GIBSON CAUGHT OUT ON TRAVESTON CLAIMS

The Liberal National Party’s Environment spokesperson David Gibson has been caught out wrongly claiming the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam is more expensive than a desalination plant, when the water is delivered to Brisbane.

“Once again Mr Gibson has deliberately misled the people of Queensland and his own constituents,” said Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Paul Lucas.

“The truth is that Traveston Crossing Dam is the best and cheapest option when compared to all possible and known desalination sites in South East Queensland, even including the cost of pumping water.”

”When greenhouse emission costs, carbon costs and pumping costs for the two options are compared this Dam stands out as the best option for all the people of South East Queensland.

“Chapter 6, page 18 of the Supplementary EIS - tabled by Mr Gibson in Parliament this week shows the whole of life project costs for Traveston and desalination plants with the costs of energy included.

“This shows the cost of creating a desalination plant to produce the same amount of water delivered to Brisbane would be up to $807 million more expensive than building Traveston dam.

“At a carbon offset price of $30 per tonne, Traveston Crossing Dam is at least $19 million per annum cheaper to operate than any viable desalination option north of Brisbane.”

The document from which Mr Gibson quotes shows that the average emission from Traveston Stage 1 would produce 2.64 tonnes of CO2 per ML per annum compared to 6.5 tonnes of CO2 per ML for desalination.

“The fact is that Traveston Crossing Dam would produce lower CO2 emissions - and cost the tax payer less money - than any desalination option producing the same amount of water,” said Mr Lucas.

“On every measure, by any reasonable and objective comparison, Traveston is the better option.”

Peter Jacob, Managing Director of economic consultants Marsden Jacob has today confirmed that Marsden Jacob included the most up to date and accurate data on pumping costs and other relevant parameters in their modeling.

“The modeling takes full account of the relative energy requirements (and associated economic costs) of delivering water to the Brisbane Water Supply System,” Mr Jacob said.

Media contacts: Matthew Klar – 0437 435223