The waste component Alex Read described is detailed in the …

Comment on Salt mine: Alice needs to grasp a major opportunity by Jimmy Cocking.

The waste component Alex Read described is detailed in the EIS for the proposed Chandler Salt Mine and long term toxic waste storage project. It is open for comment until March 31.
See here for details https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/environmental-assessments/register/chandler-facility
Currently mining activities are exempted from the Waste Management and Pollution Act, which adds a complication to regulating it.
The business case is not built on selling salt but long term waste storage contracts that will almost definitely involve toxic waste products from the gas and mining sector amongst others.

Recent Comments by Jimmy Cocking

Flood report a trickle, not a banker
If elected either Mayor or as a Councillor, I will advocate for action on this report.


Flood report a trickle, not a banker
Erwin, the FMAC is made up of volunteers who nominated and were appointed to advise the NT government. The report is the advice. It is now up to the NTG to act on the report.


Councillor fumes over power station job losses
@ Steve: But weren’t you part of the initial front page announcement about how wonderful this was all going to be at the start of last year?
Good to see you standing up for the workers now! Giles and co were aware of this proposal back then.
We need local control of our power assets and local jobs.
Many more jobs per MW in solar than in remote controlled gas fired stations.
That’s why we’re pushing for a sun powered future, as opposed to one dependent on fracked gas.


Fracked gas our only hope: Northern Institute professor
I thought you believed in climate change Rolf?! Shame to see you out there plugging away for the gas companies.
These “gas boys” must be making some big funding promises for academic institutions among others should the moratorium be lifted.
Got the Northern Institute some press and no doubt on the radar of the gas lobby.
We have other income generating sources like tourism, pastoralism, education, health and mining, not to mention the medium to long term savings from investing in renewables and local production of food.
Methane is not the answer to the most disruptive trend that is climate change.
We will need plenty of clean and trustworthy water sources to manage the impact of a warmer world locally. Fracking for gas screws us both ways.


Milk and honey or fracking battle field?
@ Harold: You obviously haven’t read the articles that I posted for your benefit in response to another post – the Compendium of Concerned Scientists report on the reported risks of fracking http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ and the Urgent Case for a ban on fracking http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/urgent-case-ban-fracking
If you had indeed read the science and objectively sourced documentation related to the process of fracking – you wouldn’t be spouting your belief that the process is safe.
You would instead concur with the body of evidence and increasing scientific knowledge that suggest that fracking is not worth the risk.
To do otherwise is ideologically driven, in support of the fossil fuel companies, and most definitely not based in fact.


Be Sociable, Share!