Point Lowly Desalination Plant

[Marine Campaigner 0]

As part of its Olympic Dam expansion plans, BHP is planning to build a desalination plant at Point Lowly in the Upper Spencer Gulf. I know the prawn industry is very concerned about potential impacts from increased salinity, but I wonder how the recreational community feels?See this link to an online petition opposing the desal plant:https://secure.wilderness.org.au/cyberactivist/cyberactions/09_07_sa_marine-cyberaction.php?Maybe this is something fishers and conservationists can agree on for once?

[Ranger 48]

I've been concerned about this one myself, as it's located right next door to a Marine Park/Giant Cuttlefish breeding area of worldwide significance.While we're on this subject, lets not forget another is also planned for Pt Stanvac right here at Adelaide. Not for mining, but to supplement the water we currently drain from the Murray River.The problem I'm having is that even the experts don't seem to be able to agree on whether there will be any significant impacts arising from desal plants.Mant have also said that evaporation is responsible for greater impact than a desal plant will ever cause.I dunno, but I'm no expert on water or salinity, and I rely on these experts to inform me!You even said the operative word yourself:

concerned about POTENTIAL impacts from increased salinity

Potential? Pointless fighting against it if it aint gonna do any harm because we do need water (a lot of water), but as soon they can all agree and show us something definate detailing that it WILL harm the area or significantly raise salinity levels, then sure, count me in by all means!Until then I won't go out fighting for "what ifs" or "just in case" though, because I think water in this state is just as important as conservation.We need to conserve our fisheries, resources and environment, but we also need water! Which is more important and what is the greater risk at the moment? I really don't know because we also need a lot of water, and not just for mining!I'm a bit of a green myself and I'm constantly spouting conservation. I'm also a realist though, and I'm aware of how much this state depends water, and also on mining for jobs, income, revenue and social stability. Mining is a multi-billion dollar industry which keeps the economy of this state turning and keeps many many South Australians in jobs (in many different industries), so get the experts to agree and show me the harm this desal plant is gonna do first, and then you most definately have my support! Till then I'm personally gonna continue to sit on the fence, sorry!

[rodstar 0]

Well Said Ranger, im with you on this one.

[Marine Campaigner 0]

You’re right - the experts do disagree, but let’s look at it objectively. On one side you have experts whose advice is funded by and written on behalf of BHP and on the other, truly independent advice from scientists with no pecuniary interest in the outcome. I know who I’d rather listen too. I understand why you might want cold hard proof before getting off that fence but science can never unequivocally prove ahead of time what the exact impacts of any particular development might be – models can give us some idea, but until the project is up and running, these things always have an element of the unknown.This is why we have the precautionary principle – now an accepted tenet of international environmental law, used by environmental managers in the field and by the courts in assessing whether or not developments should go ahead or what conditions should be imposed upon them. Precaution is a core principle of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). What does the precautionary principle say?Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.If BHP proposed desalination plant is approved, and I don’t think it should be in this location, then I hope their EIS modelling is right. But what if it’s not? What if all the environmental factors come together in such a way that toxic brine does reach the cuttlefish breeding grounds as predicted? Best available science tells us that even one such event could have catastrophic consequences for the cuttlefish population. See this article for more info: www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/30/2557262.htm The EIS process requires BHP to consider alternatives. BHP claims to have assessed 13 alternative locations for its desalination plant, but all of these are in the Upper Spencer Gulf, thereby treating the general public with what can only be called contempt. The experts want to see genuine alternatives considered, such that the outfall is discharged into deep waters with high-flushing characteristics which will quickly disperse the brine. Is that too much to ask? The only reason BHP doesn’t want to assess alternatives is the increased costs associated with longer pipelines. Not good enough in my opinion.

[rocknev 2]

spencer gulf is already high in salt....we dont get the flushing of the open ocean with it being a gulf....

