As I have alluded to in earlier posts, it is the process, the way in which Gunns and the Tasmanian government have by seriously questionable means kept this pulp mill proposal alive that is of most concern to Tasmanians. As polls have shown. There are very serious questions of ethics in governance that have been glossed over in the quest by the Lennon government to get this project up.
For a little more context on some of the pivotal players in Gunns Pulp mill saga like Former Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray and David McQuestin - both Gunns board members, John Gay -CEO of Gunns and Premier Paul Lennon, these publicly available documents may bring some perspective. The transcript of the 1991 Carter royal commission int the Rouse bribery scandal is also a very instructive document if readers can access it.
http://www.bluetier.org/articles1/flanagan.htm
http://www.themonthly.com.au/pastIssues/index.html#
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1807148.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1775346.htm (Brian Green is the state minister who "negotiated" the 20year wood supply deal that Gunns now has in place to supply is pulp mill. Incredibly, as of today neither the state nor federal assessments has looked at the impacts of this pulp mill on the resource -Tasmanias forests.

When cinders say “The mill makes pulp suitable for fine writing paper, other pulp mills around Australia make essential pulp based products such as tissues, packaging, cartons, hygienic products and newspapers. This mill is looking at a high value added market” I must ask where else in the world such a fine eucalyptus fiber mill as proposed by Gunns already exists. Without a suitable pilot plant or well established mill for digesting our hardwood all calculations are just estimates, not science.

To my knowledge Gunns have never made either pulp or paper in Tasmania except perhaps in a test tube and everything we hear from the TCA now becomes mere waffle when it eventually comes to the practice.

The sad thing is some people at AMCOR are probably smiling as we debate the issue. That’s about mill shakedown time, not the delay as everybody waits for the federal environment minister to admit he’s also lost in the plot

Rockin' thread, thanks Samps for lowdown on Timber Communities Australia funding by industry (86% of $840k in 02-03!), thanks Zane, Battery, Alex of Tas for bringing real information to bear and thanks all for keeping it fairly civilised. Any bets on where to from here? What i'd really like to see is more investigation of Gunns corrupt dealings with Tas government (via a standing official corruption commission), HoWARd might even find a way to make that in his interests but could the Tasmanian Libs?

Just to add a bit more to pot I heard another myth on the TV news last night about the impact on Penguins of the pulp mill being raised at the 6th International Penguin Conference.

Dr Eric J Woehler of Birds Tasmania and a conference organizer told Southern Cross news on 5 Sep 07 that the pulp mill might contaminate the water in such a way that there is no food left for the penguins in the water, but the "fact that it wasn’t even addressed in the impact assessment for the mill"

So again did a bit of searching, went to the the the pulp mills impact Statement ( Bell Bay Pulp Mill Project, Impact Assessment under the EPBC Act) available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2007/3385/documents.html

And was amazed to find that it states:
A dioxin assessment was also undertaken on the Little Penguin (listed marine species) and the White-bellied sea eagle (listed threatened species). The Little Penguin was selected because it feeds on fish and squid that eat invertebrates which are in contact with sediment, and sea eagles are at the top of the food chain and theoretically have the potential to accumulate higher body burdens of dioxins than other birds. The assessment found that adverse impact are not anticipated.

So then did a double check just to confirm and bugger me found Figure 13 of the Toxikos Response on submissions citing dioxin calculation concerns that shows that effluent impact will be insignificant (available from the DEW web site.) This graph shows dioxin levels are dramatically below the US EPA toxicity reference value for the protection of aquatic animals. In law I think they say "case rests".

More Myths that can be busted. Since 2002 there have been seven mills that have commenced operation, mainly using ECF bleaching and most using Eucalypt. Way back in 2003/04 the international search for World standards examined all the research and all the trends, the reports of these search and the standards that result from them is on the RPDC Web site. Expert consultant Beca Amec even did a further study in 2006.
Here a list of new mills together with output, feedstock, date commissioned and bleaching process:

Santa Fé, Chile 800 000 Eucalyptus 2006 ECF
Arauco, Itata, Chile (2 lines) 900 000 Eucalyptus/Pine 2006 ECF
Veracel, Brazil 900 000 Eucalyptus 2005 ECF
Hainan, China 1000 000 Mixed hardwood 2004 ECF
Valdivia, Chile 700 000 Eucalyptus/Pine 2004 ECF
Stendahl, Germany 550 000 Pine 2004 ECF/TCF
Aracruz C 700 000 Eucalyptus 2002 ECF
VCP, Jacarei, Brazil 700 000 Eucalyptus 2002 ECF

Claims on emissions to water of Chloro organic compounds in Swedish mills can just as easily be checked and “busted’ from http://miljodatabas.skogsindustrierna.org/si/main/xreport/xreport.aspx?id=30 and detailed graphical information available at web site of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation and extensively covered in the Beca Amec reports.

I notice cinders conveniently left out information the most recent government to government disputes in South America over proposed pulp mill impacts and emission standards. Cinders again fails to detail proposed effluent holding and treatment systems proposed for the Tamar mill site.

Let’s be practical and see what everybody else does apart from promotion. For some good pics of the typical technology Tasmania is buying off the shelf

http://www.pulpandpaper-technology.com/projects/pulpmills_gallery.html

Handling spills, storage and recovery are a big part of the sludge biz. Also we are yet to hear about the differences between pulp types, say globulus versus other natives round the place let alone the rapid shifts in the market place for this that and the other.

http://www.pita.co.uk/journal/2006/July06JournalPart.pdf?PHPSESSID=9c4dd566bb958b6bc0aedae2d83509ea

Nothing much changes over decades except the rush. We the consumers can each do something about that.