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?