Wakaya Traditional Aboriginal Owners steadfast against fracked gas pipeline
NT Traditional Owners walk out on fracked gas pipeline deal Lock The Gate Alliance, July 28, 2016 Northern Territory Traditional Owners whose land is being targeted for the proposed new gas pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mt Isa have yesterday afternoon walked out of a joint Central and Northern Land Council meeting, pushing against a planned access route deal for Jemena’s Northern Gas Pipeline, due to concerns about the impacts of fracking gasfields.
A Land Council notice for the meeting asked, ‘are you ready to say yes or no to the pipeline?’ (see here). But the concerns and objections raised by Traditional Owners about the rushed consultation process and the proposed pipeline’s reliance on fracked gas has now meant the decision meeting is postponed until late September……
A final investment decision on the pipeline is due in December 2016 but Wakaya Traditional Owners say they will not back down and allow the project to proceed on their land. Continue reading
Nuclear Weathervane Weatherill wavers on his anti – referendum stance
SA nuclear waste dump referendum vote still possible, Premier Jay Weatherill says http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-28/referendum-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-still-possible/7668412 By political reporter Nick Harmsen The South Australian Government may not be in a position to make a final decision on whether to pursue an international high-level nuclear waste dump this year, Premier Jay Weatherill has said.
The Premier has previously said the Government’s plans to make a decision clear to parliament in November.
But Mr Weatherill today told a budget estimates committee any decision this year was likely to be just the first step. “I’d like to be in a position to make a decision about whether we’re able to pass the first threshold,” he said.
“And there is an important go/no-go threshold that needs to be considered by the parliament.”
The Government has assembled a series of citizens’ juries to help inform its decision.
Mr Weatherill told the committee he would not rule out holding a referendum on the nuclear issue.
But he said a referendum would not provide the level of nuance required. “In particular, some green groups are calling for a referendum,” he said.
“Of course they’re the same green groups that don’t want a referendum on gay marriage. But leaving aside that little internal inconsistency for the moment, I think I [a referendum] tends to close down debate rather than allow it to be developed.”
Philip White reports onNuclear Royal Commission’s presentation to TAFE students
Philip White, 28 July 16 A video consultation session for TAFE staff and students was held on July 28 from 12-1pm. Below is a brief report.
The session started with a 15 minutes Scarce presentation video. I think it was from the press conference for the release of the RC report, but am not sure. One thing that struck me was how Scarce used words like ‘trace’ to imply that the amount of radionuclides after 1,000 years would be negligible.
John Phelan of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) followed up with comments about process.
I was one of only two knowledgeable participants, the other being a nuclear proponent who wanted the dump to go ahead quickly and thought the costs were exaggerated. He thought in a few years we would need nuclear reactors.
A couple of regional TAFE lecturers complained about the lack of notice (meaning they hadn’t read the email sent to all staff and students) and lack of information (meaning they hadn’t been picked up in the RC’s regional propaganda tours). One lecturer confused this with the Commonwealth dump, thinking it would be located near her property in Quorn. John Phelan clarified that this consultation was just about an international dump.
2. Process
I made the following points about process:
(1) These consultations (and also the educational materials they apparently plan to provide to schools) should include presentations both for and against the proposal. Without that the public does not have a basis for thinking critically.
(2) The first Citizens’ Jury was flawed because it was inappropriate for it to be tasked with summarising the RC report.
(3) Referring to the forthcoming second “Citizens Jury”, a 350 person group should not be called a Citizens Jury.
Re (2), Phelan had said in his initial presentation that summarising the RC report was a (the) role of the first Citizens Jury, encouraging people to read this wonderful synopsis.
Members on this email list may recall that I have previously pointed out this flaw of the first citizens jury. I went to the trouble of ringing Iain Walker of NewDemocracy about this. He said the jurors were told to “prioritise” not to “summarise”. I then pointed out that the first sentence of their report says “summarise”. Walker said it was not the organisers’ role to change what the jury wrote, implying that the jury members had misinterpreted their role. But in today’s video conference Phelan was completely clear that they were asked to “summarise”. In my view, asking a Citizens Jury to summarise (or even prioritise) an official document is an abuse of the Citizens Jury method. Citizens Juries are a method of gaining incite into the judgements of informed citizens. They should not be used to help the government (or the Royal Commission) communicate its message.
