The Olympic Dam area is not rain forest inhabited by rare species and depended upon by indigenous people. I cautiously suggest if it wasn't for minerals very few people would want to go there. I believe BHP has used some mining revenues to create a bilby sanctuary which might not have existed otherwise. That uranium will prevent hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal being burned in the northern hemisphere.

That aside the amount of diesel that will be used is a valid criticism. Despite a notional requirement to use a lot of renewable energy in reality the coastal desalination plant will draw heavily on the mostly fossil fuel fired grid. Same goes for the increased amount of crushing and processing machinery at the mine if a new gas fired power station has to be built. I suggest South Australia should host Australia's first commercial nuclear power station on the nearest coastline. It would not only perform desalination using waste heat but also power electric machinery rather than diesel at the mine.

I was wondering over the weekend whether to open a thread on "How big does it need to be?"

This article has saved me the trouble, as I can pose the same question here.

If a project will benefit the economy to the tune of $1m a year, and cause the destruction of all know flora and fauna in Australia, it is unlikely to get the go-ahead.

On the other hand, if we have the option to start a project that would immediately yield $100bn a year in revenue, but destroy the habitat of the common domestic pigeon over a quarter-acre area, it is unlikely to be stopped.

My question is, where is the crossover point?

Should it be all projects worth less than $100m in value that threaten at least two rare species be automatically refused? A billion dollars, but three rare species?

Or every project with a minimum $100 million return to the economy that mildly inconveniences burrowing bilbies be automatically approved? How about half a billion, and no more bilbies?

More importantly, who should decide?

Or shall we just muddle along, taking every decision separately, eventually emerging with a compromise that satisfies neither side?

Shadow Minister and I have sparred over nuclear in other threads. One of the sticking points is how much nuclear fuel we have in the ground - it is decades or millennia. Shadow points to CANDU and Fast Breeders in support of his argument. He says these can burn all sort of nuclear fuel, which is correct. My issues with this are CANDU is a dammed expensive reactor, and Fast Breeders don't exist. Shadow counters that that nuclear technology well understood and mature, so the required technology will exist real soon now - or at least before we need it.

Well, here is another data point for you Shadow. When that technology exists in acceptable form, Olympic Dam will not be needed. We have lots and lots of spent nuclear fuel lying around, costing money just to keep safe. That spent fuel is unusable using current technology, it is a wonderful fuel for the Fast Breeders.

Here I see BHP is making a $5 Billion bet you will be wrong, Shadow, at least for the next few decades.

Pericles: "More importantly, who should decide?"

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious: historically we have all been involved in the decision, via the ballot box. Every major political party has a fairly clearly defined policy on things like this. Their positions appear to be based partly on ideology, and partly on polling to ensure ideology doesn't make them unelectable.

Pericles: "Or shall we just muddle along, taking every decision separately, eventually emerging with a compromise that satisfies neither side?"

If the alternative is to appointing some all knowing all wise someone to make the decisions for me without the risk or retribution, I'll take muddling along any day thanks.

The question we need to ask re posts like this is, is there anything about capitalism and technology that Sandra and her ilk like? Houses, cars, healthcare, roads, food, heating, etc.

The problem is that when one co-opts the term sustainability, then you can apply it to almost every field of endevour and write silly articles like this one. The story here should have been about the tailings but they got short shift.

Please go to a map and see where Roxby Downs is. It's in the desert. Aboriginals? Diversity?

It's far better to concentrate on something you know a lot about rather than spraying madly.

As a local to the area, I welcome the expantion and would be happy to see a nuke power station running the desal plant. That way it can power my home at night when my solar cells don't work and will give me water in stead of pumping it from the Murray 300 km's away. The farms down the end of the river would love the extra water.

Newtonian Physics suggests, "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." Humans cannot continue to dig gargantuan holes in the ground and think that nothing will come of it. If we have learnt nothing from our past except to think carefully about our future then let it be so.

Rstuart,
I am currently trying to get Shadow minister to think a little broader on the issue.
I am yet to be convinced that Mass Nuclear Power Generation is a viable stand alone business investment certainly in Australia. There would need to be too much commercial mining of the public purse to make it so....e.g. Cost of remediation of both the the site and inevitable whoops' and indefinite storage of the waste.
The human effect will apply regardless of the technology. As its the impact of corporate imperatives.
I guess I would amplify Pericles' point by noting that a true cost benefit analysis which focuses on Australia and not just a limited economic (corporate) justification has never been done.

