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.