tip off
23

The Point Lowly desal plant that’s got SA squabbling

Crikey intern Esther Ooi writes: BHP Billiton refuses to back down from its controversial plans to build a desalination plant at Point Lowly, South Australia. The plant forms part of the proposed Olympic Dam mine expansion, but fears are growing over the possible risk of significant environmental damage.

“The fact is, it is just the worst place you could put a desalination plant,” Dr. Andrew Melville-Smith, chairperson of the Save Point Lowly group, told Crikey. He also says there will be severe ecological damage on Point Lowly’s recreational, coastal and living areas.

BHP recently released its Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which examined a range of environmental issues regarding the proposed desalination plant and found Point Lowly to be the most appropriate fit. Furthermore, its proximity to Olympic Dam mine, easy construction of a water pipeline and availability to land and utilities made it the most viable option for the company.

Both the Olympic Dam mine and township of Roxby Downs do not have a long-term sustainable water supply due to its isolated location, and if the mine wishes to expand it will need an alternative water supply, which the new plant would provide.

Olympic Dam is a multi-ore mine and produces copper, uranium, gold and silver. Robert Gottliebsen from Business Spectator reports that BHP has converted Olympic Dam into the most profitable mine in the world, with the worth of the ore estimated at “around $863 billion including $470 billion in copper, $270 billion in uranium, $116 billion in gold and $8 billion in silver.”

“There have been calls for us to find another location, but we’ve remained firmly convinced that from an environmental perspective, we have found the best place on the coast at Point Lowly,” said Dean Dalla Valle, BHP’s Uranium President, in a recent speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia (AMCHAM). He says that independent studies by leading Australian and international experts determined that Point Lowly was the best location.

Melville-Smith disagrees, arguing that Elliston, a town 150km up east of the coast from Port Lincoln, “remains the best option.” He cites the Elliston’s lack of fishing industry as a key reason why it would be suitable because it would have minimal ecological damage. Also, the town’s landscape of high cliffs and valleys would make it a viable option to be powered by wind.

BHP’s latest statement says that the expansion would deliver enormous benefits to the South Australian economy. They project that the Olympic Dam expansion would generate up to 6,000 new jobs during its construction and create a further 4,000 fulltime positions at the open mine. It is also expected to boost South Australian revenue by several billion dollars over the project’s lifetime.

Tom Koutsantonis, SA Minister for Mineral Resource Development, told Crikey that this development would be critical in supporting the prosperity of South Australia through the rapidly expanding mining industry.

However, Melville-Smith argues that the Rann Government’s lack of foresight is being clouded by the short term financial windfall created by the mine. “It’s just the cheapest, nastiest alternative,” said Melville-Smith. “There is no planning for the future of South Australia, if it’s not in Adelaide than it doesn’t count.”

Koutsantonis continually referred to the planned industrial development as Port Bonython instead of Point Lowly. He insisted that the Rann Government had no plans to undertake industrial developments at Point Lowly, adding “I think it is a bit cute for the Save Point Lowly group to be referring to the entire area of Port Bonython as Point Lowly,” he said.

But Melville-Smith says this is another example of the Government’s dirty tactics. He said that what locals refer to as Point Lowly or Point Lowly Peninsula changed names to Port Bonython. “It’s still the same place. Just because it’s on the Port Bonython Peninsula doesn’t mean they can trash Point Lowly. Everyone continues to refer to it as the Point Lowly Peninsula, but we’ve been reduced to a speck on the map.”

In copies of Whyalla News ‘Letters to the Editor’ sent to Crikey by Melville-Smith, it shows locals referring to Port Bonython as the Point Lowly Peninsula. One reader named G. Butt from Whyalla wrote in a letter published on May 17: “Mr. Koutsantonis should check his geography. It is obvious he has not visited the area.” An anonymous contributor added on May 19: “If the minister bothered to visit Whyalla and speak to the locals, he would find that most people would have always referred to the area as Point Lowly. So making a claim that the area will not be industrialised is just trying to play tricks on the locals.”

Arguments over names and geography aside, the debate over economic versus environmental issues in the mining industry isn’t going anywhere.

23

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    “If the minister bothered to visit Whyalla and speak to the locals, he would find that most people would have always referred to the area as Point Lowly. So making a claim that the area will not be industrialised is just trying to play tricks on the locals.”