Cheryl
As for the argument against biodiversity please don't advertise your ignorance. Of course there is an extensive bio- diversity there just because you can't identify it or understand it's place doesn't mean what is there isn't important.
Nor does that mean I would stop development .

Remember the damage the 186 humble bunnies started or what cane toads are doing.
I suggest you get past the ultra green phobia and look at reality and consider all aspects.

Wind erosion/desertification etc. come to mind. Expose the sub-strata to that environment and what will be the consequences? ….wind blown contaminants, increased dust storms there are a myriad wider spread problem come to mind.
In the 80s chemical signatures of our Mallee top soil was found on wind blown dust from NZ coastal trawlers.

Australia is paying the price now and into the future for originally ignoring factors as irrelevant.

As for the whale sized red herring that this article implies a denial of technology or if adopted would signal an imminent reduction in life quality of life is as improbable as the existence of a whale sized herring red or otherwise.

What would be the impact on all this on the already perverted climate is anyone's guess and will remain so unless we heed history and consider very carefully. In accordance with the above Australia's real long term interests.

What amuses me is that the socialist who want big business via Governments to pay for everything then complain when Governments have no choice but to expand mining to recoup their socialist spending. I wonder how much it cost Mr Rudd, Ms Wong and the dozens of hangers on to go to Bali to fix 'climate change' problem. One day the tree huggers will realise it costs money to fund their extravagant lifestyles and even their sit in protests. Imagine how many Government funded Green groups would be out of business if it was not for mining. Al Gore and Richard Branson's private jet trips in their crusades to 'save the planet' would have to be curtailed. Now that might really affect climate change.

EVERY land use has an environmental impact. Townships, farms, forestry, airports, roads, ports, power stations, etc etc.

We need is to educate the population about these issues. All land is zoned, one way or another. All land has some environmental utility. Some is more beautiful (NSW coast), some is more rare/unique.

EVERY development application should require the proponent to undertake a cost benefit analysis. He/she should detail the environmental impact (area disrupted, how intensely, for how long, nature of disruption etc) and also detail the benefit to the nation (infrastructure, taxes, royalties, jobs).

This process could be administered simply by using standard forms, and a random audit process to check.

Projects which have minor environmental impact, and which deliver massive benefits to the nation should go ahead unimpeded. Projects which destroy high utility land for little gain should not

Having read extensively on commentary about the Olympic Dam expansion Environmental Impact Statement, I was interested and pleased to find Sandra Kanck's very informative summary. She covered so many aspects of the plan, giving factual detail, and appropriate criticism of the shortcomings of the EIS.
I was less happy to read the comments.
I've been away from OnLine opinion for some time. I did think that it was 'liberal' in style - but in the best sense of 'liberal'.
What's happened? Out of 9 comments - only one was supportive of the author. OK - this medium's open for comments and critics.

But the critics! No attempt to answer the facts and logic of the article. just rather mindless Liberal (and Labor) comments: e.g. BHPB's bilby sanctuary. (for goodness' sake - BHPB is everywhere - arts, opera, anything that enhances their reputation as The Big Australian, even though they're only partially Australian-owned)And then the suggestions that we add to the great uranium hole by getting nuclear power plants, too.
It looks to me as if the 'left' has given up on Online opinion, and so has the intelligent 'right' (if such a species exists).
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

One of the truisms about forums like these, ChristinaMac, is that an article is more likely to attract comments from dissenters, than from the cheersquad.

>>Out of 9 comments - only one was supportive of the author.<<

I can only suggest that your opinion - that it was a "very informative summary" was not shared by too many people. I personally found it rich in polemic, but short on balance. Hence my own question along the lines of 'how big is too big'.

If the objective is to oppose development of any kind, for any reason, whatever its size and scope, then it would be reasonable to state as much. We could then argue whether the lifestyles such policies would lead us towards, are acceptable.

But this is halfway-houseism.

Yes, the Olympic Dam project is big. Yes, the environment will suffer. But to complain that a "...tree that is decades or even centuries old will not be easily replaced" seems just a little out of proportion.

As the polar opposite of a piece that claims "all mining is beautiful", the article does a reasonable job. Quite possibly, the lack of explicit OLO support for the piece indicates a level of discomfort with such unleavaned extremism.