Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Uranium: Greens are asking some critical questions about BHP’s Roxby Downs Indenture Bill

Greens put forward 100 amendments to gridlock mine’s $525 million, by:Sarah Martin, The Advertiser,   November 09, 2011  Greens MLC Mark Parnell said his minority party was “not going to be cut short and stopped from asking the questions that need to be asked”, …. BHP says the revised Indenture Act needs to pass Parliament before the end of the year to trigger spending on preparatory work for the mine…. the Bill’s passage could be delayed until Parliament resumes in February next year…..

 

  • WHAT THE GREENS WANT TO KNOW

    1. ROYALITIES

    Why did the Government lock in a royalty regime for 45 years, and why is it based exclusively on old-style production-based royalties, rather than one that captures a fair share of mining profits?

    2. ECONOMIC RETURN

    How good an economic deal did SA receive when BHP CEO Marius Kloppers is claiming to his shareholders that the Olympic Dam Expansion will be low cost and highly profitable?

    3. PROCESSING IN SA RATHER THAN CHINA

    How many South Australian jobs will be lost by not requiring BHP to process our ore here in South Australia rather than exporting it to China?

    4. EXEMPTION FROM SA LAWS

    Why is BHP exempt from over 20 South Australian laws that every other mining company in SA has to comply with?

    5. NO URANIUM OPTION

    Why wasnt a No Uranium Roxby Expansion considered when we know it is not only technically feasible, it would also mean less water and energy use and more jobs as the processing would be done here in SA, rather than in China?

    6. GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN

    Why isn’t there a plan to wean BHP off using 42ML/day of ancient water from the Great Artesian Basin, when they plan double that volume in excess capacity (80ML/day) from their desalination plant?

    7. DESALINATION PLANT & CUTTLEFISH RISK

    Why is the Government prepared to risk the breeding grounds of the Giant Australian Cuttlefish by not requiring the company to build in a different location?

    8. RADIOACTIVE LEAKAGE FROM TAILINGS DAM

    How can the Government claim that they have met their public commitment for the expansion to meet worlds best environmental practice when only 4 per cent of the tailings dams will be lined and the dams are designed to leak up to 8 million litres of toxic radioactive waste liquid/day?

    9. RESPONSIBILITY POST MINE CLOSURE

    Who will ultimately be responsible to manage the open pit, tailings dams and rock waste pile for the 10,000 years after the operations cease that the radioactive risk remains: the company or SA taxpayers, and how much will that management cost?

    10. GREENHOUSE POLLUTION & RENEWABLE ENERGY

    Why isn’t the company committing to any investment in cleaner energy to meet their whopping 650 MW electricity demand beyond the 57MW commitment for powering the desal plant (less than 10 per cent of total demand) to reduce their enormous increase in the states greenhouse pollution of 12-15 per cent?

 

Advertisements

November 9, 2011 - Posted by | Olympic Dam, politics, South Australia, uranium | ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: