Ann: TVN Tivan Announces Return to Middle Arm, page-46

In saying that, the smartest approach would be to hold preliminary talks with the EPA (and any other relevant stakeholders) around what water usage WOULD be permitted?
There is no sense investing more time and money on proposals only to have them submitting proposals and have them rejected against unknown measurables.
What we bring to the table is jobs and local investment.

The key is to discuss these requirements first. Then deliver a proposal in accordance with those requirements for further review/discussion. A local engineering firm such as GHD would be best placed to do it.

If the water availability is restrictive, what engineering solutions are available?
EG:
- Can salt water be utilized for any elements that need water?
- Can the wastewater be recycled and re-used repeatedly?
- Could any steps needing water still be completed on site at Mt Peake (every bit helps to reduce the water usages from Darwin);
- Is the project still economical if we simply scaled back production targets XX% (therefore reducing water usage by XX%..);
- Could we produce XX% onshore in Darwin and ship the rest overseas for refinement offshore?

The final proposal may ultimately be combinations of the above.
There will be several elements to the EIS such as water requirements that need this sort of brainstorming and review.