I believe the Olympic Dam expansion will be the economic saviour of South Australia and will help greatly in the global fight against carbon emissions. I visited nearby Andamooka as a child and I didn't have the impression that indigenous people whom I met hunted much in that area, so I don't think that is a genuine issue. However I agree that the desalination plant at Whyalla is in the wrong place. I suggest that it be relocated to the Ceduna area and morevoer it should use the waste heat from a nuclear power station.

I also regard the tailings dams as a minor issue in such a remote area. They didn't announce whether the dust storm over Sydney could be traced back to the dry tailings, probably because it was insignificant. This year South Australia has water in the Adelaide Hills dams and moisture in the wheat crops. That may not be the case next year. While SA leads Australia in wind farm building it is simply not a reliable enough power source particularly in the heat of summer. Cooper Basin gas is in its twilight years and Leigh Ck coal ('flammable dirt') is also finite. The older power station at Pt Augusta that burns that coal needs urgent replacement. What is the alternative low carbon power source?

The Federal government can only prop up SA for so long with green car subsidies and defence contracts. Therefore I think SA should regard the Olympic Dam expansion as a one-off opportunity. That could be extended to low carbon electricity via nuclear power, much cheaper desalination, value adding uranium upgrading short of enrichment and possibly deep burial of nuclear waste. It really amounts to a choice between going forward and economic stagnation.

I'm puzzled.

"the government legislated that some 1.5 million hectares in central SA, including the Roxby Downs uranium mine and surrounding areas, would be exempt from some of our most important environmental and Indigenous rights legislation."

How does that make the Olympic Dam expansion "above the law"?

Surely, it guarantees that it is actually within the law?

If the writer wants to make a case to repeal or amend the legislation, fair enough.

But to surround it with imputations of illegality where there clearly is none, simply encourages a view that the writer is dealing in emotive hysteria, rather than down-to-earth realities.

Dear Pericles,

note that the phrase 'above the law' does note connote illegality and nowhere in the article do i make this suggestion. Instead, 'above' is used to describe the "down-to-earth reality" that the mine is subject to a different set of law than the rest of the state. Quite clearly the legislation is legal, that is the premise of the article.

Dear Taswegian,

Thank you for your comments. While I do not support the mine or the expansion the article is not making this point. Whether we support the mine/expansion or not, the existence of the indenture act is unjustifiable. If the mine is going to exist, it should be subject to the same law as the rest of the state. Many people who support the mine have issue with this legislation and want the environment, indigenous heritage to have the least possible damage.

Peter Burdon

The Roxby Downs uranium mine is not only exempt from important environmental and Indigenous rights legislation. Roxby remains the largest annual emitter of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Australia. Add to that 2,500,000 kilograms of Particulate Matter, 1,600,000 NOx, 1,100,000 SO2 and VOCs 92,000.

If we add Roxby’s emissions of CO2, CO, lead, nickel, copper, chromium, sulfuric acid etc, then one is justified in claiming that the dirty diggers are creating a real toxic brew in its pretence of providing the planet with “clean” energy.

In addition, there is a paucity of literature on the environmental ramifications of the massive use of water and energy in Roxby's operations and on the emissions of fluorine and chlorine-related chemical compounds used by the nuclear industry in its conversion of U ore into nuclear fuel.

This is but one demonstration of governments’ ongoing blindness to climate change reality and the systemic causes of global warming.

The renaissance of uranium mining in Western Australia may bring home to the myopic, the role they've played towards a more radioactive planet with major uranium players in WA adding to the current hazardous and burgeoning U operations in Australia.

WA U tenements which come to mind include the massive BHP/B’s Yeelirrie project. Add to Yeelirrie, projects such as Kintyre, Mulga Rock, Lake Way, Lake Maitland, Manyingee and Oobagooma.

Nor should we lightly dismiss the U tenements of other miners who have eargerly hitched a ride on Australia's gravy train:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:ZkRrgB9FPDEJ:www.mbendi.com/a_sndmsg/org_srch.asp%3Fgloc%3DW1%26INDY%3DSURNM+western+australia+uranium+companies+name%3F&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Welcome onboard the Titanic folks - A prosperous way down!

A distinction that, I feel, might escape the proverbial man on a galloping horse, Mr Burdon.

>>note that the phrase 'above the law' does note connote illegality and nowhere in the article do i make this suggestion.<<

I can sense the hairs being split.

>>Instead, 'above' is used to describe the "down-to-earth reality" that the mine is subject to a different set of law than the rest of the state.<<

I suppose you will now tell me that the concept of a "set of law" is somehow different from the "rule of law"?

If I understand you correctly, you are establishing as a principle, that a law that exempts something specific cannot be considered a law at all, since it must by definition belong to a "different set of law".

>>Quite clearly the legislation is legal, that is the premise of the article.<<

OK, But what then is the fate of...

