About

The proposal is deliberately not attached to a name at this stage. Ideas at this scale should be evaluated on their merits before they become attached to a proponent. Anonymity at concept stage forces the work itself to carry the argument.

Three things change that:

1. The Country page is validated by direct engagement with at least one relevant Land Council or Native Title Representative Body.
2. A first-node case is sized with real inputs — site assumptions, sponsor identity, real anchor offtake terms, site-specific capex.
3. The precedent comparison is reviewed by an analyst or developer with relevant infrastructure experience.

When all three are in place, the proponent engages by name. Until then the work stands on its own.

The three conditions above are assessed publicly each quarter; results appear in the changelog. This site is written and answered by one person, and that has been true since launch.

Every number here is one of three things: an external fact, cited to a named and dated source with the date it was last checked; a TASC estimate, labelled as such with its assumptions published; or a judgment, labelled as such with the condition that would prove it wrong. Primary sources are cited over summaries of them. Where a source cuts both ways, the half that hurts this proposal is quoted first. Errors are corrected publicly in the changelog.

Make a large infrastructure idea visible, structured, and testable so that people with relevant expertise can challenge it before it leaves concept stage. Specifically:

• Test whether the system logic holds together
• Test whether the numbers survive scrutiny — energy, compute, capital, government, Traditional Owner
• Identify the ten or twenty things that would have to change before the concept could be taken to anyone seriously

The site is open to engagement, organised by relevance:

• Traditional Owner representative bodies, Land Councils, Aboriginal Corporations and NTRBs along the corridor — with priority
• Energy system planners — AEMO/AEMO WA staff or alumni, ISP authors, DNSP planners
• Project finance and infrastructure investors who have funded comparable systems
• Hyperscaler and AI operator corporate development on latency-tolerant compute siting
• Critical minerals processing operators and policy advisors
• GIS, water and engineering practitioners willing to challenge the assumptions
• Federal, state and territory officials with energy, infrastructure or industrial portfolios
• Pastoral leaseholders and regional community representatives along the route

The contact form is at Contact. The proponent responds to substantive engagement.

• A short note stating what perspective you bring and what you would change is more useful than a long endorsement
• Direct GIS, engineering or financial input is welcome and will be acknowledged
• Traditional Owner engagement is requested directly through Land Councils and NTRBs once the proponent is named — not through the website form