Background information for submissions about proposed Kintyre uranium mine, W.A..
SUBMISSIONS ARE DUE 14th FEBRUARY 2014 Send to:
Paul Vogel
Chairperson
Environmental Protection Authority
Locked Bag 33, Cloisters Square, Perth, WA, 6850
Ph (08) 6467 5419
Some basic points to think about for submissions: Mia Pepper 4 Feb 14
The proposed Kintyre uranium mine threatens WA biggest national park, Karlamilyi, just as the Ranger uranium mine is currently damaging the Kakadu National Park with three accidents in the past month alone. At a time when the uranium price is barely half the pre-Fukushima level, and more and more countries are turning their backs on nuclear power, a uranium mine that puts one of WA’s treasures at risk is economically unsound, environmentally risky and socially unacceptable.
Here is some background on the project
- · 4,400 tonnes uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8 produced per year)
- · Open cut mining (selective and bulk mining)– 1km wide, 1.5km long, 220m deep. Situated just 500m to the west of the south branch of Yantikuji Creek
- · Plan to leave the open pit as a permanent feature – turn into a lake
- · Overburden to ore ratio 37:1
- · Project area 1981 ha – land clearing 790 ha total (including roads)
- · 3.1 million litres of water a day
- · 7 million tonnes of tailings – two above ground tailing cells 35 ha – approx 1.5km from Yantikuji Creek South Branch and 2.2km Yantikuji Creek West Branch
- · 6 million tonnes of mineralised waste rock
- · 119 million tonnes of waste rock
- · Waste rock landform – 200ha 45m high
- · Ore transport – Kintyre – Port Headland – Newman – Meekatharra – Mount Magnet – Sandstone – Leinster – Leonora – Kalgoorlie – Norseman – Ceduna – Port Agusta – Port Adelaide * 4,600km – up to 5 road trains per week but on average 100 per year.
Nuclear Free Campaigner
Our last government led by Julia Gillard was publicly against nuclear power for Australia, now Tony Abbott is in favour of it.
Who says one Government wouldn’t authorize nuclear power for another one to pull the plug just like Angela Merkel?
Considering Australia’s lack of action on this front since 1969, it’s time to look elsewhere and quickly at that.
We should not start using nuclear power in Australia by James Jesson, Collision Australia , 30 Jan 14 Debate surrounding the implementation of nuclear power is a well- trodden path in Australia. In 1969, a nuclear facility was proposed for Jervis Bay territory. Now there are no operating nuclear power sites in Australia and the concept shouldn’t be considered as the way forward for our energy needs.
The argument against nuclear power hasn’t changed since the debate started and it boils down to two key elements -danger and waste. History has shown us that humanity cannot run nuclear power plants with 100% efficiency.
The same could be said for existing fossil fuel power sources but the magnitude of a nuclear mistake has the potential to be far more catastrophic. Continue reading
USA insurance companies now to exclude all Radiation claims
Insurance Companies begin EXCLUDING all Coverage for Radiation Claims http://www.dailypaul.com/311554/insurance-companies-begin-excluding-all-coverage-for-radiation-claims by goldenequity on Sun, 02/02/2014 – Daily Paul Liberty Forum — Insurance Companies in the United States have begun notifying customers they will no longer have ANY coverage whatsoever for anything relating to nuclear energy claims. Fallout, radiation sickness, property damage from radiation – all EXCLUDED. Here
Tony Abbott’s double standards as he supports fossil fuel subsidies
Why does Australian PM Tony Abbott support fossil fuel subsidies? Guardian, Alex White 4 Feb 14 Why does Tony Abbott support $10 billion per year in fossil fuel subsidies but oppose an aid package for food manufacturer SPC-Ardmona?……. the prime minister seems very happy to continue to give taxpayer’s money to fossil fuel companies to the tune of $10 billion per year in subsidies.the prime minister seems very happy to continue to give taxpayer’s money to fossil fuel companies to the tune of $10 billion per year in subsidies.
The fossil fuel subsidy decision is particularly inconsistent with his stance on industry support for SPC-Ardmona and the car industry. This is a prime minister who in December declared an end to corporate welfare.
But he said “we don’t want to see corporate welfare … we don’t believe in corporate welfare”.
“This government will be very loth to consider requests for subsidies, we will be very loth to do for businesses in trouble the sorts of things they should be doing for themselves,” he warned.
Fossil fuels subsidies are the most pernicious and distorting of subsidies. The biggest in Australia is the fuel tax credit scheme, which is worth $2 billion per year to mining companies, the equivalent of each taxpayer in Australia handing over $182 to the mining companies.
