The idea was breathtakingly simple.
Use big explosions to blow up a big chunk of ocean floor to create a big harbour in WA’s north-west from which to export iron ore.
It was also breath-taking in that it proposed using a nuclear explosion.
The idea had emerged from the Plowshare Program, established by the United States Atomic Energy Commission as a research and development program to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives.
The US Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information says Plowshare began in 1958 and continued through 1975.
Between December 1961 and May 1973, the US conducted 27 Plowshare nuclear explosive tests, mostly in Nevada, comprising 35 individual detonations.
According to OSTI, the idea of a nuclear explosion to create a harbour in WA was first discussed with US officials in 1962.
In 1963 the Plowshare program was outlined to Federal Cabinet.
A Federal Cabinet minute from 1964 says the US made an official offer to Australia that year to use an underground atomic blast to deepen the port of Geraldton.
The minute says Cabinet decided not to take any initiative in the matter and to await an approach from the WA government.
WA newspaper reports at the time show the WA government canvassed the idea overseas.
A report in the Daily News on April 1, 1964, said radiation was seen as an obstacle to the nuclear proposal but it was felt this could be closely controlled and minimised and the main barrier would be the international nuclear test ban treaty.
Another report said initial calculations had shown the harbour could be deepened with about 50 small controlled thermonuclear explosions detonated deep in 60cm-diameter drill holes over the 3km of the channel, with conventional explosives used closer inshore.
By 1969 the nuclear-blasted port concept was being considered by the US as a way of gathering information which could be used for a nuclear blast to build a new canal to supplement the Panama Canal.
A report in The West Australian on January 1, 1969, said a United States congressman, Craig Hosmer, a member of the congressional joint committee on atomic energy, had recommended the US government advance funds for planning the use of nuclear explosives for the construction of a harbour at Cape Keraudren, 130km north-east of Port Hedland.
The port would be for Sentinel Mining’s operations at the Nimmingarra iron ore fields.
Congressman Hosmer said officials connected to the Plowshare program had recommended the project.
In a letter to US president Lyndon Johnson, congressman Hosmer said the harbour blast would provide experience for the bigger task of constructing a new canal to supplement the Panama Canal.
Plowshare should allocate $267,000 for research and development work, leaving the incoming administration of president-elect Richard Nixon the final decision on providing further funding.
On January 2 The Australian reported WA premier David Brand said the proposal had the backing of the State government provided Federal government approval was given.
“They consider it safe and I believe they have resolved the fall-out difficulties,” Mr Brand said. “There are very few places in the world that are so isolated and need a harbour.
“As far as this government is concerned this is a golden opportunity to allow them to experiment to our benefit,” he said.
The proposal involved five 200-kiloton nuclear charges spaced about 450m apart at a depth of about 250m.
It would have produced a harbour about 1800m long, up to about 480m wide, between 60m and 120m deep with protective lips of up to 90m high.
The lip would have been breached at the seaward end to allow ships to enter the harbour, and flattened at the land end to allow easy access to the port area.
The Daily News reported on January 23 that “because of the nature of the device and the method of placing it under water, radioactivity would be minimal and definitely not a hazard”.
The Federal minister for national development, David Fairbairn, said if all aspects of the project, including meeting Australia’s international obligations were satisfactory, “the nuclear blast might take place in about 12 months”.
“This would be followed by conventional construction work to complete the harbour,” he said.
Mr Fairbairn said the proposal was being treated as urgent because the company’s program required port facilities by the end of 1970.
“Also the spread of population is reducing the number of sites at which construction by nuclear blast can be carried out,” he said.
“This site has the advantages of being remote from population and from buildings likely to be affected by seismic shock.”
A conventional alternative to nuclear blasting would be to dredge a channel then build a wharf and approach jetty about 2300m long — a two year project which would double the cost, the paper reported.
The West Australian editorialised on January 27 that the Commonwealth government had shown enterprise in moving quickly to back the proposal.
