Australian uranium mining company arousing concern in Greenland
The prospect of a relatively unknown Australian company exploiting massive untapped resources in Greenland deserves a robust public and political debate. It has thus far received nothing in Australia, and little in Denmark and Greenland. In an age of worsening climate change, mining uranium is an arguably unsafe and potentially explosive answer to the problem.
Australian uranium mining in Greenland is tearing the country in half http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/15/australian-uranium-mining-in-greenland-is-tearing-the-country-in-half After Greenland’s prime minister repealed a law on uranium mining, Australian firms are staking out the country for exploitation. Local political opposition is heating up
Antony Loewenstein This is a story about an Australian company you’ve never heard of, operating in a nation that rarely enters the global media: Greenland. It’s a story about the intense search for energy sources in a world that’smoving away from the dirtiest fossil fuels.
>Aleqa Hammond, the prime minister of Greenland, is the first woman to lead this autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark. She also welcomes the financial opportunities from climate change and a melting Arctic Circle.
“I simply refuse to be the victimised people of climate change”, she toldBusiness Week this month. “This time we have other options than just hunting. We have the right now to our own underground.”
In October last year, Hammond pushed legislation through Greenland’s parliament to overturn a 25 year old ban on the extraction of radioactive materials, including uranium, despite countless leading environmental NGOs urging otherwise. It attracted global interest from the rare earth and uranium industries, including from China. Concerns were also raised about Greenland’s ability to manage a toxic substance in the wake of Fukushima and Chernobyl.
The company Greenland Minerals and Energy Limited (GMEL) is based in Perth, Western Australia. This year GMEL announced a major step forward in their plan to open one of the world’s largest uranium mines in southern Greenland, at Kvanefjeld. The mine will also produce fluoride, thorium and other rare earths.There is still significant opposition to the Kvanefjeld project. The Ecological Council, a Danish NGO, organised a conference to discussthe potential contamination risks in March, noting that the mine poses serious risks for the inhabitants of the nearby village, Narsaq. Many locals told the BBC that they worried about pollution and challenges to traditional ways of life if GMEL moved ahead with its plans. Unsurprisingly, Danish green groups have pushed for a continued ban on uranium mining. They claim that rare earth elements can be extracted without uranium mining in Greenland.
This would have been an important but fairly typical contest over resources, but after issues surrounding the ownership and status of Perth-based GMEL were raised in the Greenlandic parliament, the prospects of the Australian firm may be in jeopardy.Late last year, Greenland MP Sara Olsvig (tipped by some as a future prime minister) wrote to the country’s minister of industry and minerals, Jens-Erik Kirkegaard. She demanded details about any and all of GMEL’s shareholders, after Australian media outlets had raised allegations about both the company back in 2009 (here and here) and mining prospector Mihran Shemesian, also known as “Mick Many Names“.
In 2009, Fairfax media claimed that Shemesian controlled more than 20% of GMEL stock. Range Resources, another company tied to Shemesian, had earlier been accused of paying the disputed government of the Puntland State of Somalia, linked to Somali rebels, more than $US6m ($A9.3m) for resource rights to the region. Since then, there have been very few stories about him.
Kirkegaard responded that the government dismissed any concerns about GMEL – “the alleged events all occurred outside Greenland’s jurisdiction” – and claimed that the company didn’t own an exploration license anyway, so there was nothing to worry about. This isn’t quite the case: Greenland Minerals and Energy A/S (GME), the firm granted the licence, is the wholly-owned Greenlandic subsidiary of GMEL.So is “Mick Many Names” Shemesian involved with GMEL? John Mair, the company’s executive director, told me he isn’t “registered as a shareholder”. But he would not guarantee that Shemesian has no involvement with GMEL.