[Ranger 48]

Marine Campaigner, thanks for that input!Are you suggesting that these experts in their field (people who have studied half a lifetime to gain doctorates and become leading authorities in their chosen profession) have risked their credibility and qualifications by intentionally altering their findings or falsifying their results to favour BHP's motives? Yes they are contracted by BHP to perform this study, but they are not employed by BHP.Also remember that their work is published to be scrutinised by their peers. If they were caught out falsifying results, altering findings, omiting evidence they would never work in their chosen profession again, and I'm certain in this instance their findings will be scrutinised very very closely by those fighting against these desal plants.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

I was also dubious of the "precautionary principle" when marine parks were instituted, because this meant vast areas of our coastline became marine parks and zones "just in case". Remember, nearly half (46% from memory) of all marine parks are nothing more than unmapped bottom. No-one knows what's there or what species are present, but using the precautionary approach it all became marine park. I don't buy that!I think we need to accept that we need water. If the mining industry collapses, where will this state be? Thousands unemployed, vast sums instantly wiped from state revenue and a degrading socio-economic future for all of us. Maybe Pt Lowly isn't the best location for the desal plant....I don't know!I DO know that BHP are required by law to complete an environmental impact study prior to commencement of this project. "Independant authorities" are contracted to undertake this study, it is expensive, lengthy and it is not undertaken lightly. I hardly think this independant authority would falisfy it's reports (unless you know something we dont)! Important question: Has the EIS shown up any significant threat? The government instituted the network of marine parks recently, fully aware of the proposed location for the desal plant next door to one. BHP have plans for the desal plant, knowing the marine park is next door. Are the government and major mining corporation in league to pull the wool over our eyes and disregard a threat to the new marine park they are so proud of? You make your own mind up!As I said earlier, I am not yet convinced there is a problem, and until I get some type of agreed input stating there is a direct threat, I'm not overly concerned by this, especially given that there are another 12 proposed and sites available should a problem be identified or arise.Having said all this, it is only my own uninformed opinion, and I'm only one little person who has little to no knowledge of salinity levels and desalination operations. We also need to keep in mind, in the past mining companies have shown complete disregard for environmental concerns, although in recent years this has changed. These corporations now employ their own staff to rejuvenate, reforest and repair damaged environment, restoring it to it's natural state. I would HOPE they show the same level of concern for the marine environment.I would encourage each to examine the issue carefully and make their own mind up on this one!If YOU feel it's worth fighting against, then do not let MY thoughts sway you otherwise, as we should all fight for what we believe, and protect what is valuable to us and the future!

[finatic 1]

I'm with y'all on this one, but, let me say loud & clear, this was rubber stamped 3 years ago, "IT WILL HAPPEN".As will the domestic airport into Olympic Dam & the upgraded railway & highway to it.The reason & the way they have got around (worked with) the government, they will be supplying Eyre Peninsula's water, yep thats right, their water, & what better situation for them to be in than right now when the Murray is down & out for the kill with all the rain we've had & still no inflow.It was first proposed to pump the saline back out into the ocean West of Coffin Bay, but, at 1.2 million per kilometre to pipe it that fell over fast.Sorry for the news, few on the inside will know of this & you bet there is an Election coming to announce it.Finatic

[bobC 0]

As some of you know, I work for the SA Gov in a marine group and did work at a water plant for a while. I don't work for any of the groups you have been talking about but think I can understand most of the scientific and practical limitations of a desalination plant.Issue 1, Where to put it Issue 2, It needs "LOTS" of electrical powerIssue 3, It has a by product of brineIf you put the brine back in the sea, the outlet really needs to be south of Ward Spit/Point Lowly.I think dumping brine in the sea is a wast as its quite valuable.Pacific Salt at Whyalla make salt from sea water. It is much easer to make salt from brine. Their current production is about 10 percent of the salt output from a desalination plant. The world market for salt is good. I think there is a very obvious solution here but we will see if anyone can join the dots.

[carps 1]

my thoughts exactly bobc sell the salt and add to your profits = less enviromental impact :ohmy:

[RJ5023 230]

Ranger wrote:

We also need to keep in mind, in the past mining companies have shown complete disregard for environmental concerns, although in recent years this has changed. These corporations now employ their own staff to rejuvenate, reforest and repair damaged environment, restoring it to it's natural state. I would HOPE they show the same level of concern for the marine environment.

Will the Government make the best decision for the environment, or will the financial needs of the state and/or mining company determine the outcome.Do miners really have a lot of concern for the environment? The large miners rehabilitate their sites these days. Whether they would do it if they weren't forced to is debatable. It wasn't that long ago that one largish company buried all their junk in plastic bags in the Flinders.The Government is inconsistent about environmental management in this area, and would probably argue that the cost is too high to do the right thing.Anyone had a look around Coober Pedy? Who's going to rehabilitate that - and it grows larger every year.IMO it's hard to trust this Govt's environmental management on any issue.Reagrds,

[carps 1]

you can never trust the gov to make the right (moral) decision just look at the contradiction lets create marine parks to protect our fish stocks, then in the same breath lets build a desal plant to depleate the same fish stocks little bit of hypocracy at play there if ya ask me.but thats our gov at work isnt it lets work hard to stop global warming but we cant give up our v8 statesmans we are to good a people to be driven around in barinas.....