Re (1), Phelan showed no interest in taking on board my suggestion that all consultations should include presentations from both pro and con perspectives. He responded that they were trying to present facts not opinions, claiming that the RC report was factual. I pointed out that the RC report was not a factual document. It is a selection of facts and perspectives, that there were lots of facts and perspectives that were left out, and that the report reflected the biases in the makeup of the RC.
I suspect that there is some confusion in the government about what it is trying to do with this public consultation process—whether it is trying to stimulate an informed debate, or whether it is just trying to persuade the public to let it build the international nuclear waste dump that it already knows it wants.
It is counter-intuitive for governments and bureaucracies to promote critical thinking among the public, but I suggest we challenge them to give equal time to critics and proponents. When they refuse, then we can call them out. We will have proof that their process was a sham. In the unlikely event that they agree to this demand, we should accept it in the confidence that we can win this argument. Of course, it would be difficult for critics to resource such a project, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
3. Waste dump
I pointed out that cost estimates for nuclear projects are generally gross underestimates and that SA would be left with a huge financial and nuclear burden if the costs end up exceeding the revenues. There would be no way of sending the waste back to the countries of origin.
BHP Billiton’s costs for Brazil mine disaster – $3 billion and rising
BHP Billiton’s Samarco costs top $3 billion, ABC News By business reporter Stephen Letts, 28 July 16, Mining giant BHP Billiton has doubled its provisions for the Samarco mine disaster in Brazil to well in excess of $3 billion.
BHP said it will recognise another provision in the range of $US1.1 to $US1.3 billion ($1.5 to $1.7 billion) on top of $US1.2 billion ($1.6 billion) charge already announced in its half-yearly results in February.
That charge, along with several other asset write-downs, caused BHP to report a record $7.8 billion interim loss.
In a statement to the ASX, BHP said the new provision is approximately equivalent to its 50 per cent share of the current estimate of the Samarco compensation deal struck with Brazilian federal, state and municipal authorities in March.
However, that funding agreement – which was intended to restore and repatriate the community and environment affected by the tailings dam collapse – remains in limbo, having being suspended by Brazil’s Supreme Court last month.
The BHP statement noted the provision reflected the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the nature and timing of a potential restart of the Samarco operations.
The charge will be recognised as an exceptional item in the forthcoming results, together with direct costs of around $US100 million ($133 million)…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-28/bhp-billiton-samarco-costs-top-3-billion-dollars/7668832
Josh Frydenberg talks renewable energy – but no action from this government
Coal fan Frydenberg’s figleaf fluttering in the wind
Environment and Energy minister Josh Frydenberg is claiming to be a convert to the cause of renewables but the grim truth is that this government has no interest in meaningful climate action., Crikey, Bernard Keane Alarmed at the criticism of his appointment as combined energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg has launched a media campaign to overhaul his image as that of the man who recently insisted there was a “strong moral case” for burning more coal and starting economically unviable new coal mines like Adani’s Carmichael project (not to mention his loathing of environmental groups).,… (subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/07/28/frydenberg-on-renewables-and-coal-but-no-real-action/
Renewables not to blame for South Australia’s electricity papers – says Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg
Frydenberg says renewables not to blame for South Australia energy “crisis”, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson on 28 July 2016 Josh Frydenberg, the minister newly elevated to the combined energy and environment portfolio, says that renewable energy was not to blame for the recent energy “crisis” in South Australia, although he did deliver some mixed messages about how the government proposes to move forward.
Frydenberg delivered a series of interviews on Wednesday, the first since he was appointed to the new position in a reshuffle by the re-elected Turnbull government, and this included a “chat” with ABC personality Annabel Crabb at a dinner function at the Clean Energy Summit.
Asked about the recent electricity spikes in South Australia, Frydenberg said it was a “complex picture” that included a reduced capacity on the inter-connector, a cold snap that spiked demand, a big shift in gas prices, and the “intermittency issue about wind and solar.”
But he also noted that in 2008, as RenewEconomy has reported, the price of wholesale electricity in South Australia peaked above $5,000/MWh more than 50 times. That was before wind and solar were in that state, he said, and noted there had only been three such peaks so far this year.