Mair is proud of the Kvanefjed project, where “risks can be appropriately mitigated”. GMEL was “working with Greenland to help establish a secure and viable economy that will help sustain their increasing political independence,” he told me, adding that he was “optimistic” GMEL would be granted a mining license in the foreseeable future because “we have much local community support in Greenland”.A key shareholder in GMEL is Perth-based geologist Greg Barnes, founder and CEO of Tanbreez. He told me by phone from Singapore that he has personally invested $40m towards mining possibilities in Greenland. He says he has known Shemesian for 30 years and “has heard that he has a 50% share in GMEL and I’ve heard that he has 0%. I have no relationship with him.”
But in December last year he told Grønlandsposten, a Greenlandic newspaper that, “he and Shemesian could probably fire GMEL’s board if they wanted to”. He told me that this referred to the make-up of GMEL many years ago – not today.
“[Greenland] is the size of Western Australia but it has no mines”, he said. “In Western Australia an application for mining would take three months but in Greenland it takes years.” A vast part of Greenland has been “staked out by a number of Perth companies.” Barnes isn’t concerned about climate change “because it didn’t really show up in places like Greenland apart from some ice sheets reducing”.
There is another view. Niels Henrik Hooge is a Danish consultant who works with green NGOs. He’s been at the forefront of the campaign against uranium mining in Greenland. He says to me that the people of Greenland are “split down the middle regarding the repeal of the [uranium] ban.”
Hooge explains that the “mineral authorities” have fed the public disinformation over the last years but the tide may be turning, with growing concerns over environmental effects and the leftist party Inuit Ataqatigiit pledging to roll back the repeal if it wins back power.
The prospect of a relatively unknown Australian company exploiting massive untapped resources in Greenland deserves a robust public and political debate. It has thus far received nothing in Australia, and little in Denmark and Greenland. In an age of worsening climate change, mining uranium is an arguably unsafe and potentially explosive answer to the problem.
Depleted uranium still making money, still wrecking lives
Depleted Environment, Depleted LivesUranium Weapons Still Making Money, Wreaking Havoc http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/15/uranium-weapons-still-making-money-wreaking-havoc/ by JOHN LAFORGE The US Army has awarded General Dynamics a $12 million contract to deconstruct and dispose of 78,000 depleted uranium anti-tank shells. The Pentagon’s May 6 announcement calls for “demilitarization” of the aging shells, as newer depleted uranium rounds are added to the US arsenal.
In the perpetually profitable business of war production, General Dynamics originally produced and sold some of the 120-millimeter anti-tank rounds to the Army. One of the richest weapons builders on earth, General Dynamics has 95,000 employees and sells its wares in 40 countries on six continents.
The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons in Manchester, England, reports the armor-piercing shells to be disassembled are thought to be the large 105-millimeter and 120-millimeter anti-tank rounds. Depleted uranium, or DU, weapons are made of extremely dense uranium-238. More than 700,000 tons of DU has been left as waste in the US alone from the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor fuel rods. The urankum-238 is left when fissionable uranium-235 is separated for H-bombs and reactor fuel. DU is only ‘depleted’ of this U-235. It is still a radioactive and toxic heavy metal. A tax and ecological liability, DU is given away free to weapons builders.
The Pentagon is replacing older DU shells in spite of international appeals for a moratorium on their use. The military is set to buy 2,500 large anti-tank rounds just this year at a cost of $30 million or over $10,000 each from Alliant Tech Systems, formerly of Minneapolis.
In 1991, during its 40-day, 1,000-sorties-per-day bombardment, between 300 and 800 tons of DU was blasted into Iraq by US forces. Another estimated 170 tons were used in the 2003 bombing and annexation. Toxic, radioactive contamination left from the use of these weapons (the DU burns and turns to dusty aerosol on impact) has been linked to the skyrocketing incidence of birth abnormalities in southern Iraq and to the Gulf War Syndrome among tens of thousands of US combat veterans.
