The Environment Centre says the government has a responsibility to the public and future generations to independently investigate alternatives to the diversion of the McArthur River for mining.

ECNT Coordinator Peter Robertson said the company has been very cagey in its discussions of alternatives to river diversion, presenting only very limited information to back up its claims that there is no alternative to diversion of the river if the mine is to continue to operate. #

“Given the seriousness of the impacts and risks of the diversion proposal, as clearly documented in the latest EPA assessment report, the government cannot and must not take at face value company claims that there are no viable alternatives.

“If the diversion and open pit mine go ahead as proposed, the public is likely to end up with a massive long term financial liability – again as documented in the latest EPA report (e.g. p.18).

“Therefore, before any further decisions are made on the approvals process, a thorough, detailed and public investigation should be undertaken by the government, involving relevant experts .

“It would be grossly irresponsible for the government to approve the diversion without having first satisfied itself to the highest level that there are no alternatives .

“The money and time that this investigation would cost pales into insignificance beside the potential long term costs to the government and public if the mine proceeds as currently proposed .

“Even if some alternatives would result in less ore being accessible, and hence the life of the mine is shortened, that may be the best ‘balanced’ outcome for the whole community, rather than just focusing on what the company thinks is financially most attractive .”