>>broader concerns relating to democracy and the rule of law<<

Are you suggesting that there should be no laws passed that provide exemptions? That it is somehow undemocratic to do so?

Or are you prepared to agree to some exceptions but not others?

Pericles

Are you suggesting that there should be one law for BHP Billiton and another for the rest of the state when the Olympic Dam operation is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in South Australia?

South Australia’s EDO advises that the predicted greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed expansion will be nearly 5 million tonnes per year. Electricity usage at the mine will increase from 120 megawatts to 690 megawatts. The substantial increase in the State’s greenhouse gas emissions makes a mockery out of the SA Government’s policies and laws relevant to reducing the States greenhouse gas emissions, in particular the State Strategic Plan and the Climate Change Act.

BHP Billiton helps itself to water from the Great Artesian Basin and free of charge too, despite posting a seventh consecutive record profit of $17.6 billion for 2008.

Fortunately for the people of Australia, these revelations are a timely warning for those uncertain about nuclear energy. South Australia’s “sustainable” growth means that a single uranium miner (with a disgraceful safety and environmental record) has veto in the case of any inconsistency between the provisions of any Act or law and the Indenture where the provisions of the Indenture shall prevail over:

(i) the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986; and
(ii) the Crown Lands Act 1929; and
(iii) the Development Act 1993; and
(iv) the Electricity Corporations Act 1994; and
(v) the Environment Protection Act 1993; and
(vi) the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993; and
(vii) the Mining Act 1971; and
(viii) the Petroleum Act 1940; and
(ix) the Real Property Act 1886; and
(x) the Residential Tenancies Act 1995; and
(xi) the Stamp Duties Act 1923; and
(xii) the Water Resources Act 1990

Why would anyone say “yes” to nuclear power when a rogue government is able to put one of Australia's largest polluters in charge of our fragile environment? Democracy in action? I think not.

Protagoras I agree it is hypocritical that the mining phase of the nuclear industry which claims overall to reduce CO2 emissions will actually burn a lot of fossil fuel. That arises with diesel powered trucks and generators, desalination, explosives and drawing heavily upon the coal and gas fired grid. In fact SA simply doesn't have the required electrical generation. I suggest that much of this energy could come from siting a nuclear reactor on SA's west coast, thereby 'closing the loop' on the nuclear fuel cycle. Heavy mining machinery could run on electricity where possible. Waste heat from a reactor could desalinate water more cheaply than the proposed reverse osmosis method. As a bonus it could enable the pipeline from the River Murray to be switched off.

Expanding Olympic Dam by burning more fossil fuels is not optimal. The Rann government somehow wants to be half pregnant by accepting uranium mining royalties while opposing nuclear power. I suggest Rann should either facilitate the industry by building a nuclear power station or ban it altogether by closing the mine.

Once again Protagoras has weighed in with his abundant emotion, feather weight intellect, and cut and paste research.

Have you any idea that "1,600,000 NOx, 1,100,000 SO2 and VOCs 92,000 is without units and therefore completely meaningless?

A link to the actual source might help sort out your muddled thinking.

The single link you provide does not work, and I suspect you are largely making this up.

The indenture act does not give the miners a free hand, instead it recognizes where some of these other acts are irrelevant and puts a single management system for safety and environmental protection and for non proliferation control.

Before one blabbers mindlessly one should read:

http://www.unitedminingresources.com/index7.html

All things should be taken in perspective. For example the SASOL plant at Secunda consumes over 2000 MW of power, and there are many plants of a similar size. The fact that there is almost no large industry in SA is the main reason why it is the largest emitter of CO2. In Australia it is far from the largest.

The peak capacity to Olympic dam is being increased to 690MW not necessarily the consumption. For example a factory in Sydney has a peak capacity for 70MW but consumes less than 20MW, the additional capacity is for redundancy and expansion.

I don't think so, Protagoras.

>>Pericles Are you suggesting that there should be one law for BHP Billiton and another for the rest of the state<<

I'm simply pointing out that any given law passed by parliament has the same validity as any other law passed by the same parliament.

You can't simply pick and choose between them.

I would suggest that the appropriate time to protest against the legislation you disapprove of is before it is enacted. The reason being, that people and businesses make decisions based on the law that exists at the time, not on what they might think is a better law.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And this is simply nonsense...

>>Why would anyone say “yes” to nuclear power when a rogue government is able to put one of Australia's largest polluters in charge of our fragile environment? Democracy in action? I think not.<<

Who is the "rogue government" in question here?

If it is ours you refer to, you may find that it was democratically elected.

"Democracy in Action" in fact.

Democracy does not mean keeping everyone happy at the same time.

“I suggest Rann should either facilitate the industry by building a nuclear power station or ban it altogether by closing the mine.”

Taswegian – I understand the principle in your statement above, however, we should look to the half-truths and evasions by BHP Billiton.

The issue of SA further succumbing to BHP’s requirements, by supplying them with a nuclear reactor and not renewable energy, would set a precedent for the state of SA. It also has the potential to incite a citizens’ revolt.