After the US/NATO bombardment of Kosovo in 1999, our DU weapons were discovered to be spiked with plutonium and other isotopes. This news created a political uproar in Europe and led to the admission by the US Energy Department that “the entire US stock of depleted uranium was contaminated” with plutonium, americium, neptunium and technetium. United Nations investigators in Kosovo found sites hit with DU to be poisoned with all four isotopes. The Nation magazine reported that about 150,000 tons uranium-238 was dirtied with plutonium-239 and neptunium-237 and that “some apparently found its way to the Persian Gulf and Balkans battlefields.” (Robert Alvarez, “DU at Home,” The Nation, April 9, 2001, p. 24)
European papers shouting “Plutonium!” in headlines saw US and NATO officials rushing to microphones to claim with straight faces that their shells contained “mere traces of plutonium, not enough to cause harm,” and that the highly radioactive materials “were not relevant to soldiers’ health because of their minute quantities.” But plutonium is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238 and ingesting less than 27 micrograms of plutonium-239 a millionth of an ounce — will cause lung cancer.
(One indication of just how poisonous these weapons are is that in 30 years of resisting nuclear weapons and the war system, the only ‘not guilty of trespass’ verdict I ever won from a jury followed a protest at Alliant Tech over its DU program. The jury agreed with four of us that since poison weapons are banned by the Geneva and Hague Conventions our action was an attempt at crime prevention.)
Long-term disposal plans for the uranium from 78,000 shells were not outlined by the Army. Uranium in the shells is often alloyed with titanium or molybdenum, and if these metals are not recycled, they could become part of our vast stockpile of DU, requiring indefinite storage as intermediate-level radioactive waste. Other parts of the munitions are currently disposed of as low-level rad’ waste in spite of the plutonium content.
Uranium stock prices at last come to the reality of the market decline
CHART: Uranium stocks vs spot price – something’s gotta give #auspolhttp://tinyurl.com/n25brbj Frik Els | May 15, 2014
The prospect of a Japanese nuclear reactor restart. The end of the Russia-US megatons to megawatts program last August, eliminating a huge source of supply. China’s accelerated plan to approve six to eight plants a year through 2020; part of its war on pollution. The possibility of a rethink in Germany about phasing out nuclear (coal is the only viable alternative and Putin’s gas is becoming dearer).As the stars aligned for a pickup in global uranium demand so did investors for uranium stocks.
But the rapid run-up in uranium shares – especially developers – didn’t turn out to be a leading indicator.
The spot price continued to slide going below $30 a pound to levels last seen in 2005. That dragged the long term price, where most uranium business is conducted, down to $45, a six year low.
Uranium stocks have now come down to earth as this chart from Haywood Securities shows.
The independent investment dealer with $5 billion under management says now that the spot price appears to have found something of a floor, the sell-off may begin to slow down.
But the Vancouver-based firm cautions that the shares of producers and developers “remain at or above their indexed price point of 12 months ago, when spot uranium was $40.70 U3O8, a 40% premium to current spot”.
There may be more pain ahead
Synroc a radioactive waste storage method rejected in USA, France, but to be used in Australia
Synroc is not a disposal method. Synroc still has to be stored. Even though the waste is held in a solid lattice and prevented from spreading, it is still radioactive and can have a negative effect on its surroundings.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
Australia Synroc plant construction approved by regulator, Nuclear Engineering, 15 May 2014 by Will Dalrymple, Australia’s nuclear regulator has approved siting and construction of its proposed Synroc intermediate-level waste treatment plant at the ANSTO campus in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire.
Synroc is an Australian invention that immobilises radioactive waste in a durable solid rock-like material. In September 2012, ANSTO announced plans for the cutting-edge Synroc plant, which will be co-located with an export-scale nuclear medicine manufacturing facility…….This week’s Australian federal budget also included $22.6 million to develop detailed design options for this national waste facility, which will be located outside of the Shire.
The decision this week by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) came after an expert assessment, including a public consultation process, and enables ANSTO to site and construct the Synroc facility.