[SandyWhiting 0]

bobC wrote:

As some of you know, I work for the SA Gov in a marine group and did work at a water plant for a while. I don't work for any of the groups you have been talking about but think I can understand most of the scientific and practical limitations of a desalination plant.Issue 1, Where to put it Issue 2, It needs "LOTS" of electrical powerIssue 3, It has a by product of brineIf you put the brine back in the sea, the outlet really needs to be south of Ward Spit/Point Lowly.I think dumping brine in the sea is a wast as its quite valuable.Pacific Salt at Whyalla make salt from sea water. It is much easer to make salt from brine. Their current production is about 10 percent of the salt output from a desalination plant. The world market for salt is good. I think there is a very obvious solution here but we will see if anyone can join the dots.

Well said bobC,Im a fence sitter too on this , we NEED WATER, especially for the future.. Its gotta go somewhere, preferably not in our ocean, selling it would be a better option, especially for our marine life there..

[Marine Campaigner 0]

The local community agrees, water and jobs are important, but not at the cost of irreperable environmental damage or damage to existing industries such as tourism and fisheries.See this website which details their concerns:http://www.savepointlowly.com.au/Committee/index.htmlPublic submissions on BHP's Environmental Impact Statement close this Friday 7 August. The Save Point Lowly coalition is asking people to join with them in raising concerns and has written a number of sample letters to get people started:http://www.savepointlowly.com.au/Committee/letterindex.html

[Guest SuperThahn]

This HAS TO go ahead for the future of SA and I am sure they will find a way that it wont effect the salinity of the water.It will happen to much $$$ involved for it not to!!!

[Marine Campaigner 0]

Ranger wrote:

I DO know that BHP are required by law to complete an environmental impact study prior to commencement of this project. "Independant authorities" are contracted to undertake this study I'm not overly concerned by this, especially given that there are another 12 proposed and sites available should a problem be identified or arise.

Yes, BHP are required to submit an EIS however the study is undertaken by BHP and assessed by the State Government. In this sense, the EIS itself is not independent. The State Government has the power to approve or reject the BHP application, to place conditions on any approval or to require alternative plans. Those of us concerned by the proposed desalination plant at Point Lowly are insisting that BHP be required to assess alternative more suitable locations. Assessing other locations all in the Upper Spencer Gulf is not good enough. Because of the gulf’s high salinity, low-flushing oceanographic conditions, the whole region is prima facie unsuitable for a desalination development. As I’m sure many of you know, the Upper Spencer Gulf provides important nursery habitat for many important commercial and recreational species. Larvae and juveniles tend to be much more sensitive to pollutants than mature animals.You might also assume that in Australia, we have one law for all. But this is not true when it comes to BHP. The Olympic Dam mine is regulated in SA under a set of outdated legal privileges in the Roxby Downs Indenture Ratification Act 1982 that take precedence over the Environment Protection Act 1993 and a range of other key public interest legislation on Aboriginal Heritage, Freedom of Information, Natural Resource Management and Water Resources issues. The SA government intend to bring a Bill to the SA Parliament in 2010 to amend the Roxby Indenture to extend these legal privileges to BHP’s proposed new open pit mine operation. My view is that BHP should be required to surrender their legal privileges under the Roxby Indenture Act and agree to be subject to the full set of laws and standards and due process in SA.Ranger wrote:

Important question: Has the EIS shown up any significant threat?

BHP admits that the desalination outfall will breach the EPA’s water quality policy. The ‘safe’ dilutions of return water required to protect 99% of species from experiencing inhibitory effects at 100m from the outfall pipe are in the vicinity of 1:45. BHP is proposing a target dilution level of 1:11, well above the safe level. The stands in contrast to the target dilution level for the Port Stanvac plant which is 1:50 (although it is debateable whether they will be able to achieve this). The zone of ecological effect at Point Lowly (i.e. the mixing zone between return water and brine discharge) is predicted to extend up to a 2.5km radius. The brine discharge is a toxic cocktail of hypersaline water and various chemicals, which because it is denser than seawater, tends to accumulate on the sea floor leading to depletion of dissolved oxygen, a threat to bottom dwelling animals such as prawns and cuttlefish. Carps wrote:

You can never trust the gov to make the right (moral) decision just look at the contradiction lets create marine parks to protect our fish stocks, then in the same breath lets build a desal plant to depleate the same fish stocks little bit of hypocracy at play there if ya ask me.