The national president of the Mining Union, Tony Maher called out this squandering of public funds in an article for The Drum:……
Despite global warming posing an imminent threat to Australia, and its predominate cause being the burning of fossil fuels, the Australian government is using your tax dollars to literally pay these fossil fuel companies to pollute.
As I’ve noted in the past, Tony Abbott and his government seem intent on turning Australia into a reckless “charco-state” (the coal equivalent of a petro-state).
These fossil fuel subsidies don’t just pay companies to pollute our air, water and atmosphere. They also distort our markets by making fossil fuels, like diesel and gas, artificially cheap. Special tax treatment for big oil, gas and coal projects allows fossil fuel companies to rapidly depreciate their assets, like drilling rigs. This means they get away with paying taxes that other companies are forced to……. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/feb/02/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tony-abbott-spc-ardmona-corporate-welfare
Griffith bye election: only the Greens care about climate change
Senator Milne said major parties were ignoring the preliminary warning signs of climate change and the implications that had for rural and tourism jobs.
“You cannot deal with droughts in Australia without acknowledging global warming”
The Griffith byelection is being held on February 8
Greens use Griffith to push for climate change action , SMH, 4 Feb 14 Tony Moore brisbanetimes.com.au senior reporter In 2007, climate change was deemed the most important issue of a generation. The bigger issue of climate change subsequently got lost in a complex argument, over two elections, about the merits of a carbon tax.
Seven years on, as Australia faces up to record summer temperatures and more intense cyclones, it has again been bought into focus by the Greens.
On Monday in Brisbane, Greens leader Senator Christine Milne chided the major parties for decisions which she said appeared to ignore the impact of climate change. She was in the city to support the Greens campaign to win the seat of Griffith, left vacant by Kevin Rudd’s retirement……. Continue reading
Maine, USA: 87% of residents support wind energy
Wind energy has tremendous pricing benefits for Maine ratepayers – individuals and business owners. A study from ISO-New England found that for every megawatt of new wind that is added to the system, New England wholesale rates may be reduced by $354,000 each year.
Maine Voices: Wind is state’s best bet for renewable energy Portland Press Herald, Lawmakers should reject proposals that would make wind power harder to produce. By Jeremy Payne , 3 Feb 14 “….A recent poll showed that support for wind energy is shared by an overwhelming 87 percent of Mainers, who said that it is the kind of clean, emission-free renewable energy that our state should be prioritizing.
Despite constant efforts by a vocal few to mislead Mainers about wind energy, people from every part of our state, and all across the political spectrum, strongly support wind energy. I often hear from supporters of wind energy who are pleased with how wind projects are keeping our air and water clean, and boosting our local communities….. Continue reading
91% of Kansas residents support wind energy
New poll data shows Kansas supports renewable energy law, Windpower February 3, 2014 Paul Dvorak The Wind Coalition and the Climate and Energy Project released new poll data showing that Kansans overwhelmingly support the development of renewable energy resources in Kansas and the state’s 2009 renewable energy law.
The poll, conducted by North Star Opinion Research, shows that Kansans support increasing renewable energy development and that the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard enacted in 2009 enjoys near unanimous support statewide.
“Kansas has been a significant beneficiary of renewable energy investment with nearly $8 billion of dollars in new investment and more than 12,000 new jobs in a decade. This poll underscores the sentiment developers see in the field – Kansans want to develop renewable energy and more of it,” said Jeff Clark, Executive Director of The Wind Coalition.
The poll found that 91% of Kansas voters are strongly supportive of using renewable energy. The poll indicates that renewable energy is just as popular as it was in 2009 when Kansas first pursued renewable energy legislation. Last year, efforts to roll back the state’s renewable energy law failed in the legislature….“It is rare for anything to be popular across partisan lines,” said Dan Judy, Vice President, North Star Opinion Research. “Yet, our polling shows a consistent, high level of support for renewable energy among all Kansans.” ……http://www.windpowerengineering.com/policy/environmental/new-poll-data-shows-kansas-supports-renewable-energy-law/
50 Reasons We Should Fear the Worst from Fukushima
50 Reasons We Should Fear the Worst from Fukushima EcoWatch, 4Harvey Wasserman | February 2, 2014 Speculation on the ultimate impact ranges from the utterly harmless to the intensely apocalyptic .
But the basic reality is simple: for seven decades, government Bomb factories and privately-owned reactors have spewed massive quantities of unmonitored radiation into the biosphere.
The impacts of these emissions on human and ecological health are unknown primarily because the nuclear industry has resolutely refused to study them. Indeed, the official presumption has always been that showing proof of damage from nuclear Bomb tests and commercial reactors falls to the victims, not the perpetrators.
And that in any case, the industry will be held virtually harmless.
This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the Bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.
Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves………http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 