    Thi “Whyalla News” correspondent is correct. BHP and the SA govt are relying on two things (a) hardly anyone outside SA has heard of Pt Lowly- and not many inside SA have either, so manipulating/distorting names can be politically effective. (b) no one in Adelaide gives a stuff about Whyalla: it has always been regarded as a distant, alien accretion composed of wogs, stroppy Marxist Glaswegians and red dust. Since I researched BHP and the town for in the late 70s and 80s, Whyalla has deindustrialised and shrunk to half the size it once was. It is even less attractive now to the 80% of SA’s population who live in the Adelaide region than it was then. Just a smaller Siberia.

    The upper Spencer Gulf is a unique ecosystem. It is the spawning ground for giant cuttlefish, prawns and many other species. It is shallow, warm and has an extremely low rate of replenishment from the open sea. Marine ecologist Professor Peter Fairweather said in 2007 “It would become a very nasty place for a lot of organisms’ if a desal plant went ahead.

    BHP has a long history of pollution in the upper Spencer Gulf (and everywhere else). This project, if built at all, should be placed much closer to the open ocean.

    Desal plants use staggering amounts of electricity. A dmaned good reason not to build them. Yet this what Green left said in 2007 about this scheme:

    ” Naturally, the energy requirements of desalination should be met from renewable sources. This is hardly a problem, since the hills behind Port Bonython are noted for their stiff, regular sea breezes. ”

    This idiocy is repeated in the Crikey piece, referring to possible siting at Elliston :”the town’s landscape of high cliffs and valleys would make it a viable option to be powered by wind.”

    Ignorance of wind turbine technology cripples the Green Left and makes it easy meat for extractive capitalist thugs like BHP and the nuclear lobby. To think that an energy-guzzler like a desal plant can be driven by hopelessly unpredictable wind turbines which would be lucky to manage 25% load factor is fantasy.
    Not to mention the nasty environmental impacts of wind turbines (spinning at 270 kph with a bladespan the size of a cricket oval) on local residents and the environment.

  • 2
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    To state the obvious, this rare “Rooted” piece on the real environment will receive very few comments- a symptom of the castration of real environmentalism by the climate cult. All energy and attention is now directed to “climate” extremism, which also has the paradoxical effect of making rational climate action impossible: we’re going to end up with the Naked Jesuit.

  • 3
    kd
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Hey Frank,

    We’re doing a coal seam gas protest thing around here next weekend. It’s an immediate concern that could stuff up the Wilderness, and Sydney’s water if allowed to proceed unchecked. Meanwhile the State Government can hope that people forget about the Desalination White Elephant around here that had plenty of protest when it was built (including a from good sized proportion of the scientists associated with the local nuclear facility) and just blame it as a Labor fait acoompli.

    These corporations will basically ride roughshod over the environment until their risks are of large enough magnitude.

    Maybe Fatty O’Barrell has a point with this retrospective legislation stuff …

  • 4
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    kd: excellent. CSG and its fracking analogues are truly vicious.

    The hypocrisy of the Greens is exposed on CSG: they criticise the CSG corporates’ secretive divide and rule tactics which split rural communities, the systematic lying, the hidden horrors in store for those who sign up- such as the loss of control over their property, industrialization of the their immediate environment etc.

    Exactly the same modus operandi as Industrial Wind. Yet the Greens insult those who resist Industrial Wind as Nimbys, denying their most basic rights: the right to sleep, to health, to maintain their savings. They are accused of being “anti-development”, as if useless wind turbines were not a waste of capital.

    Most of those affected are neither rednecks nor nimbys- Greens are over-represented among the victims. Inevitably, because many smalholders in the hills are environmentalists. The chief beneficiaries of industrial wind are large landowners- some of the worst rednecks in the state: those who own vast areas of damaged, degraded, neglected hill country. Denuded of trees and therefore ideal for wind-spivs.

    The Greens can never regain the trust of wind victims.

  • 5
    PeeBee
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Frank you are starting to sound like a cult follower yourself. Where did you get all the BS about wind farms upsetting your sleep. There is no link between the wind turbines and claimed heath risks. There may be a tenuous link where people get over excited and their problems are caused by anxiety. These turbines have been around for years and you would think a well established link by now.

    ‘The chief beneficiaries are large landowners’ is just co-incidental. They don’t put wind turbines anywhere they put it where there wind is. The beneficiaries may be large landowners (which is quiet possible, because they own the most land and therefore would be over represented), but wind prospectors don’t enter and area looking for the large landowners, they are looking for the windy sites.

