Ann: Mount Peake Project Delivery Update, page-30

Pleased to see the alternative site assessment has been prioritised by TNG and is expected to be completed by the end of the month.

Its a very sensible priority. TNG can't be expected to spend money and waste time on the other EIS requirements for the Darwin site prior to Darwin being confirmed as the most suitable site. I suspect TNG has put this to the NTEPA and the NTEPA have agreed to make an early decision about whether there are more suitable alternative sites.

The NT Govt (who offered the site in the first place and want the investment $$$s and jobs) will also want the NTEPA to put the issue to rest and confirm that Darwin is the most suitable site, subject to the results of the full EIS.

Logically, TNG are still aiming to have the refinery in Darwin - the announcement mentions that TNG previously considered alternative sites, including the mine site, when it made the decision to put the plant in Darwin.
What would have changed and what other sites can tick as many boxes? (Including proximity to underutilized heavy rail, deep under utilised port closest to world wide customers, gas pipeline, electricity, water, a ready-made resident workforce, no aboriginal land use agreement to (re)negotiate, qualifies for NAIF funding, etc.) The mine site, for example, would have water and workforce issues, as well as reopen the aboriginal land use agreement.

TNG management would love to have the Darwin site confirmed prior to the Annual General Meeting, due around November.