I actually think it’s a good thing that Point Lowly is located within the new Upper Spencer Gulf Marine Park. This means in assessing BHP’s proposal, the relevant Minister is required to take into account the objects of the Marine Parks Act, the main object of which is the protection of marine biodiversity and habitats. He must also refer the matter to the Environment Minister who can recommend that environmental conditions be imposed on any approval. What this means in essence is that development proposals located within, or likely to impact upon, a marine park will be subject to more stringent approval conditions than might otherwise be the case. It’s a subtle legislative change but an important one nonetheless.

[rocknev 2]

i for one wouldnt like to see it....i dont normally fish from a boat, i prefer the challenge of the rocks...would be nice to be able to continue to do so, but i personally think, if they want it...they will get it...regardless if anyone else doesnt want it.

[Ranger 48]

Well, it seems at the moment we don't need to do anything, we don't need to petition, and we don't need to get our feathers ruffled too much, as the system, due course and common sense may well have prevailed.I heard on the radio today that the proposed desal plant will not be going ahead at Pt Lowly, as a parliamentary committee has decided that the risks at this site are deemed too great, and alternative sites will now be explored!I came home and searched for further info:

Pt Lowly unsuitable for BHP desalination plant7 August 2009 | by MIchael Mills A South Australian Parliamentary Committee yesterday recommended that BHP Billiton’s proposed desalination plant at Point Lowly in the Spencer Gulf be built at another location.The bipartisan Environment Resources and Development Committee concluded in its final report that brine from the plant could cause serious damage to the marine ecosystem.According to the report, evidence suggested that the brine would not properly disperse as a result of the marine conditions in the Spencer Gulf.Many of the witnesses heard by the Committee suggested that the plant be built at a different location, the report said. The Gulf hosts the only known mass breeding site of Giant Australian Cuttlefish in the world, while the Western King Prawn also uses the area for breeding.The eggs of these creatures would be impacted by the increased salinity, the report said.In a statement, Greens MLC and Committee member Mark Parnell said BHP was using “glossy spin and weak science to justify Point Lowly.”“It is just a cover for choosing the cheapest option,” he said.A spokesperson for BHP declined to comment when contacted by MINING DAILY today, but said the company would be continuing with the next stages of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) procedure. The company proposed the plant as part of its Olympic Dam mine expansion project and submitted its EIS in May this year. The public submission period for the EIS closes today.

SA GOVERNMENT BACKS OUT OF BHP DESALINATION DEALPosted on June 5, 2009 by Coober Pedy Regional Times Point Lowly - Breeding ground of the giant Australian cuttlefishGovernment to ’sort of go-it-alone’ on desalination plans.Amidst growing public concerns and controversy, the SA government has reconsidered it’s location for a desalination plant intended to accommodate the not yet approved BHP Olympic Dam expansion.The government had been looking to tap into the water supply from a proposed plant at Point Lowly.Treasurer Kevin Foley says “there is now no need because of Adelaide’s planned desalination plant”.“Our initial decision to be a partner was before we had decided to ’sort of go it alone’ on our own plant here in Adelaide,” he said.“We’re relieving the Murray of 100 gigalitres a year of water through our major desalination plant so the need to be be involved in BHP’s plant is eliminated.”

Rest easy.............for the meantime!

[SandyWhiting 0]

Heres a bit more on it..In yesterdays paper.

[SandyWhiting 0]

Ooops try again

[Marine Campaigner 0]

Thanks for that Ranger, but don't rest easy just yet!!The ERD Committee's recommendation that BHP be required to look at alternative locations is a great start, but they are not the actual decision maker.The buck stops with the Minister and he is yet to make any comment on BHP's EIS. THe next step in the process is the release of a Supplementary EIS by BHP, expected later this year. The Government needs to make sure that in the interim, BHP puts some serious work into looking at alternative locations for the desalination plant.At this point in time, there is still every possibility that the Government could approve BHP's current plans at Point Lowly.