“People have to understand that this volatility is not a new thing. It was back there in 2008 …. so to say that (this price spike) is the fault of renewables is not an accurate assessment,” Frydenberg said, to the applause of the audience of around 400 people.
This, however, was not how The Australian interpreted events, who attributed Frydenberg’s comments about the crises in South Australia and Tasmania as a “wake-up” call about the problems created by wind and solar.
Tasmania, it should be remembered, suffered the highest wholesale prices in Australia last financial year because its electricity supply was restricted by the loss of the Basslink cable and much of its hydro capacity due to drought. Most analysts say it was its lack of investment in wind and solar that forced it to rely heavily on expensive back-up gas and diesel…….
Frydenberg appeared well briefed, non-confrontational, and recognised the growing role of technologies such as wind, solar and battery storage whose costs had fallen quickly and would continue to do so. He also appeared to be listening, people said.
The role of coal, Frydenberg accepted, is declining, and the transition to clean energy is inevitable. But he was reluctant to put any time frames on the inevitable move to zero emissions technology, apart from saying that a shift to 100 per cent renewable energy was not going to happen overnight.
But while his comments were soothing for an industry just regaining its confidence after being battered and bruised by the first term of the Abbott-Turnbull government and the key policy decisions of Frydenberg’s good friend, the previous environment minister Greg Hunt, his next moves will be scrutinised intensely.
There is great concern about a push by the incumbent energy industry, such as the Energy Supply Council to force state governments to abandon their individual state targets, a move that will be strongly resisted by South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT……..http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/frydenberg-says-renewables-not-to-blame-for-south-australia-energy-crisis-75546
Wind and solar are NOT responsible for the doubling of wholesale energy prices in South Australia
South Australia’s ‘absurd’ electricity prices: renewables are not to blame, Guardian
Tristan Edis, 28 July 16
Wind and solar are not responsible for the doubling of wholesale energy prices in SA – that’s just part of the spin that says renewables are expensive. Reading many of the newspapers over the past few weeks you’d think South Australia had become a horrible case study in the dangers of too much renewable energy……
Politicians are now responding, with Liberal Senator Chris Back calling for a ban on new wind farms until after a review by the Productivity Commission. Meanwhile Senator Nick Xenophon’s party are backing a Senate inquiry.
Yet everyone has missed the main cause of a doubling in SA power price rises – a doubling in gas prices.
What makes it all especially worrying is the blame attributed to renewable energy appears to have originated from a public relations campaign initiated by the lobby group for the big power generators………
wholesale market data suggests renewable energy has actually been depressing power prices, not increasing them. In the months before and after the Northern Coal Power Station was taken off-line, South Australia’s wind farms, without exception, bid their entire available output into the market for a price less than a single dollar. Meanwhile rooftop solar doesn’t even bid into the market, with its output just reducing the demand for generators that do bid into the wholesale market.
This is not to suggest renewable energy imposes no costs. It is certainly true that wind and solar require a subsidy, but its cost is distributed equally across all electricity consumption around the nation via the federal RenewableEnergy Target scheme. It isn’t allocated to states depending on how many wind farms or solar panels they have installed.
The idea that renewables are to blame for the doubling in South Australian wholesale prices is an idea the Australian Energy Council, which represents big power companies, have been pushing since late last year. This campaign has sought to paint South Australia as an “accidental experiment” in the dangers of too much renewable energy.
If you scratch the surface they actually acknowledge renewable energy is depressing wholesale power prices. But they claim it pushes prices so low that, rather strangely, it is apparently increasing prices……..
It was only with the addition of wind and solar to the existing mix of coal plus the interconnector that gas could be driven down to less than a third of the electricity market. This acted to substantially shield SA from power price rises, not induce them.
So it is LNG plants, not wind and solar, that are responsible for South Australia’s “absurd” electricity prices. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/south-australias-absurd-electricity-prices-renewables-are-not-to-blame
Large-scale solar the next wave of renewable energy
Jul 27 2016. The federal government has allocated more than $600 million to help large-scale solar projects get off the ground, as utility solar photovoltaic projects become the next wave of renewable energy to be embedded into the national electricity market…...(subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/largescale-solar-the-next-wave-of-renewable-energy-20160727-gqeo4k
Queensland’s Mt Emerald wind farm – construction to start in December
Construction Mt Emerald wind farm expected to start in December The Cairns Post July 28, 2016 CONSTRUCTION on the Tablelands’ Mt Emerald wind farm is expected to start in December, following the selection of preferred contractors for the $360 million project.
