The NTEPA needs to be more specific rather than alarm the community and investors. The so called waste I expect is largely gypsum that is retained from the water extraction process. For gods sake its a sulfate mineral which is used in fertilizer and building products. It shouldn't be regarded as a big deal but the incompetence of NTEPA in their response implicitly infers the waste is assumed to be bad!
Ann: Further Update on NT EPA Direction on Darwin EIS Supplement, page-147
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 10 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
