. The question is the quality of the process and governance, not whether the practice itself is unique.
Ang mga kabiguan sa proseso ng Collinsville grant ay dokumentado at kumakatawan sa mga lehitimong alalahanin, ngunit ang mga kaparehong kabiguan sa proseso ay naganap din sa ilalim ng mga pamahalaan ng Labor. --- The Collinsville grant's process failures are documented and represent legitimate concerns, but similar process failures have occurred under Labor governments as well.
---
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
6.0
sa 10
Ang core claim ay naglalaman ng mga factual element na beripikado ngunit umaalis ng mahalagang konteksto at naglalaman ng ilang hindi pagtutugma sa pagkakabuo: **MGA TOTOO na elemento:** - Ang halaga ng grant ay humigit-kumulang $3.3-3.6 milyon (paunang anunsyo ng "$4 milyon") [1][2] - Ang Shine Energy ay walang malaking dokumentadong karanasan sa power generation [1][5] - Ang proseso ng grant ay irregular na may hindi karaniwang pagkakasunod-sunod (anunsyo bago ang pormal na aplikasyon) [1][4] - Hindi napili ang Collinsville sa competitive evaluation ng UNGI [3] - Natapos ang mga naunang pag-aaral na ang mga kaugnay na proyekto ng Collinsville ay hindi maaasahan [6] - Ang Queensland ay may isang wholesale price ng kuryente, hindi regional pricing [7] - Ang mga wholesale price ay makabuluhang mas mababa kaysa sa halaga ng bagong coal generation noong 2020 [1][8] **MGA BAHAGYANG TOTOO/MAPANLINLANG na elemento:** - Ang "grant criteria written after company decided" ay bahagyang beripikado ngunit sobrang sinabi.
The core claim contains factual elements that are verified but omits important context and contains some inaccuracies in framing:
**TRUE elements:**
- The grant amount was approximately $3.3-3.6 million (initial announcement "$4 million") [1][2]
- Shine Energy has no major documented power generation experience [1][5]
- The grant process was irregular with unusual timing (announcement before formal application) [1][4]
- Collinsville was not selected in the UNGI competitive evaluation [3]
- Previous studies have concluded related Collinsville projects were not feasible [6]
- Queensland has a single wholesale electricity price, not regional pricing [7]
- Wholesale prices were significantly lower than new coal generation costs in 2020 [1][8]
**PARTIALLY TRUE/MISLEADING elements:**
- "Grant criteria written after company decided" is partially verified but overstated.
Ang mga alituntunin ay pinalista pagkatapos ng anunsyo ngunit hindi eksplisitong ipinakita na "iniuri" para sa Shine Energy [4] - Ang "no relevant experience" ay bahagyang totoo ngunit iniiwan na ang Glencore ay iminungkahing project partner [5] at ang Shine Energy ay isang Indigenous-owned enterprise na may lehitimadong patakaran sa kabila ng technical inexperience [5] - Ang "not eligible for UNGI" ay teknikal na mapanlinlang—hindi NAPILI ang proyekto sa UNGI evaluation, ngunit hindi pormal na inideklarang hindi kwalipikado [3] - Ang aktwal na mga paghahabol ng pamahalaan ay nakatuon sa regional economic benefits at suporta sa industriya ng coal, hindi partikular na "pagpapababa ng presyo sa rehiyon" (na nalito sa argumento sa wholesale pricing) [1][5] **NAWAWALANG KONTEKSTO:** - Ang puna ay umaalis sa Indigenous enterprise dimension at pakikipagsosyo sa Glencore [5] - Hindi kinikilala ang mga kaparehong desisyon sa paggastong enerhiya ng Labor at hindi pagkakapare-pareho sa patakaran sa coal [11][12][15] - Hindi nilinaw na ang grant ay pinalista para sa isang feasibility study, hindi construction o operational commitment [4] --- Guidelines were finalized after announcement but not explicitly shown to be "tailored" to Shine Energy [4]
- "No relevant experience" is partially true but omits that Glencore was proposed as project partner [5] and that Shine Energy is an Indigenous-owned enterprise with policy legitimacy despite technical inexperience [5]
- The "not eligible for UNGI" is technically misleading—the project was not SELECTED in UNGI evaluation, but not formally declared ineligible [3]
- The government's actual claims centered on regional economic benefits and coal industry support, not specifically "reducing regional prices" (confused with wholesale pricing argument) [1][5]
**MISSING CONTEXT:**
- The criticism omits Indigenous enterprise dimension and Glencore partnership [5]
- Doesn't acknowledge Labor's own similar energy spending decisions and coal policy inconsistencies [11][12][15]
- Doesn't clarify that the grant funded a feasibility study, not construction or operational commitment [4]
---
Huling Iskor
6.0
SA 10
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
Ang core claim ay naglalaman ng mga factual element na beripikado ngunit umaalis ng mahalagang konteksto at naglalaman ng ilang hindi pagtutugma sa pagkakabuo: **MGA TOTOO na elemento:** - Ang halaga ng grant ay humigit-kumulang $3.3-3.6 milyon (paunang anunsyo ng "$4 milyon") [1][2] - Ang Shine Energy ay walang malaking dokumentadong karanasan sa power generation [1][5] - Ang proseso ng grant ay irregular na may hindi karaniwang pagkakasunod-sunod (anunsyo bago ang pormal na aplikasyon) [1][4] - Hindi napili ang Collinsville sa competitive evaluation ng UNGI [3] - Natapos ang mga naunang pag-aaral na ang mga kaugnay na proyekto ng Collinsville ay hindi maaasahan [6] - Ang Queensland ay may isang wholesale price ng kuryente, hindi regional pricing [7] - Ang mga wholesale price ay makabuluhang mas mababa kaysa sa halaga ng bagong coal generation noong 2020 [1][8] **MGA BAHAGYANG TOTOO/MAPANLINLANG na elemento:** - Ang "grant criteria written after company decided" ay bahagyang beripikado ngunit sobrang sinabi.