    This argument about waste of capital is such a crook. What do you care what people spend their capital on? If someone wastes their ‘capital’ on an overseas trip, on the pokies or a flash new car, do you get upset?

    Stop grizzling.

  • 6
    kd
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Frank:

    I don’t think you should be dismissing wind as out of hand. My impression is that you get your opinions of wind from very biased sources.

  • 7
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    pb/kd:

    I get my information about the wind fraud direct from the source: seven years of observation and interviews. Like everyone else, I started with the assumption that wind was useful and that there may simply be some siting and compensation problems. The reality is very different.

    PB, you don’t seem to know how wind companies operate: they sign large landowners up in secret, gagging them contractually and permanently. Once they’ve got the required number (as few as one or perhaps over a dozen in the case of huge wind installations like Waubra), they hold propaganda sessions. I’ve been to many. They refuse to hold public meetings- they will only discuss one-to-one. Divide and rule. They also target weak, mendicant shires, grooming councillors and ensuring they have plants on council. The local papers are then flooded with advertisements claiming that turbines represent “development”, “jobs”, “progress” etc. There’s no mention of the fact that poor rural areas depend on tourism and tree-change incomers- both put off by turbines. There are almost zero jobs in wind- and if an entire region becomes infested, there will be a net loss.They also claim that each plant will “produce enough energy to power x thousand homes” etc. These assertions are false- in fact every claim they make is either a distortion or an outright lie. Wind cannot power a single lightbulb 24/7 and must be backed up 100% with fossil fuel.

    As for waste of capital, you’re missing the point. The govt. spruiks “$22 billion” to be spent on wind in the next few years. That’s big money. Wasted.

    Then there’s corporate fascism. Waubra is the model. The community is destroyed. A tiny handful of beneficiaries patrol the area daily in conjunction with company employees. Cameras are mounted on car roofs to film anyone suspicious. I was blocked on a road by one of these thugs two years ago. Death threats and physical attacks occur. One disability pensioner was attacked twice during a one-man demo on the side of the highway. They threatened to shoot him, after beating him up. Ballarat police wanted to press charges, but the victim was too afraid to do so. There’s no protection on rural properties…

    As for the health effects, I’ve interviewed many people about this. There is now evidence worldwide of serious heart and blood pressure impacts- this is attested to by many GPs, and research into it has begun. Infrasound is the likely cause.

  • 8
    Eponymous
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Frank trots out his own ignorance about wind turbines again, well done Frank. Don’t ever miss an opportunity okay?

  • 9
    PeeBee
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Frank,

    That’s big money. Wasted. but Frank it is not your money, why do you get upset if other people waste their own money?

    There is now evidence worldwide of serious heart and blood pressure impacts Ok Frank where is the this worldwide evidence? Interviewing people is hardly scientific. How do you rule anxiety attacks especially when you relate stories like you have above? And besides you contradict yourself when you say and research into it has begun.

    they sign large landowners up in secret, gagging them contractually and permanently. How do you know this if it is secret? Please give examples.

    Wind cannot power a single lightbulb 24/7 who said it would? Wind farms are built with the knowledge that they don’t work all the time. But for that matter neither do any other form of power generation. Even a coal power station only runs about 94% of the time.

    There are almost zero jobs in wind complete lie. Who maintains them? Local workers, that who.

    “produce enough energy to power x thousand homes” etc. These assertions are false But surely they must power some houses, what else would they be doing with the electricity?

    Frank you are part of some Luddite cult.

  • 10
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    PB: Not my billions wasted on wind? It’s everyone’s money. Wind is 3 to 4 times more expensive than standard power. We all pay. We then pay again, because wind does not displace a single FF power station. In fact as wind penetrates towards 20% of putative prpduction, FF backup must be increased.

    More importantly, the billions are virtually all borrowed from banks. Capital therefore unavailable for genuine productive activity.

    You clearly know little about wind energy. Read Nina Pierpont’s book “Wind Turbine Syndrome” for health impacts, and John Etherington’s Wind Scam for engineering aspects.