[Ranger 48]

Marine Campaigner wrote:

At this point in time, there is still every possibility that the Government could approve BHP's current plans at Point Lowly.

Even though their own parliamentary committee has recommended otherwise?I'm sure the minister wont make any comment until AFTER the public EIS period, as it would be suicide to make any comment before all input has been submitted.As you state, the minister will make the final decision, and yes, there IS a possibility the present plans will be approved. I'd be willing to take bets that the minister will go with Environmental Resources and Development Committee recommendations though, as it would take a very brave politician to disregard and overide those findings, and one with the same level of disregard for their own political future! Any ideas on where we can get a copy of the ERD report? As what I've heard so far only gives a very brief outline, and if the ERD Committee has serious concerns I'd like to hear them all fully, rather than only reading the little the media wants to feed me.

[Marine Campaigner 0]

I hope you're right Ranger. Note the ERD Committee has a cross-party constiutency i.e. Liberal, Labor, Green.See link to the committee's report below:www.parliament.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/C84894BD-81FF-4C93-B18D-61C3700DE928/14354/64ReportDesalinationFinalPtBonython.pdfHappy reading!

[Ranger 48]

Thanks for the link, I'll have a paw over it during the next few days.Just out of interest, can I also ask a little about your own background as a new member and "marine campaigner"? Are you a member of a political party, do you have technical expertise in a specific area, are you a member of a conservation group, a concerned resident, a rec fisherman, a pro fisherman, a marine biologist?

[Marine Campaigner 0]

You sure can.As well as being a concerned citizen, I literally am the Marine Campaigner for The Wilderness Society in SA. I'm not a member of any political party. As for technical expertise, I have a commercial law background.I'm not a rec fisher myself but many of my friends and family are, and I am an eater of sustainable seafood. Informal discussions with a number of spencer gulf prawn fishermen led me to wonder how the rec fishing community felt about the desal plant.How about yourself?I've read your dialogue with Andy Burnell from DEH on the marine parks thread, which from what I can tell, has been really interesting and valuable for all involved.I'd be interested to hear how you and others feel about people like Andy and I popping up on these kind of forums?

[Ranger 48]

As well as being a concerned citizen, I literally am the Marine Campaigner for The Wilderness Society in SA. I'm not a member of any political party. As for technical expertise, I have a commercial law background.I'm not a rec fisher myself but many of my friends and family are, and I am an eater of sustainable seafood.

I hope you weren't offended by my question, as it wasn't intended to offend. I just thought it might be wise for us all to know who we are speaking with, so thanks for that background.

I'd be interested to hear how you and others feel about people like Andy and I popping up on these kind of forums?

I can only speak for myself here, but I welcome it! Sure I don't want everyone with a barrow to push in here stating their piece, but when it's relevant and topical issues such as this desal plant or the marine parks, I think it's great for people with a deeper understanding of the facts to be here discussing it with us and sharing information which can at times be difficult for us to collate ourselves (ie: the ERD committee report).As recreational fishermen I believe there can be a sense of fear and mistrust when we hear about issues which will affect us, because as a user group recreational fishermen haven't been taken seriously in the past, aren't organised, and don't have a definitive voice as a group. Andy Burnell certainly helped to open my own eyes about the marine park issue, and also provided a lot of informed background information, allowing us to gain a deeper understanding of all the processes involved.

Informal discussions with a number of spencer gulf prawn fishermen led me to wonder how the rec fishing community felt about the desal plant.How about yourself?