Developer Ratch Australia has awarded its wind farm contract to Dutch manufacturers Vestas and the Sydney-based Downer Group.
Vestas and Downer will share responsibility for the entire 180MW project, including supply and construction of more than 50 turbines, a substation, cabling to the grid, civil and electrical works, and wind monitoring equipment.
The announcement follows Ergon Energy’s decision to purchase all of the electricity generated by the wind farm through to the end of 2030……..http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/construction-mt-emerald-wind-farm-expected-to-start-in-december/news-story/09b600f1c8d9b6e2a4eb929d34b27768
Tough new guidelines for New South Wales wind farms
Tilting against windmills? Industry doubts NSW support for wind farms, SMH, Peter Hannam, 28 July 16 New wind farm guidelines are expected to impose tough requirements on developers to limit their visual impact in a move that proponents say will put NSW at a disadvantage to other states.
The proposed guidelines, requiring developers to prepare visual impact assessments according to the height of turbines, were disclosed by the planning department to a select group of prospective wind energy developers on the sidelines of a two-day clean energy summit in Sydney on Thursday. Continue reading
What chance for truth at the South Australian Nuclear Parliamentary Inquiry?
Well, not a whole lot, because out of the six members of this Inquiry, only one, Mark Parnell, has an antinuclear position. the other five all belong to political parties that, to put it mildly, are friendly to the nuclear industry:
Hon Tom Kenyon MP Labor’s “ true believer in SA’s nuclear potential”
Mrs Annabel Digance MP – Labor party. well, we all know how Labor MPs toe the party line, no matter what the evidence.
South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission Did Not Give The Citizens’ Jury The Full Picture
Submission to JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION Makes the case that Australians are being denied the bigger picture, and the NFCRC was deliberately or negligently selective in their assessment of evidence received. https://www.academia.edu/27087058/Submission_to_Joint_Committee_on_Findings_of_the_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle_Royal_Commission
“………I believe that the South Australian people have a right to know about the implications of all relevant nuclear materials handling processes and their consequences for human health and the environment in advance of making or influencing any government decision to accept or reject spent nuclear fuel.
I am concerned that the Citizens’ Jury currently tasked with simplifying the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission may not comprehend the full extent of the Commission’s recommendations- that is, that they are seeking to enable currently prohibited industrial activities across the whole nuclear fuel cycle.[1] Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Government of South Australia, ‘Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report’, 2016: pg. XV. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf . Accessed 2016-07-01……..
3. the question arises: how selective or otherwise was the process of assembling its Final Report and recommendations? Why was certain information received not included in the Commission’s final report?
4. the first Citizens’ Jury did not hear from a presenter who was appropriately knowledgeable on matters of radio-biology and the pathways and effects of exposure to nuclear materials in environmental or occupational contexts (with respect to uranium and nuclear fuel). The only medical professional to address the jurors for any significant length of time was Associate Professor Michael Penniment.
It is my opinion that by not providing fundamental information about the connection between radiationexposure and the development of cancers and leukaemia, the Department of the Premier andCabinet is preventing the jurors from being able to adequately consider risks, which being bombarded by the opportunity of waste storage, and the numerous mechanical processes which would need to occur to enable it………
CHERNOBYL In his presentation to the jurors, Penniment went on to describe the consequences of Chernobyl incorrectly, stating that only 28 people died as a result of the incident, and that those were the first responder clean-up workers. This misinformation conflicts with all recent accounts of the disaster, including those published in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s own Final Report. No-one present in the room was able to correct him……
5 I supplied evidence to the Commission for its consideration demonstrating the different approaches taken to measuring and estimating the human health consequences of Chernobyl in my submission to the Tentative Findings. I had hoped that the Commission would compare these with its own references to UNSCEAR and the WHO. No such comparisons were reflected in the Final Report…….
