I challenge the statement “Australia needs to encourage and (sustain) mining exploration to reap the benefits of increased commodity prices.”

Once again the word sustain is being bastardized. Look it up. The plundering of “finite” mineral resources, as we Selfish Big Brained Mammals (SBBM) are doing, can never be “sustained”.

Finite and now almost certainly, diminishing global “energy” resources – primarily “oil”, will probably prevent the total exhaustion of many of our finite mineral resources in Oz but not before we have wreaked havoc on ourselves and other SBBMs by bringing on global warming as a result of this relentless quest for unsustainable economic growth powered by green house gas producing energy consumption.

One doesn’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand the limits to growth.

Oo roo,

Bucko

Who is really reaping the benefits, Rio Tinto {Queen Elisebeth 11}, Australia for a miserly amount of taxes imposed on mining companies, the ordinary family sees nothing of benefits.

Whilst not disagreeing with the general sentiment of this article,
if incorrect original data is quoted in pursuit of making a valid case then it is somewhat going to change the context of any relevant discussion. I particularly refer to the authors' assertion there are only 22 ASX listed companies with mineral projects at an advanced stage of development because this is simply not true.

As of today (April 11th), there are 136 companies who's principal office location is in Australia who have minerals projects at pre-feasibility or feasibility study status. This means they are doing the numbers for a proposed development or new mine.

The problem for mineral exploration in Australia lies in companies not having access to exploration capital over a continuous period and a dearth of good or even average discoveries. In past years, exploration capital was extremely hard to obtain for the innovative smaller explorers because those in the financial arena do not seem to recognise these companies exist until they have a market cap of around $50 million or so. It is not rocket science to work out what happens to any industry if research capital is not available - people move into other industries and facilities are moved to regions where they will be put to work.

A flow-through share scheme has worked in Canada and should be considered here - if only because mineral exploration spend is in decline and the minerals exploration industry is slowly bleeding to death. Quite ironic when one considers that mining is in the midst of a global boom and not a very good reflection on the people who are supposed to be in charge of creating the conditions to enable the mineral exploration sector to flourish - the politicians.

Shonga asks "Who is really reaping the benefits, Rio Tinto {Queen Elisebeth 11}, Australia for a miserly amount of taxes imposed on mining companies, the ordinary family sees nothing of benefits." All Australians reap the benefits. In Queensland alone, the biggest single tax raised in the State is mining royalities (estimated to be $1,400,000 in 2005-2005 financial year). Royalities are paid on production, whether a company makes a profit or not, and the Federal company tax rate applies to profits. And the employees and contractors, subcontractors and suppliers pay tax. The mining industry input into the public purse is substantial. The authors of this artilce are right though, one can't take that for granted as its takes a decade to get a new discovery into production. It may be more fruitful for Shonga to think about whether Governments use the money from the industry properly or not.

An interesting combination of authors; a member of the Australian Labor Party and a member of the Liberals.

It doesn’t surprise me one iota that two people from these backgrounds can find overwhelming common ground when it comes to industrial and economic growth, and would believe that the current rate of exploitation of finite resources is not fast enough!

Oh if only we had an effective Democrats or Greens party to stand up against the continuous growth and short-sighted exploitation paradigm. But alas, both of them have totally lost their way.

“While Australian producers have been a major beneficiary of record commodity prices and fast-tracked expansion of brown (coal) field sites, we are still failing to realise the full potential of our minerals’ industry relative to other major mineral producers, such as Canada.”

Crikey, we are benefiting from high commodity prices and have boosted coal production accordingly…. but it is still not enough! One has to wonder what would be enough for the authors. It seems like nothing short of the most rapid rate of exploitation possible (‘full potential’).

How about we all start thinking of sustainability and of stabilising our exploitation of all sorts of resources, instead of this future-destroying constant ‘increase everything’ mentality.

Mineral wealth has done no favours for Australia.

The country has developed a severe case of Dutch Disease, an economic phenomenon described by the International Monetary Fund as "too much wealth managed unwisely", http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/03/ebra.htm

It draws its name from the damaged caused to the Dutch economy by exploitation of natural gas discovered there in the 1960s, http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1795921

Wealth from export of extractables has allowed Australian commerce and government to coast, inhibited innovation and entrepreneurship, dampened emphasis on the importance of education, hurt manufacturing industry and allowed Australians to forget that the context of Australia's christening as a lucky country was:

"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck."

"Australia," Donald Horne observed, "showed less enterprise than almost any other prosperous industrial society".
We could do with fewer minerals and more enterprise, http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/luckycountry/

In the long run the country could be better off if the government made mineral exploration illegal instead of encouragiing it. If that had happened a few decades ago, people like Seibert and Collins might have chosen to study something productive like science or engineering, rather than law.