  • 11
    kd
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Dealing with intermittent power sources in an environment where backup backbone is required in certain conditions isn’t the unsolvable problem that Frank says it is. It’s covered by stochastic optimisation algorithms – there are no major scientific issues outstanding for that kind of thing to work, it’s just a requirement for computer programmers with strong mathematical skills to partner with engineers. And if you have reasonably accurate short term weather forecasts (like we do), the optimisation issue becomes much easier to deal with in any case

    This is also exactly why fossil fuel infrastructure needs to move from coal to gas ASAP as an interim measure. As well as much lower emissions intensity the physical setup of the infrastructure makes it much more responsive to changes in demands.

    While preparing for the interim we also need big time investments in things like geothermal, solar thermal with heat storage (Salt/Graphite composite seems to be the most likely winning technology here) and weaning the engineers off monolithic centralised monoculture infrastructure.

    Frank’s getting the social issues relating to wind power (and capitalism and land ownership) utterly confused with the technical issues.

  • 12
    PeeBee
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    I think Frank doesn’t like looking at wind turbines and is clasping at any argument to discredit them. I often wondered what he was getting at in his other posts, dishing out a very confused message. But now I understand what it is that is driving him.

  • 13
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    PB: as I’ve said many times before., there are no wind turbines near our property. Given the topography. noone will be built here.

    If you’ve got nothing to say, don’t say it.

    KD: the social, psychological and health impacts of wind turbines expose the hypocrisy of the ALP and Greens. Big on human rights and the environment, they sacrifice both for the climate cult.

    The technological aspects tell us all that pain was for nothing. If wind was in any sense “transitional”, Danish emissions would have fallen not risen and the Danes would not be paying the highest power prices in Europe. The Euro grid has just instituted a negative power price- to penalise the Danes and others for dumping useless windpower onto the grid when it’s not wanted, which is much of the time because windpower surges occur mainly off-peak.

    Crikey itself, which should be a beacon of progressive comment and journalism in a demoralised (Fairfax) and degenerate (Murdoch) mediascape, is little more than a platform for climate millenarianism. All issues (not just environmental) are subordinated to, corrupted by and infused with climate hysteria. Bernard Keane is an example- an intelligent commentator (who can write reasonably well, unusual in the tossariat) who hyperventilates daily about Armageddon. He’ll look back on these wasted years with embarrassment.

  • 14
    kd
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Frank:

    Your biases are showing. Nobody said anything about wind being transitional. I’m unable to locate a credible source confirming your doom and gloom situation in Denmark, although given the magnitude and time scale of their project I would expect to see teething problems. Mostly the news out of Denmark seems reasonably positive.

    And output modeling of wind power isn’t dependent on surges. Another misdirection or misunderstanding. Someone is indeed infected with millenarialsm, but I fear it’s another example of projection.

  • 15
    PeeBee
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Frank, I am sorry it is NOT YOUR MONEY. It is the company’s money that is being spent, not yours (unless you are a shareholder, which I am sure you are not). You’re saying you will pay when you buy the electricity that it produces. Well that is another furphy. You don’t have to buy anything you don’t want to. Live on candles and open fires if you prefer not to pay for wind power generated electricity, it is your choice.

    I must apologise Frank for thinking you don’t like the look of wind turbines. I didn’t realise you can’t see them from your place. And I have to admit, I based this conclusion on everything you have written, but agree you have never said they are ugly.

    For your information, there is nothing new in negative power pricing. It already happens here in Australia. Currently the price of electricity can range from negative $1,000 to positive $12,500 per megawatt. Saying that it was introduced to penalise wind power is just plain wrong. The negative price can apply to all forms of electricity generation.

    As for claiming Crikey is a platform for for climate millenarianism is again wrong. I give you yourself as a case in point. You have been given a fair and reasonable run for a long time. You are starting to complain about the messenger when YOU don’t like what you are reading despite the fact that you’ve been happily dishing it out for some time.

    As for If you’ve got nothing to say, don’t say it. What you mean to say is that you don’t like reading stuff you don’t agree with. If you think I have nothing to say, just skip my posts. I do with most of the crap that you write.

    You clearly know little about wind energy errr excuse me. You are the one coming up with unsubstantiated drivel and peddling it as truth.

  • 16
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    “As for claiming Crikey is a platform for for climate millenarianism is again wrong. I give you yourself as a case in point. You have been given a fair and reasonable run for a long time.”

    Patronising as ever PB.
    Anyone can comment on these sites (although only a few are, like me, subject to permanent censorship)- the point was of course Crikey’s editorial line. Which is as tight as a fish’s arse. Millenarian Rapture.

