Northern Water Project: Whyalla Desalination Plant – A Critical Look at the Development

South Australia’s Northern Water project advances with the selection of Mallaquana Station, south of Whyalla, as the preferred location for its proposed desalination plant. This decision, plucked from a “multi-criteria” analysis that included Cape Hardy, sparks several questions. Two consortia, WaterConnector and Watermark, are in the running. The government expects final investment decision sometime in 2026-27, with a hefty $5 billion allocated. But is this really the best path forward?

This project, with its proposed plant on the Spencer Gulf connected to a 600km pipeline, aims to bolster BHP’s copper mining at Olympic Dam. A $200 million pre-feasibility study precedes a final go/no-go decision next year.
>

The Premier calls the location “potentially” monumental for Whyalla, suggesting the steelworks could benefit. Whyalla’s mayor, while welcoming, understandably urges caution, emphasizing that this isn’t a done deal. It needs a sound, sustainable, and feasible business case. The state government throws out a promising figure of 4,000 jobs per year during construction, with billions in regional investment.

Here’s where things become murky. Initially, the Infrastructure SA report favored Cape Hardy, even citing “superior benefits” regarding construction risks for marine intake and outfall pipes. What changed? The government says Mallaquana won out due to “complex geotechnical works” and environmental considerations. The shorter distance to Olympic Dam seems to be a significant factor.

There’s an obvious tension. Cape Hardy was initially the front-runner based on environmental and construction advantages. Now, Mallaquana wins, partly driven by cost savings linked to proximity to Olympic Dam. This shift raises concerns: are environmental factors truly being prioritized, or are economic pressures—specifically, supporting BHP—swaying the decision? We’ve seen projects railroaded by resource extraction objectives before; this one smells similar.
>

The timeline is also something to note. Completion has already been pushed back to 2032. Taxpayers initially foot the bill, then BHP and other customers cover it later. The government assures no losses for taxpayers due to delays. Yet, delays often lead to cost overruns. How confident can we be in that promise? I’ve witnessed similar “guarantees” dissolve under project pressures.

Environmental concerns understandably dog this project. Mullaquana’s proximity to giant cuttlefish breeding grounds raises red flags. Point Lowly, another site considered, was rejected due to potential harm to these cuttlefish. A 2009 report warned of brine damage to the marine ecosystem in the Spencer Gulf due to poor dispersion.

The energy minister waves these concerns aside, citing the 40km distance between Point Lowly and Mallaquana. I appreciate the minister downplaying the impact. But is that enough? There will always be naysayers, he says. True. But valid concerns warrant investigation. The mayor acknowledges this, anticipating environmental impact reports.

It is essential to consider if the gulf is going to be affected, or the fisheries will fail. The challenge is, how do you balance the urgent need for water resources for mining and industry with the long-term preservation of a fragile marine ecosystem? The cuttlefish are just one indicator.

Several challenges emerge when you analyze the decision-making:

Transparency: The initial preference for Cape Hardy, based on environmental benefits, shifted to Mallaquana for cost reasons. The government needs to clearly articulate the “multi-criteria” analysis that led to this change. A more detailed explanation of the trade-offs between cost, environment, and construction risk is required to ensure public confidence. Environmental Impact Assessment: A thorough, independent environmental impact assessment of the Mallaquana site is crucial. This assessment must consider the potential effects of brine discharge, construction activity, and pipeline development on the giant cuttlefish breeding grounds and other marine life. It needs to consider long-term impacts of the project, beyond the cuttlefish. Stakeholder Engagement: Meaningful engagement with local communities, environmental groups, and fisheries stakeholders is paramount. Addressing concerns about potential environmental harm and ensuring that mitigation measures are in place will be crucial for gaining public acceptance. Long-Term Sustainability: The project needs to demonstrate its long-term sustainability, both financially and environmentally. The financial agreements with BHP and other customers must be transparent and ensure that taxpayers are protected from cost overruns. Environmental monitoring and mitigation measures must be in place to minimize the plant’s impact on the Spencer Gulf.

The Northern Water project holds promise for Whyalla and South Australia’s mining sector. Yet, skepticism is warranted. The shifting justifications, the environmental sensitivities, and the ever-lengthening timeline demand careful scrutiny. We need more than promises; we need concrete evidence that this project benefits everyone, not just BHP’s bottom line. This project needs water infrastructure solutions, sustainable desalination, and regional development, but not at the cost of the environment. Only time will reveal if this plays out as intended, or if it turns into another case of short-sighted gains and long-term regret.

Read Original

Keywords: Whyalla desalination plant, Northern Water Project, South Australia water, BHP Olympic Dam, Spencer Gulf environment, Mallaquana Station, Cape Hardy desalination, giant cuttlefish