The state of WA has now held four referendums on daylight saving – each referendum brought forth a resounding “No” to DLS yet governments have not conducted a citizens' referendum on nuclear energy. Why is that? Are they cooling their heels because of Howard's election meltdown after the Switkowski nuclear/uranium report was published?

It is also common knowledge that BHP Billiton is a climate change denier on an international scale and part of the self-titled “Greenhouse Mafia” which has dominated climate change policy under prime ministers from Bob Hawke to Kevin Rudd (and especially John Howard.)

Hansard from the Federal House of Representatives on 27/08/08 includes excerpts from BHP’s submission to John Howard’s PM task group which states:

“BHP have had a climate change policy since 2002 and further revised it in 2007. Not only are companies such as BHP supporting moves to establish an ETS, they are actually committed to voluntary reductions of their emissions.”

The reality is that BHP’s emissions have increased:

2005 emissions vs. 2008 emissions: Copper up, H/Acid up, lead up, NOx up, PMs up, VOCs up. The very hazardous and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have risen from 7,800 kilograms in 2005 to 49,000 in 2008. These analyses are estimates submitted by BHP and not the nation’s “regulators.”

Olympic Dam is not required to test for dioxins either and despite Australia ratifying the Stockholm Convention on dioxins and Australia's international commitment to reduce or prevent the formation of dioxins, BHP uses untested waste oil for their furnaces – an ideal catalyst for the formation of dioxins and furans.

contd....

contd....

One would not know where to start with the hypocrisy that pervades the entire operation. BHP Billiton boasts of their petty cash donation of $2 million to Reconciliation Australia, yet the company will not relinquish its exemptions from the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

“Australia,” wrote Donald Horne, was a "lucky country run mainly by second-rate people" and second rate people ensure that BHP Billiton, Chevron , Exxon, Alcoa et al continue ( with business as usual) to reap the benefits.

Who is the "rogue government" in question here? If it is ours you refer to, you may find that it was democratically elected.”

Really Pericles and you may find that the very stinky, “democratically elected” Ferdinand Marcos ran on the Liberal Party ticket for a seat in the Philippine House of Representatives and won astonishingly, with 70 percent of the vote.

In less than a year Marcos was worth a million dollars and owned a Cadillac convertible, mostly because of his American tobacco subsidies, a colossal cigarette smuggling operation, and his practice of extorting commissions from Chinese businesses. He was also the Liberal Party's vice-president from 1954-1961.

And isn’t it interesting to note that the awards which dictator, Mugabe received - from a knighthood to honorary degrees, were largely issued by Western governments and their institutions?

Your naïveté is perhaps exceeded only by the naivete of the constituents of Queensland who "democratically elected" rogue, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to serve as Premier of Queensland from 1968 to 1987, despite a seriously corrupt government operating above the law.

Of course I could not conclude without mentioning the "democratically elected" top dog rogue Premier Brian Burke who colluded in major business dealings with large corporations, costing the state some $600 million. Additionally, the royal commission into WA Inc. cost $30 million, including $12.5 million in witness costs. Taxpayers also picked up Burke's own legal fees of $1.71 million.

Naturally those who forget history are bound to see it repeated.

Ah, now I understand, Protagoras.

>>Your naïveté is perhaps exceeded only by the naivete of the constituents of Queensland who "democratically elected" rogue, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen<<

It is democracy, and democratically elected governments, that you have problems with.

Well I hate to break it to you, but that's the system we have here.

We elect politicians. They vote on legislation that we - simply because we are citizens - agree to abide by.

One of the other ideas behind it is that we don't get to pick and choose which laws we abide by and which we ignore.

There are of course alternative systems in operation around the world. Perhaps you'd like to recommend one of those to us.

In the meantime, suck it up. It is, quite specifically, "Democracy in action".

It should be stressed that Olympic Dam is not a uranium mine - it's a large copper mine that produces some gold and uranium on the side.

Therefore, if you want to talk about energy inputs into uranium mining, or water consumption into uranium mining, it's absolutely mendacious to cherry-pick Olympic Dam for such a discussion. Handling all that ore that is primarily mined for its copper content and smelting all that copper is where the majority of Olympic Dam's energy consumption goes. If you want to look at uranium mining, consider a typical uranium mine - Ranger, Honeymoon, Rossing, Cigar Lake, or so forth.

However, despite this, we could be providing Olympic Dam's entire electricity consumption - including providing all its water needs via seawater desalination - using only a tiny fraction of the mine's uranium output, even if this uranium was used really inefficiently in once-through use as low-enriched uranium in old-fashioned light water reactors. In fact, the present uranium output at Olympic Dam is almost enough to single handedly supply all of Australia's electricity - again, assuming only once-through inefficient use in LWRs.

Also - "radioactive waste" tailings? No. It's rock. It comes out of the ground, where all that radioactivity is already naturally present.