Construction of the Synroc plant is scheduled to start in 2015 and be completed by the end of 2017. Further approvals will be required before the plant is made operational. http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsaustralia-synroc-plant-construction-approved-by-regulator-4267988
Melting shells of the sea butterflies – an ominous sign of our damage to the oceans
You Know the Ocean’s in Trouble When Your Shell Starts Melting http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/47393 Things are getting really dicey for a little ocean creature called a pteropod. Better known as the “sea butterfly,” this delicate little sea snail is serving as an unfortunate bellwether of the deteriorating state of our oceans. Why? Conditions in the Antarctic ocean and along the West Coast of the U.S. have become so unnaturally acidic that the shells of sea butterflies are literally dissolving away.
“We did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in our coastal region for several decades,” said Dr. William Peterson, an oceanographer at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, in a NOAA press release.
Damage that’s “several decades” early is a big alarm bell. We’d better pay close attention before it’s too late.
What We’re Doing to Our Oceans
The chemistry of the world’s oceans is changing, thanks to the carbon dioxide humans continue to spew into our atmosphere. Oceans absorb between one quarter to one third of that carbon dioxide. Over time, it has turned the ocean from a slightly alkaline state to a bit more acidic.
According to some estimates, the ocean’s pH level 150 years ago was about 8.2. It’s now about 8.1. It may seem to be an infinitesimal shift, but it’s worse than it sounds. The more acidic the ocean gets, the harder it is for marine life like oysters, clams and corals to form calcium carbonite skeletons and shells.
In the case of pteropods, the increased acidity of the ocean is actually eating away at their shells.
“The first thing that happens is the dissolution of their shell,” NOAA’s Dr. Nina Bednarsek told PBS. “Dissolution can be mild, [to] very severe. Once you have it dissolving on the outside, you have to put so much more energy into the shell in order to maintain it. The energy that you would otherwise use for other important physiological maintenance you are putting in the shell maintenance.”
Researchers working off the coast of Oregon, Washington and California in 2011 discovered that over half of the sea butterflies they found onshore were victims of “severe dissolution damage.” Offshore, about 24 percent were damaged.
If we don’t change our ways, by 2050, researchers estimate that coastal waters will be 70 percent more acidic than they were in the pre-industrial era.
Continue reading at ENN affiliate, Care2.
Petitions for a commission: dump the Muckaty nuclear waste dump plan:
WGAR News: Petition for a commission: dump the Muckaty dump plan: Beyond Nuclear Initiative Indymedia Australia, Newsletter date: 16 May 2014
Contents:
* Beyond Nuclear Initiative: Petition for a commission: dump the Muckaty dump plan
* CommunityRun Petition: Dump the Muckaty Dump: Its time for responsible radioactive waste management
* NuclearFreeNT, YouTube: MUCKATY Television Advertisment
* Beyond Nuclear Initiative: May 25 Rally: No nuclear waste dump at Muckaty
* Background to the proposed Muckaty nuclear waste dump in NT
* The Wire – West Arnhem Regional Council: Our environmental achiever [Featuring Alice Eather]
* Background to the Protect Arnhem Land Campaign, Northern Territory (NT)
* David Novak, 3CR Community Radio: Radioactive Show: “We speak with Kado Muir about the fourth annual Walkatjurra Walkabout”
* Background to the Western Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (WANFA)
* Respect and Listen – Mining: Flow of Voices [Featuring Jacky Green and Dr Seán Kerins]
* Gerry Georgatos, The Stringer: Native Title offer missing sea rights
* Gerry Georgatos, The Stringer: Culbong families take SWALSC to Federal Court on Noongar Title proposal
* Background to Mabo and Native Title
* BEYOND NUCLEAR INITIATIVE: PETITION FOR A COMMISSION: DUMP THE MUCKATY DUMP PLAN
– Petition
Beyond Nuclear Initiative: Petition for a commission: dump the Muckaty dump plan
http://beyondnuclearinitiative.com/2014/05/09/petition_commission/
9 May 14: “Beyond Nuclear Initiative and Environment Centre of the NT have launched a television and social media campaign to raise awareness of the risks that the Muckaty waste dump plan poses to the health of Northern Territory communities, workers, waterways and the environment.