At heart, myself and most of the people I know are conservation minded. We try to protect the environment and resource we utilise, whilst having as little impact on it as we can. We are not rapists of the sea, but we like to look at ourselves more as "protectors" who care for and monitor our environment.In regards to this desal plant, only my own personal thoughts here, but as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't overly concerned as I didn't believe there WAS any serious risk. Even the experts couldn't agree, and there was little background data to refer to with this type of issue. I figured the large corporations would push to make money, the greens would push to prevent change, the government would push to collect votes, and at the end of the day there wouldn't be any serious risk involved either way.I found it very hard (and still do) to believe that the government would institute a marine park to protect the site of the only breeding colony of this cuttlefish IN THE WORLD, and then sanction a mining company to destroy it! This would shame Australia worldwide, and I don't think any politician would be suicidal enough in their career to be the person who signed off on this if a significant risk were involved.I believe the ERD Committee to be a fair and evenly spread crossection with no definate political leanings, and I believe the committee recommendations will now be taken on board by the relevant minister.I believe the minister would now need to come up with some very bl**dy good reasons to ignore or disregard committee recommendations.Now that the ERD Committee report has been released, I have something concrete I trust, which I can refer to and learn from!What I have read so far (and I've only skimmed the document briefly) seems quite positive to me! Many sensible and logical recommendations have been made, and although there does appear to be a risk, this risk seems minimal, mainly revolving around the lack of tidal movement for outfall during dodge tides twice per month. Should the plant still be built in this location (which I think is now unlikely) there's the recommendation that outflow can be stopped during this dodge tide period as a further safety barrier.I do not believe the government and industry have entered into some collusion to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and risk a world significant conservation site in the name of profit, although I do believe conservationists and environmentalists have a duty to "keep the bastards honest" and ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place.I believe the required environmental impact studies are being performed.It seems ongoing safeguards and monitoring of the area by independant expert parties has also been recommended by the ERD committee.I haven't properly read the report, but just from skimming the recommendations, they seem concise and logical even to a layman such as myself.I'm quite happy with developments so far, and I just want to read this report properly, so that I'm a little more informed on a subject I don't know much about.I welcome you to the website, and I welcome your input here. Although I'll always provide my own thoughts on the issue (maybe not always in agreeance), I believe there is always more than one side to every story, so I'd like all members here to be provided with relevant information on the subject, to take on board all the information provided, to then make educated decisions, and to each make up their own mind on where they stand.This is a very important issue, as if it goes pear shaped what is lost can never be regained. We shouldn't take this lightly if we care for conserving the environment, but we also shouldn't be paranoid through media directed bias or through a lack of information on the subject.

[Marine Campaigner 0]

Just a quick update - the Rann Government released its submission on BHP's EIS last week. Its contains a large number of concerns regarding the proposed desalination plant at Point Lowly.Follow this link for more information:http://www.olympicdameis.sa.gov.au/html/submissions.cfm

[gardy 0]

Hi People Please distribute widely to your networks today Tonight (Thursday, 24th September 2009) on ABC1 TV at 8pm, Catalyst will broadcast a science story about Sepia apama (Giant Australian Cuttlefish) and the proposed desalination discharge at Point Lowly, Upper Spencer Gulf, South Australia - titled “Cuttlefish & Point Lowly”. Immediately after the screening, the story will be available for viewing or podcasting from www.abc.net.au/catalyst along with additional video, photos, and a transcript

[Ranger 48]

Thanks for that Gardy! I'll be watching!

[vb4me 1]

Just watched it. Absolutely brilliant. We have something truely unique here and the risk of wiping out a species cannot be justified. We may treat them as just bait but without them I would hate to see what would become of our snapper fishing :ohmy: Plus something like that is also a great tourist drawcard.

[pescados 1]

Thanks Gardy.I also watched the program last night on ABC and most certainly steps need to be taken that it does not go ahead.It would be a shame to lose the cuttlefish and breeding grounds.

[eco child 0]

The brine output of the desalination plant has been scientifically proven to kill cuttlefish and squid eggs.The construction of the desal plant will also pave the way for further industrialisation of the area, including the construction of a port, which will require dredging of the sea floor as the channel is not deep enough. Increased shipping will creat more noise pollution which is detrimental to the cuttlefish and other marine animals in the area. It also increases the risk for the introduction of invasive marine species, threatening local fisheries.There are better suited locations for the plant such as the west coast of the Eyre paninsula where currents will disperse the brine and it will have less of an impact on marine life. If the gulf the brine will continue to build up, as currents won't disperse it.the desal plkant is being constructed to supply water for the expansion of the olympic dam mine not the local community and for a company that made 22.5 billion dollars in profit last year i don't think it's a big ask to get them to move it to another location where it might cost them a bit more money.if you would like to take actio nplease sign the petition to relocate the desal planthttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/save-the-giant-australian-cuttlefish-upper-spencer-gulf/send an email to mike rann asking him to reconsider the location www.wilderness.org.au/.../letter%20template-reject%20point%20lowly%20desal.pdf -

[Tacklebags 404]

