House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Answers to Questions Lake Argyle LAKE ARGYLE Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Waite Leader of the Opposition LAKE ARGYLE 138 Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (30 September 2008). Has the government investigated whether it is possible for Lake Argyle overflow to be pumped to the head of the Darling to flush the Murray-Darling Basin using coal seam methane as the energy source for the pumps? The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD House of Assembly Chaffey Minister for the River Murray Minister for Water Security LAKE ARGYLE The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security): I am advised that over the years a number of large scale schemes have been suggested to tap into major water resources across Australia to pipe water to South Australia. These schemes generally require large pipelines, multiple pumping stations and power supplies in remote areas. A number of options were investigated at a concept level as part of the development of the Water Proofing Adelaide strategy, including Lake Argyle in the Ord River Scheme. The capital cost for a 150 gigalitres per year supply scheme was assessed at approximately $10.65 billion, ongoing costs of about $390 million per year, and a cost of supply of about $9.30 per kilolitre. In addition to cost, energy requirements, potential greenhouse gas impacts and water quality management for source and receiving waters were also identified as significant issues. The assessment largely confirmed results from past investigations indicating that pumping water over very long distances is extremely expensive and not economically viable. The investigations were conceptual and did not specifically consider detailed pipeline routing or use of coal seam methane as an energy source. Given the high indicative costs, it would not be a justifiable use of State Government resources to initiate a detailed assessment.