The Olympic Dam area is not rain forest inhabited by rare species and depended upon by indigenous people. I cautiously suggest if it wasn't for minerals very few people would want to go there. I believe BHP has used some mining revenues to create a bilby sanctuary which might not have existed otherwise. That uranium will prevent hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal being burned in the northern hemisphere.

That aside the amount of diesel that will be used is a valid criticism. Despite a notional requirement to use a lot of renewable energy in reality the coastal desalination plant will draw heavily on the mostly fossil fuel fired grid. Same goes for the increased amount of crushing and processing machinery at the mine if a new gas fired power station has to be built. I suggest South Australia should host Australia's first commercial nuclear power station on the nearest coastline. It would not only perform desalination using waste heat but also power electric machinery rather than diesel at the mine.

I was wondering over the weekend whether to open a thread on "How big does it need to be?"

This article has saved me the trouble, as I can pose the same question here.

If a project will benefit the economy to the tune of $1m a year, and cause the destruction of all know flora and fauna in Australia, it is unlikely to get the go-ahead.

On the other hand, if we have the option to start a project that would immediately yield $100bn a year in revenue, but destroy the habitat of the common domestic pigeon over a quarter-acre area, it is unlikely to be stopped.

My question is, where is the crossover point?

Should it be all projects worth less than $100m in value that threaten at least two rare species be automatically refused? A billion dollars, but three rare species?

Or every project with a minimum $100 million return to the economy that mildly inconveniences burrowing bilbies be automatically approved? How about half a billion, and no more bilbies?

More importantly, who should decide?

Or shall we just muddle along, taking every decision separately, eventually emerging with a compromise that satisfies neither side?

Shadow Minister and I have sparred over nuclear in other threads. One of the sticking points is how much nuclear fuel we have in the ground - it is decades or millennia. Shadow points to CANDU and Fast Breeders in support of his argument. He says these can burn all sort of nuclear fuel, which is correct. My issues with this are CANDU is a dammed expensive reactor, and Fast Breeders don't exist. Shadow counters that that nuclear technology well understood and mature, so the required technology will exist real soon now - or at least before we need it.

Well, here is another data point for you Shadow. When that technology exists in acceptable form, Olympic Dam will not be needed. We have lots and lots of spent nuclear fuel lying around, costing money just to keep safe. That spent fuel is unusable using current technology, it is a wonderful fuel for the Fast Breeders.

Here I see BHP is making a $5 Billion bet you will be wrong, Shadow, at least for the next few decades.

Pericles: "More importantly, who should decide?"

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious: historically we have all been involved in the decision, via the ballot box. Every major political party has a fairly clearly defined policy on things like this. Their positions appear to be based partly on ideology, and partly on polling to ensure ideology doesn't make them unelectable.

Pericles: "Or shall we just muddle along, taking every decision separately, eventually emerging with a compromise that satisfies neither side?"

If the alternative is to appointing some all knowing all wise someone to make the decisions for me without the risk or retribution, I'll take muddling along any day thanks.

The question we need to ask re posts like this is, is there anything about capitalism and technology that Sandra and her ilk like? Houses, cars, healthcare, roads, food, heating, etc.

The problem is that when one co-opts the term sustainability, then you can apply it to almost every field of endevour and write silly articles like this one. The story here should have been about the tailings but they got short shift.

Please go to a map and see where Roxby Downs is. It's in the desert. Aboriginals? Diversity?

It's far better to concentrate on something you know a lot about rather than spraying madly.

As a local to the area, I welcome the expantion and would be happy to see a nuke power station running the desal plant. That way it can power my home at night when my solar cells don't work and will give me water in stead of pumping it from the Murray 300 km's away. The farms down the end of the river would love the extra water.

Newtonian Physics suggests, "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." Humans cannot continue to dig gargantuan holes in the ground and think that nothing will come of it. If we have learnt nothing from our past except to think carefully about our future then let it be so.