  • 17
    green-orange
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    There is a great deal of water in the gulf ; there isn’t a shred of evidence that the tiny proportion of saline water pumped from the plant will have any effect – if there is show me.

    This campaign is being led by the Liberal party and a small group of Greens which oppose any form of development (including wind turbines).

    Elliston has plenty of fish and the cliffs make it completely unsuitable for any type of development.

  • 18
    kd
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    green-orange-yellow-blue

    I believe the point is that that part of the gulf is very shallow and has limited circulation of water. Dumping toxic, high salinity (so dense water) in such an area where the benthic component of the ecosystem is extremely important is a stupid move, and is likely to do in some important biodiversity.

  • 19
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    GO: “This campaign is being led by the Liberal party and a small group of Greens which oppose any form of development (including wind turbines).”

    If true, this says something about the ideological morass the ALP is stuck in- when Liberals out-green them;

    And Greens opposing wind turbines? Some rationality at last…

    And why do you imagine that a power-hungry desal plant is “development”? SA produces a tiny amount of electricity- fossil fuel of course. And a small amount of very expensive useless wind power. This desal plant will be huge. Like building an aluminium smelter. So SA’s power requirements will sharply increase. Lots more CO2 emissions, if you’re millenarian cultist. Who pays for the extra capacity? Taxpayer? Consumers?

    Sounds like another moronic mess.

  • 20
    Eponymous
    Posted May 28, 2011 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    Frank, I trust you are familiar with this analysis of Wind Turbine Syndrome:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45730.html

    Any comments on this?

  • 21
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 28, 2011 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Ep: Hadn’t see that, but I’m familiar with the ridiculous Simon Chapman- the same publicy-funded propagandist who wants to licence smokers. Chapman wrote on Crikey last year quite the silliest article I’ve ever seen on wind energy (a topic about which he knows nothing whatever). I replied in detail to him then.

    As regards Pierpont and Laurie (and the string of other GPs like them around the world who happened to see turbine victims in the course of their practice), they ask continually for funded research to be done- they are not pretending to be research institutes and they had no axe to grind. They became activists only in the face of callous denialism. They are reporting widespread symptoms. I personally spoke to people who had these symptoms well before any medical evidence began to appear. Some were strongly in favour of turbines. One couple suffered greatly for several years at Waubra in silence, publicly backing the turbines. They cracked only a few months ago and have now admitted publicy what they’ve been suffering. I knew (but did not reveal to protect their privacy) that their health had been ruined. Forced to sleep in different rooms each night as the type of sound varied. Stuffed with sleeping pills and other medication, not to mention ear plugs and other devices. All ultimately futile.
    I’ve noticed a very intriguing phenomenon: some people with businesses in the blighted area (businesses dependent on tourism) ferociously defend the turbines- even though objectively they have the most to lose (both their peace of mind/ health and income).
    It’s as if by suppressing opposition (in one case with actual violence) and denying the reality to themselves they can magically negate the nightmare. But finally they fail. The horror of their situation crashes in on them. It took only a couple of years. Now they find their businesses are unsaleable. They’re trapped. Denial followed by impotent rage may lead to suicide.

    What has appalled me in the last seven years is the sheer cruelty of inner-city progressives- it is they who have unleashed this curse on defenceless people- so defenceless that they are insulted as Nimbys while their basic rights are trashed.

    The pround and cynical hypocrisy of my party, the Greens, is sickening. They loudly condemn the vicious incursions of coal seam gas corporations while vilifying the victims of wind turbines.

    At the root of this toxic hypocrisy is of course the climate cult.

    Meanwhile, the Crikey Knitting Circle applauds the wind turbine fraud. No wonder the Left is fucked.

  • 22
    PeeBee
    Posted May 30, 2011 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Frank Patronising as ever PB. A classic case of psychological projection.

    Direct from someone who peddles mistruths, and finishes off by denigrating everyone by saying Crikey Knitting Circle applauds the wind turbine fraud

  • 23
    kd
    Posted May 30, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Frank:

    Like the climate change alarmists, overstating your case regarding wind turbines damages it. Here’s some apparently credible research on the matter, with the conclusion:

    There is a need to take the unique environment into account when planning a new wind farm so that adverse health effects are avoided. The influence of area-related factors should also be considered in future community noise research.

    Not so much the doom and gloom that you’re trying to sell us, more a message that engineers need to take care and pay attention to certain characteristics of the environment. Who’d have thought …

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...