Come on cinders; let’s have the latest info on this Gippsland project since I’m blissfully unaware of its current operations. I could do with an update right away on their water recycling plant too.

My point earlier was you don’t have a working model. As far as I know that Australian Paper pulp mill update is not yet running to new standards, and at no time was it a likely pilot for the Gunns proposal, since there is no comparison in size with the Tasmanian situation.

BTW in Vic AP also makes paper on site, tons of it. This fact clearly supports the Federal Government’s decision for maintaining existing jobs in the complex with improved technology.

Note AP had a big advantage back in 2005, they had valuable experience working all round them at the time of their applications.

I see in cinder’s AP link above, a doc referring to that plant’s capacity to accommodate TCF. Flexibility in operation is such a desirable design criteria considering obsolescence in other parts of the P & P industry.

IMO Gunns jumped the gun on a number of other issues like maximizing the wood supply under the RFA before the dust settled on climate change. That can be seen as the most selfish act of all. Feeding global consumption from here on will get up everyone’s nose in the long run.

Another little challenge for the TCA; how many female jobs do you expect to create, in construction, operation, transport, IT and science? A viable workforce needs to be harmonious. 30 years on, I still have an interest in this side of Tassie community relationships, equal opportunities all through please

The Tasmanian parliament and its consultants have addressed health and safety issues raised, and officials charged with protecting our health and our environment has done their job writing a comprehensive permit.

The Commonwealth has only three issues, impact on threatened species, migratory species and Commonwealth Marine Areas. The major issue is effluent. The factors report summarises the Departmental findings:

Effluent

The proposed mill would use elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technology.

According to the proponent, the [treated] effluent would be approximately 64 000 tonnes/day and would comprise a solution of a large number of salts and compounds.

If the mill is approved, the maximum level of dioxins in the effluent from the plant must be no higher than 3.4 picogrammes per litre of effluent (3.4 pg TEQ/L). This is less than a third of the level allowed under the limit imposed by the Tasmanian pulp mill effluent guidelines. These guidelines represent world's best practice for an ECF pulp mill.

In the absence of a reliable model, field data from a new ECF mill in a “green fields” site might have allowed direct comparison of effluent and sediment levels over time. No such data from a “green fields” site are yet available. However, overseas experience demonstrates that conversion from elemental chlorine to ECF pulp mills, as is the proposed Bell Bay mill, with non-measurable dioxin effluents has resulted in dramatically reduced levels of dioxins and furans in sediment and biota, rather than producing environmental or health problems caused by dioxins.

As a result, regulators have endorsed the ECF process and PCDD/PCDF effluent guidelines. The RPDC limit of 10pg/L for 2,3,7,8-TCCD and 30pg/L for 2,3,7,8- TCDF (equivalent to 13pg/L) is equal to or improves upon the levels set by the US EPA, Environment Canada, and the European Commission amongst others. It also meets the UNEP Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) guidelines.

Given the current state of technology, there would be very limited scope for additional in-process recycling in the Bell Bay pulp mill and that land-based disposal of effluent is possible, but varying in practicability and cost.

Rod up the road - I'm quite intrigued by your (Wilky) comments about links between Mr Smith, Cousins, Brown and dead sea eagles, please tell us more.

I am happy to elaborate on this as it is a huge scandal.

Rather than parade on a clean high moral pedestal that he purports to do, Brown is as sleazy as the rest of them. Dick Smith's daughter wants to build a huge eco-tourism facility at a coastal site on the Tasman Peninsular. Dick knew that the Green's would oppose it. So he struck a deal with Brown. He offered to fund the purchase of Recherche Bay on a no interest loan and in return Brown would direct the Green's to keep silent on his daughter's plans. The Greens did keep quiet on this but they couldn't control some of the local greens who put a lot of pressure on the local council to reject the proposal. Dick was spitting chips but blamed the Council.

Where does Geoff Cousins fit into this. It just so happens, Geoff owns a large slab of land near this coastal site and wants to subdivide it and make a killing on selling the lots. Again, he didn't want the usual opposition from the Greens that oppose everything. So Dick advised him to also strike a deal with Brown. The nausea in the media by Cousins against the pulp mill is proof the deal he struck with Brown. Again the greens have been noticeably silent on Cousin's plans for this pristine bit of coastal land. The link with the sea-eagles from Wilky is the fact that these two properties are habitat for the eagles. The shriller people are about an issue, the more suspicious you should be about their motiviations. If it was Gunns or the Walker Corp who were developing thse sites, you can bet Brown and his minions would have raised a stink about it and opposed it on whatever grounds they chose to best meet their objective.

The Greens and Brown are hypocrites and not worthy of any serious consideration in debates about development.

Taz

In regards to your comment in which you recon that no one in Australia has the required experience in ECF pulp mill technology, are you then saying that all anti pulp mill critics that claim they are expects are all frauds?

Now that would be interesting

TJ: I have claimed, there are very few independent experts on pulp mill technology working in this country.

Taz

Boy that is some what of a concession from you, that there just maybe a few pulp mill experts in Australia, (and you wouldn’t want to dismiss your own “knowledge”) A good concession though on your part as if we was to follow your original line guess Australia wouldn’t be allowed to have a IT industry as bet any thing, at one stage we have few experts in the field.

It’s good that you now recognise that the Bell Bay pulp mill developer may just have sort world leading international ECF pulp mill experts to help design their project.

With you I think is called sharing of skills, just like Tasmanian hydro power experts being sort to assist internationally with hydro power development.

Also bet any thing, that the CSIRO is not scared of travelling to other countries to study all types of pulp mills and they have long established exchange programs in place.

Just think in a few years Tassie could become one of the world leader in ECF technology.