FUKUSHIMA In the case of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the Commission’s final report fails to reflect the gravity, extent of harm and technical complexities related to the incident and the response thus far……
6. [On the health effects on nuclear workers]
The Commissioner’s response to my question and correction demonstrate that the Commissioner was at that time unaware of the problematic nature of the elevated risk of cancers and leukemias experiencedby nuclear industry workers, despite my submissions. This also confirmed that the evidence I provided to the Commission was ignored, either wilfully or negligently. I reach this conclusion with confidence, given Chad Jacobi’s recent admission that all submissions were read by the Commission, and by him personally.[11]
I have received further confirmation from the Royal Commission’s Chief of Staff, Greg Ward that Chad Jacobi was the chief author of the final report. If Jacobi read all of my submissions, what cause did he have to ignore the evidence that I provided?
NUCLEAR FACILITY EFFLUENT & EMISSIONS In my submissions to the Commission, I drew attention to several studies which identified or analyses clusters of leukemias in close proximity to nuclear facilities…….. The Commission chose not to include this controversial subject in its final report, despite a preliminary search revealing a substantial number of peer-reviewed medical research papers exploring this topic……..
NUCLEAR FUEL LEASING The Final Report refers to the prospect of establishing a nuclear fuel leasing scheme in South Australia, contingent on the establishment of a permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The report then goes on to say that such a program could provide a competitive advantage capable of improving prospects for the development of additional uranium processing activities in South Australia……..This process of gradual expansion into enrichment and fuel processing is summarised….
By my assessment, these statements reveal the broader intent of the Commission’s recommendations, yet this information is buried deep inside the body of the Final Report. The Commission suggests that South Australia work with established nuclear industrial players to add value to the currently exported product: uranium oxide concentrate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Independent inquiry finds that the ABC is not biased
ABC cleared of ‘anti-business’ bias in independent review http://www.theage.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/abc-cleared-of-antibusiness-bias-in-independent-review-20160722-gqbp68.html Matthew KnottThe ABC has been cleared of systemic “anti-business” bias in a major review of its coverage, with former ANZ boss Mike Smith confessing he has rethought his negative perceptions of the broadcaster.
The independent editorial review, for which Mr Smith was a key adviser, has been one of the broadcaster’s most comprehensive yet. As well as analysing a week’s worth of ABC programming, the review included interviews with ABC business staff and submissions from business groups, think-tanks and unions.
Fairfax Media understands the review, which has not been released publicly, is overwhelmingly positive about the ABC’s coverage overall while making some criticisms.
Sources familiar with the review, led by longtime BBC adviser Kerry Blackburn, said they were relieved and surprised by its positive tone. In his submission, Mr Smith writes that when he began the review, he shared the widespread view in corporate Australia that the ABC was hostile to business and that its coverage of business issues was poor.
But after examining the broadcaster’s output in detail, he came to be impressed by the rigour and balance of most of the ABC’s business reporting.
South Australian govt spruiking nuclear waste dump to TAFE students
SA govt’s Nuclear Consultation and Response Agency (CARA)TAFE SA will host a Video Conference (VC) for students on Thursday 28thJuly between12-1pm. Mr John Phelan, CARA’s Director of Engagement, will provide information during this session.
TAFE SA Video Conference (VC) Campus Locations – Thursday 28th July 12pm – 1pm
South Australian Greens prevented law that would give full rein to taxpayer funded nuclear promotion
Nuclear waste dump ‘spruiking’ with taxpayers’ money stopped by Greens http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-14/nuclear-waste-dump-‘spruiking’-with-taxpayers’-money-stopped/7325076 14 Apr 2016 An attempt to change the law in South Australia to allow public money to be spent on promoting a nuclear waste dump has been stopped with the Greens claiming a victory.
A law passed in 2000 to stop public funds from being used in any activity associated with a nuclear waste facility.
The State Government had tried to amend the law to allow consultation with the community on the results of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the proposed change was too wide ranging and the Upper House had stepped in to protect taxpayers.
“The Greens do accept that we do need to have a public debate,” he said.”We’re confident we know what the result will be but nevertheless the Government says they only want to consult, they don’t want to spruik and they don’t want to plan for a nuclear waste dump.”
He said the Government had attempted to “overreach”.”The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.”
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 