Mate I completely agree with your position on the desal plants. No point in having no take fishing zones with all the desalination plants about to be dotted along the coast for the mining industry.However in saying this you may want to look at the two NZ fur seal colonies that have moved into Whyalla....in OZ waters their population is exploding since being protected. In OZ waters last year they ate 54,000 tonnes of seafood including many cuttlefish!Prior to the first settlers culling much of the seal colonies 200 years ago the cuttlefish were few in number. Now they will be again given the seals and dolphins preying on them in greater numbers every year.Expanding the no take zone to protect the cuttlefish from rec fishers will achieve nothing. Tacklebags

[kon 300]

Hey TB, an interesting side issue there!Perhaps we can train the seals to recognise SZ boundaries? :whistle: On top of what you mentioned I`ll go one further - if, as some people suspect, the seals are also munching into the penguin population is there a need for a controlled seal cull, or do we let nature find its own balance?A bit of a conundrum for the likes of our friends at Wilderness Society and ConservationSA, etc...what to do, what to do...Oh, I take it all back, I forgot, we keep on being told the seals are "endangered". So nothing to see here folks, move along now. :dry:

[Guest B@K]

Couple of questions folks,Eco child, without agreeing or disagreeing with your points re the desal plant, are you currently or have been, a member of a registered conservation group? Only interested so everyone knows where you are coming from.I hasten to add you have every right to express your point of view.And TB, could you please provide the difinitive source of your statement, "consumed 54,000 tonnes etc etc"Opinions are one thing, facts are another.And kon, you are confusing our conservation bretheren................

[Tacklebags 404]

Couple of questions folks' date='Eco child, without agreeing or disagreeing with your points re the desal plant, are you currently or have been, a member of a registered conservation group? Only interested so everyone knows where you are coming from.I hasten to add you have every right to express your point of view.And TB, could you please provide the difinitive source of your statement, "consumed 54,000 tonnes etc etc"Opinions are one thing, facts are another.And kon, you are confusing our conservation bretheren................[/quote']B@K......if I state it on here it's factual. Then again mate you must not be so black and white because honestly, how many facts are completely neutral????Have a read....News‎ > ‎ Australia to wage war on NZ Seals KANGAROO Island penguin enthusiasts want a cull of fur seals to stop them wiping the birds out. The Environment Department has confirmed it has been lobbied for a cull or a relocation program as penguin numbers in the Victor Harbor-Kangaroo Island region have plummeted.At the same time, the New Zealand fur seal population has ballooned to up to 30,000.Kangaroo Island penguin centre manager John Ayliffe said people were calling for a cull because there were about 40 seals specialising in hunting penguins on and near the island."There are significant numbers of people who are speculating on it (a cull) to maintain a balanced ecosystem," he said. "It is not for me to advocate culling or harvesting, that is a political decision, but it is worth trying to relocate some seals."Harvesting (of seals) is being done in South Africa, Namibia and the northern hemisphere because there is not enough food for the increasing seal numbers."Mr Ayliffe said the New Zealand fur seal population ate around 150 tonnes of food, including fish and penguins, a day, compared with the 500 tonnes a year the fishing industry took from the region's waters.Environment Minister Paul Caica will meet those who want action this month. An Environment Department spokesman said yesterday no options could be ruled out until an expert report was obtained in September.New Zealand seals are not native to the area but have become one of the island's tourist drawcards. They share the region's waters with a small number of Australian fur seals and sea lions but locals believe the sheer number of New Zealand fur seals makes them the main culprit for killing penguins. Penguins also are in trouble in Encounter Bay, where a count on West Island near Victor Harbor this year found only 50 birds, down from the 2000 which lived there in 2001.Previously published Department of Environment head counts show penguin numbers have also been slashed at two of the region's other colonies on Granite Island and Penneshaw but were stable at Kingscote.The cull request was considered at a recent meeting of the island's Natural Resources Management Board, but presiding member Richard Trethewey told The Advertiser the board wanted better research before identifying if a solution were needed. Mr Trethewey also would not rule out any action, including a cull or relocation.Granite Island penguin tour operator Dorothy Longden rejected a cull or relocation and said sterilisation was a better option. A reduction in the numbers of sharks and killer whales - fur seals' natural predators - has been blamed for increased seal numbers.150 tonnes of seafood x 365 days a year.....you do the maths!!!!54,750 tonnes a year off the top of my head.Consumption for human needs doesn't even come close. This is the problem with the greenies. They have no understanding of what there scientific meddling does to the natural food chain.Tacklebags