The core claim contains factual elements that are verified but omits important context and contains some inaccuracies in framing:
**TRUE elements:**
- The grant amount was approximately $3.3-3.6 million (initial announcement "$4 million") [1][2]
- Shine Energy has no major documented power generation experience [1][5]
- The grant process was irregular with unusual timing (announcement before formal application) [1][4]
- Collinsville was not selected in the UNGI competitive evaluation [3]
- Previous studies have concluded related Collinsville projects were not feasible [6]
- Queensland has a single wholesale electricity price, not regional pricing [7]
- Wholesale prices were significantly lower than new coal generation costs in 2020 [1][8]
**PARTIALLY TRUE/MISLEADING elements:**
- "Grant criteria written after company decided" is partially verified but overstated.
Ang mga alituntunin ay pinalista pagkatapos ng anunsyo ngunit hindi eksplisitong ipinakita na "iniuri" para sa Shine Energy [4] - Ang "no relevant experience" ay bahagyang totoo ngunit iniiwan na ang Glencore ay iminungkahing project partner [5] at ang Shine Energy ay isang Indigenous-owned enterprise na may lehitimadong patakaran sa kabila ng technical inexperience [5] - Ang "not eligible for UNGI" ay teknikal na mapanlinlang—hindi NAPILI ang proyekto sa UNGI evaluation, ngunit hindi pormal na inideklarang hindi kwalipikado [3] - Ang aktwal na mga paghahabol ng pamahalaan ay nakatuon sa regional economic benefits at suporta sa industriya ng coal, hindi partikular na "pagpapababa ng presyo sa rehiyon" (na nalito sa argumento sa wholesale pricing) [1][5] **NAWAWALANG KONTEKSTO:** - Ang puna ay umaalis sa Indigenous enterprise dimension at pakikipagsosyo sa Glencore [5] - Hindi kinikilala ang mga kaparehong desisyon sa paggastong enerhiya ng Labor at hindi pagkakapare-pareho sa patakaran sa coal [11][12][15] - Hindi nilinaw na ang grant ay pinalista para sa isang feasibility study, hindi construction o operational commitment [4] --- Guidelines were finalized after announcement but not explicitly shown to be "tailored" to Shine Energy [4]
- "No relevant experience" is partially true but omits that Glencore was proposed as project partner [5] and that Shine Energy is an Indigenous-owned enterprise with policy legitimacy despite technical inexperience [5]
- The "not eligible for UNGI" is technically misleading—the project was not SELECTED in UNGI evaluation, but not formally declared ineligible [3]
- The government's actual claims centered on regional economic benefits and coal industry support, not specifically "reducing regional prices" (confused with wholesale pricing argument) [1][5]
**MISSING CONTEXT:**
- The criticism omits Indigenous enterprise dimension and Glencore partnership [5]
- Doesn't acknowledge Labor's own similar energy spending decisions and coal policy inconsistencies [11][12][15]
- Doesn't clarify that the grant funded a feasibility study, not construction or operational commitment [4]
---
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (15)
-
1
Award of Funding under the Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure Program - Australian National Audit Office Performance Audit Report #31 (2020-21)
Anao Gov
-
2
Audit office questions Taylor emails as it slams Collinsville coal plant grant - RenewEconomy (March 2021)
Reneweconomy Com
-
3
Underwriting New Generation Investments (UNGI) Program - Global Energy Monitor
Underwriting New Generation Investments program is an Australian Government program which was launched in late 2018 to underwrite new privately-owned power generation capacity and new coal plants or upgrades of existing ones in particular. In March 2019 Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that 12 projects had been short-listed including a coal plant upgrade proposed by Delta Electricity, a company co-owned by Trevor St Baker.[1]
Global Energy Monitor -
4
New coal power fails to make the cut under Coalition's generation plan - The Conversation (2020)
As we face mounting job losses, taxpayers have a right to anticipate that the government’s investments will be strategically sound.
The Conversation -
5
Collinsville (Shine Energy) Power Station - Global Energy Monitor
Gem
-
6
Feasibility Study into Conversion of Collinsville Power Station from Coal to Hybrid Solar Thermal/Gas - ARENA
This project assessed the viability of converting the existing 180 MW coal-fired Collinsville Power Station in Queensland.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency -
7
Queensland's wholesale power prices down 39 percent - Queensland Conservation Council (2020-21 analysis)
A new report shows Queensland's average wholesale electricity price decreased by 39% over the last financial year. The report credits increased renewable energy generation and highlights that Queensland is on track to meet all of its renewable energy targets, including 80% by 2035.
Queensland Conservation Council -
8
CSIRO GenCost 2020-21 Consultation Draft - Levelized Cost of Electricity estimates
Csiro
Original link no longer available -
9
The Guardian - Wikipedia editorial analysis
Wikipedia -
10
The Guardian - Media Bias/Fact Check Assessment
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
Media Bias/Fact Check -
11
Labor to join Greens in opposing $3.3m grant for Collinsville coal power feasibility study - The Guardian (August 22, 2020)
The parties will vote in the Senate against controversial grant to Shine Energy, but are likely to be outnumbered
the Guardian -
12
Queensland Labor coal policy and economic support - Queensland Treasury/Government Archive
Queenslandtreasury Qld Gov
-
13
ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) - Establishment and funding
ARENA was established by the Australian Government on 1 July 2012 to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency -
14
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 - Australian Legislation
Federal Register of Legislation
-
15
Home Insulation Program - Royal Commission findings and ANAO Performance Audit
Anao Gov
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.