http://www.communityrun.org/p/NoMuckatyNuclearDump
These groups, and many more, are calling on the Federal Government to dump the Muckaty dump plan and instead initiate an expert and independent national commission to determine radioactive waste management options. We are aiming to reach 5000 signatures on the petition so please share the link above, and our video message, widely.”………..http://indymedia.org.au/2014/05/15/wgar-news-petition-for-a-commission-dump-the-muckaty-dump-plan-beyond-nuclear-initiative
Australia signals to the rest of the world, that we will not co-operate on climate change action
Problems like global poverty and climate change can’t be solved by any one nation alone; we all need to chip in. That is why we have complex international agreements to set out who is going to do what, so that the whole world can benefit.
But with this Budget, Hockey has signaled to the rest of the planet that Australia expects to free ride on the efforts of others. He has abandoned the core Australian value of being true blue.
Hockey exposes us as fair weather friends The Drum 15 May 14 By David Ritter With this Budget, Joe Hockey has signaled to the rest of the planet that Australia expects to free ride on the efforts of others. He has abandoned the core Australian value of being true blue, writes David Ritter.
“Hey True Blue, don’t say you’ve gone…”
As Australians, we like to think of ourselves as reliable and dependable. We make good mates and loyal friends. We have an image of ourselves as a people and as a country that will chip in. We do our bit. Australia will be there.
Unfortunately though, the reality of Joe Hockey’s Budget means that the rest of the world has reason to look upon us as a nation of bludgers: as a country that breaks its word and does a runner. Sadly for our reputation, this Budget breaks both those promises. Hockey has trashed our name in the global village.
Aid spending is the biggest single cut in the Budget, with expenditure capped in a way that means Australia’s promised contribution to the Millennium Development Goals – the global mechanism to help out the world’s poor – has been effectively abandoned.
And while the Government is still rhetorically committed to doing our bit to keep global warming to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, the substance of this Budget makes the promise look as empty as the MCG on Good Friday. Continue reading
Australia’s agricultural sector worried that the government has no energy plan to address climate change
Where is the energy plan? http://www.theland.com.au/blogs/a-matter-of-opinion/where-is-the-energy-plan/2698363.aspx By: Louise Preece on 15/05/2014 AS FARMERS responded to the federal government’s budget this week, news also surfaced that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) would be cut.
The institution was originally established to make energy more affordable, while also increasing the amount of renewable energy used in Australia. ARENA’s current contracted R&D projects will be maintained, but the government said its functions will be shifted to the Department of Industry – along with $15 million to fund new projects in 2015-16. It is one of many research institutions to be cut or merged in the budget.
Combined with the fact that the federal government is reviewing the Renewable Energy Target of 20 per cent by 2020, it sounds out a clear message the Coalition is not willing to strongly back renewable energy in Australia.
While the Direct Action Plan is gearing up to pay companies to reduce greenhouse gases, there is now very little incentive for Australia to work collectively in implementing a common-sense approach to energy in Australia.
The Ag Institute of Australia held a forum on energy last week, which explored alternative energy sources and ways to ease electricity prices.
Victorian president Michael Graefe said the group held the forum partly because it wanted to start a debate on this topic, but he also said energy prices were becoming a huge burden on farm businesses. He said the government needed to take a more balanced approach to energy in Australia, with a bigger emphasis on cost-effectively storing energy from sources such as solar.
In particular, he was very excited about the prospects of geothermal power, where energy is sourced from the ground or bodies of water.
But at the moment, the government is sending a message fossil fuels will continue to provide the bulk of electricity for the country, and limited research will be carried out to change this fact.
With the climate changing, it is becoming more apparent that Australia needs to get on the front foot in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, before it is too late. A plan on how renewable energy is expected to fit into Australia’s future would be a good start in addressing this issue, but at the moment this isn’t happening.
Maybe the government should take advice from Germany, where it was revealed this week 75 per cent of the country’s power was now being sourced from renewable sources – and power prices had been reduced as a result.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 