“The big blast would put WA at the centre of world-wide interest in the US Plowshare program,” the paper said.
“Success would mean not only the completion of a big step towards establishing another giant iron-ore enterprise in the Pilbara but it would also mark the beginning of peaceful application of nuclear technology to transform nature for man’s benefit in many parts of the world.
“If further studies show the project to be feasible and safe, Canberra will not be unduly worried about its obligations under the treaty banning nuclear testing in the atmosphere” because the explosions would be underground.
“Through the non-proliferation treaty, nations are specifically affirming the principle that nuclear technology for peaceful purposes should be available to non-nuclear countries,” the paper said.
On January 30 The West reported that new US president Nixon had authorised the US Atomic Energy Commission to undertake an immediate feasibility study into the Cape Keraudren proposal.
On February 5, The paper reported that Congressman Hosmer had suggested to president Nixon that the US should start discussions on the scheme with the Soviet Union.
He said Soviet scientists were “keen to get on with their own peacetime nuclear development, and they might even be interested in sending observers to study the WA scheme”.
Congressman Hosmer estimated the total cost of the scheme to be between $9 million and $13 million.
But there were some with reservations.
In a March 10 letter to Lower North MLC George Brand — one of the many relevant documents held by the State Records Office of WA — the WA minister for industrial development and the north west, Sir Charles Court, said he was surprised to learn that the Shire of Mount Magnet had expressed opposition to the project.
“The Americans, through the Plowshare organisation, have made tremendous progress in developing a peaceful use for nuclear energy, and I think it is the duty of all of us to encourage them in this objective,” Sir Charles said.
He believed that as the “new engineering tool” was developed, many more uses would be found for it in developing countries — such as big mining projects which would otherwise be impracticable, and underground water storage facilities.
Sir Charles said the State government had made clear that two conditions had to be met: no cost to the State government and that the Federal and State governments had to be satisfied the project was safe.
Another reservation was raised by the Pastoralists and Graziers’ Association of WA, which wrote to Sir Charles on March 11.
The association said one of its members had been told by his insurance company that “all insurance policies include provisos excluding claims for damage due to nuclear explosions”.
The station was in the vicinity of Cape Keraudren and the owner was “very concerned that he may be unprotected in the event of any damage to his property as a result of nuclear explosions”.
In the event the station need not have worried.
By the end of the month the project had been suddenly abandoned.
The West Australian reported on March 31 that a disagreement over sharing the cost of the feasibility study had seen the proposal deferred indefinitely.
Sentinel Mining said the company had understood that Plowshare would meet the costs of the feasibility study and the blast, and the company would be responsible for converting the blast crater into a harbour.
But there was a big share of the feasibility study cost that no one was willing to pay.
Had the world market for ore been more promising, and had the company received more encouraging reports from a plan to upgrade some low-grade ore, it might have been willing to pay a share of the feasibility study costs, Sentinel manager Peter Stork said.
Mr Fairbairn said the US and Australian atomic energy commissions had decided there was insufficient basis to proceed with the feasibility study.
But Sir Charles told the paper the decision not to go ahead at Cape Keraudren did not mean the end of Plowshare studies in WA.
And the paper reported that mining magnate Lang Hancock would do everything he could to bring about a practical nuclear explosion in WA.
A feasibility study was not necessary because testing in the US had proven the method was practical, Mr Hancock said.
In 1995 Sir Charles told The West Australian the State government never seriously considered the atomic option at Geraldton because feasibility studies would have taken up to 10 years and would have held up the town’s expansion and that of the iron ore industry.
“We were a forward-looking government and we never rejected anything without giving it proper thought,” he said.
“We did look at it and we decided that any form of explosion — nuclear or conventional — was not practical on a large scale where there was an established town.”
Sir Charles said thought was also given to using nuclear blasts in other projects including building a dam for Carnarvon and the Port Hedland port.