Antinuclear

………..All three mines refuse to publicly report which companies and countries they export to. The only information publicly available on uranium exports is from ASNO, which used to report country export data.

Do we need the money from uranium? How does uranium compare to our other exports? According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) export data, in the decade from 2000/01 to 2009/10, uranium exports averaged $596 million/year. Lamb, cheese, cotton, barley, sugar, wool, wine, other crops, wheat, and beef-veal, each averaged $664, $806, $955, $1,170, $1,286, $1,825, $2,309, $3,463, $3,665, and $4,002 million/year, respectively…..

We know the financial benefits: what are the costs?

The full size of the mineral resource at Olympic Dam is more than nine billion tonnes. Given the approvals just awarded to the current expansion (expect another even bigger expansion proposal within a few years), this means billions of tonnes of radioactive waste from the extraction process could now lie in the South Australian arid rangelands forever.

The tailings (residue) at Olympic Dam are supposed to be covered by soil and rock. No upfront assessment of the safety of this approach has taken place. The tailings will only be assessed for their long-term risk to the environment and people “from closure to in the order of 10,000 years”.

The Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory is required by the Federal Government to place all tailings into former pits to ensure “the tailings are physically isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years” and that “any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in any detrimental environmental impacts for at least 10,000 years”. This is a clear case of world’s best practice.

For BHP Billiton to be allowed to leave billions of tonnes of radioactive tailings above ground and subject to wind and water erosion in perpetuity, merely on the basis of some future “assessment” is, without doubt, world’s worst practice. The quantitative technical proof that such a scheme was safe should have been presented during the environmental assessment and not left to a future “assessment”.

The evidence is abundantly clear: at Radium Hill in South Australia, less than ten years after covers were placed over its tailings, those covers were eroding and exposing tailings to wind dispersion.

In the Witwatersrand goldfield in South Africa, billions of tonnes of radioactive gold tailings blow dust freely across communities or leak polluted water into the environment (issues Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHPB, should be very familiar with).

These impacts should be considered alongside the mine’s other effects: the huge desalination plant near Whyalla, increased Great Artesian Basin extraction, the huge pit, the new mountain range (made from the waste rock dumps), massive energy and chemicals consumption and so on.

It is clear that the ledger for Olympic Dam is far from a well-balanced, carefully assessed sum demonstrating a sound case of national benefit. Unfortunately, it appears to be quite the opposite.

Australia has a unique position in the global debate about energy – whether it’s from coal or uranium. It remains extremely disappointing that successive governments continue to promote false solutions such as more uranium (and coal) exports rather than focus on renewable and sustainable energy solutions (such as baseload solar thermal).

Focusing on renewable energy would earn Australia not only export dollars but credibility and respect. After all, with great power (or mineral resources) comes great responsibility.

heconversation.edu.au/expanding-olympic-dam-with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility-3796