"This raised the possibility that the EIS submission could be being submitted in component parts enabling the NTEPA to review component parts before the entire EIS is formally submitted. This would be consistant with the ongoing consultation process highlighted in previous announcements."
What would the work load look like at the NT EPA Versus resources they would have had in place to manage the assessment process for Inpex with all it's moving parts? I imagine the Inpex EPA assessment took a lot of resourcing. Should be noted also that TNG's proposed site is located on the road out to Bladin point where Inpex is located. So the NT EPA would be very familiar with environmental sensitivity in this area one would think.
From what I've read & people I know in the NT, the rapid demobilization of the Inpex workforce has taken a toll on the economy up there. If there were major projects with realistic chances of proceeding to an FID & being funded, that were waiting in the wings with the potential to bring economic development to Darwin it would be remiss of the NT government not to do everything possible to assist in accelerating the red tape/bureaucratic processes which they have control over. If you had a large EPA workforce for the Inpex assessment & monitoring which is no longer fully utilized, area & subject matter experts due to their review & assessment of geographical adjacent sites, you'd have to be looking to redirect those resources to other projects if they presented themselves rather than adding to the economic malaise.
There are many reasons progressive submission & simultaneous review makes sense & not just from the point of view of the company making the submission but also from the government department charged with the review process.
