Uncategorised – Nuclear-Free Campaign

Samphire uranium

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ALLIGATOR ENERGY’S APPLICATION FOR A RETENTION LEASE OVER THE BLACKBUSH DEPOSIT (SAMPHIRE URANIUM PROJECT)

To: Mining Regulation Branch

SA Department for Energy and Mining

September 2023

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The SA Department for Energy and Mining should reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.
Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.
The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.
The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at the Beverley and Honeymoon mines. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.
There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans for eluate disposal before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed.
The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.
The Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.

INTRODUCTION

Friends of the Earth Australia opposes uranium mining for various reasons including the weapons proliferation risks associated with the industry, and the intractable problem of high-level nuclear waste management. Those issues are beyond the scope of the SA Department for Energy and Mining’s consideration of the Samphire project application. Nevertheless we call on the Department to reject Alligator Energy’s application to conduct a Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease due to inadequate provisions for solid and liquid waste management.

It is more than likely that the Samphire mine will not proceed to commercial production due to:

The modest size of the uranium deposit (18.1Mlbs U3O8 at a 250ppm cut-off grade (combined Inferred and Indicated) from 11.4Mt @ 720ppm U3O8).[1]
Stubbornly low uranium prices over the past decade, notwithstanding a price increase in 2023 which may or may not be sustained.[2]
Near-zero prospects for significant worldwide uranium demand increase.[3]
The largest worldwide producers ‒ Cameco and Kazatomprom ‒ have put large uranium mine projects into care-and-maintenance in recent years and the re-entry of those large projects will put downward pressure on prices and severely limit the prospects for small start-ups such as Alligator Energy.
Alligator Energy notes that the company plans “to undertake a Feasibility Study in 2024, with all activity requiring further State and Federal Government approvals, and the securing of project financing amongst other key matters, before a mine could be developed.”

The Samphire project was abandoned a decade ago and will likely be abandoned again. This highlights the need for full rehabilitation of the site if approval is granted for a Field Recovery Trial.

Recommendation: Alligator Energy should be required to lodge a financial bond with the SA government to ensure that adequate financing is available for rehabilitation if the Field Recovery Trial proceeds.

SOLID WASTE

A 2003 SA government audit of radioactive wastes stated that the Radium Hill waste repository contains some contaminated equipment from test work conducted at the Honeymoon site in the early 1980s.[4] The same audit noted that the Radium Hill waste repository “is not engineered to a standard consistent with current internationally accepted practice.”

Dumping contaminated solid waste at the sub-standard repository at Radium Hill is not an option for Alligator Energy. What plans does Alligator Energy have for the disposal of solid wastes contaminated with radionuclides and other toxins?

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that low-level radioactive waste generated during the Field Recovery Trial will include:

“Soil wastes generated within operational areas that have been in contact with process fluids or material from the mineralised zone, are waste streams derived from processing, and/or are waste materials that do not meet specified radiological clearance limits.”

The Retention Lease Proposal also provides the following information on solid low-level radioactive wastes:

The Retention Lease Proposal goes on to state:

“Low level radioactive wastes will be securely stored on site during the leach trials in compliance with the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 and associated regulations the specific requirements that will be detailed in the site Radiation Management Plan and Radioactive Waste Management Plan (RMP/RWMP).”

The Retention Lease Proposal envisages disposal in a “licensed disposal facility”. To the best of our knowledge, SA does not have a “licensed disposal facility” for low-level radioactive waste, in which case Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

Recommendation: The Field Recovery Trial should not be approved because Alligator Energy has no credible plan for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste.

RADIOACTIVE LIQUID SPILLS

A feature of ISL mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive solutions. The SA Department of Primary Industry and Resources listed 59 spills at Beverley from 1998-2007 and presumably there have been many more since 2007.

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that spills of low-level radioactive liquid waste are anticipated to amount to no more than one cubic metre. It further states: “All low-level radioactive waste streams will be transferred to the liquid waste storage vessel, then directed to the liquid disposal zone where disposal will occur.”

Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should consider promises vs. delivery at Beverley and Honeymoon. Undoubtedly spills were far more frequent and voluminous than envisaged. At a minimum, Alligator Energy should be required to have a credible plan to manage radioactive liquid spills far in excess of one cubic metre.

LIQUID WASTE AND ATTENUATION

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states that eluate (containing ~6000lbs of dissolved uranium) from the ion exchange stripping process will be the end product and will be stored in tanks onsite. Alligator proposes retaining the stored eluate for approximately one year post the end of the Field Recovery Trial to allow sufficient time for a formal decision on whether or not to proceed to a full-scale mining operation with the two options cited being: eluate retained onsite for future Alligator Energy production or donated for precipitation at one of SA’s producing ISR mines.

Recommendation: There may be technical or logistical reasons why Heathgate may reject the offer of eluate and Alligator should be required to come up with credible contingency plans before a Field Recovery Trial is allowed to proceed. Alligator talks about plural in-situ recovery (ISR) mines although it surely knows that only Beverley is operating.

Alligator Energy’s Retention Lease Proposal states:

“If field natural attenuation monitoring cannot be verified within 5 years, a reassessment of the model against field parameters will be undertaken and model rerun (if required). Natural attenuation monitoring for model verification will be undertaken until model validation is accepted by relevant regulatory agencies. In the event, model validation cannot be achieved, Alligator will undertake active groundwater restoration methods such as groundwater flush or sweep.”

Further detail is required on groundwater restoration options. The Retention Lease Proposal is unacceptably vague.

Alligator Energy will have precious little interest in groundwater restoration if a decision is made not to proceed to commercial mining. The company may not have the resources for groundwater restoration. The company may not even exist in five years’ time. All this points to the need for a financial bond to be lodged with the SA government to ensure that adequate resources are available for full site rehabilitation including groundwater restoration.

BEVERLEY/HEATHGATE WHISTLEBLOWER

A former Heathgate worker contacted Friends of the Earth in 2022 and provided the following information:

* Heathgate breaks every rule in the book and Beverley may be the worst-run mine in SA.

* Regulation is deficient in many respects within and between the SA EPA, Safe Work SA and SA Water.

* Heathgate should have been hit with one or more $30,000 fines by Safe Work SA but Safe Work SA has been negligent.

* Gross mismanagement by Heathgate has led to high staff turn-over ‒ in particular with respect to staff responsible for worker safety.

* Lids have come off uranium drums at the Beverley plant and also on one or more ships transporting uranium to the USA. The handling of uranium spillages at Beverley has grossly violated safety protocols.

* Problems arising from a revolving door between regulators and Heathgate.

* Heathgate isn’t prepared to spend the money required to fix problems at Beverley, and there is little or no pressure from regulators.

* Problems with radioactive monitoring badges, e.g. not replaced if lost.

* Culture of acceptance of safety lapses, anyone speaking up may be fired. NDAs are part of the problem.

Clearly the concerns raised by the former Heathgate employee raise concerns regarding other mines including the Samphire proposal, in particular whether regulatory deficiencies will have adverse consequences.

Have there been ICAC and/or Office of Public Integrity investigations into aspects of Heathgate’s operations at Beverley? If so, what lessons if any were learned and how is that knowledge impacting assessment of other projects including Alligator Energy’s Samphire project?

Recommendation: The Department for Energy and Mining should investigate issues raised by the Heathgate whistleblower and its implications for other mining projects including the proposed Field Recovery Trial at the Samphire lease.

HISTORY OF IN-SITU LEACH URANIUM MINING

In-situ leach (ISL) uranium mining involves pumping an acid solution (or an alkaline solution in some cases) into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive waste – containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid – is simply dumped in groundwater.

A 2004 CSIRO report states:[5]

“As stated in the Beverley Assessment Report, the bleed solutions, waste solutions from uranium recovery, plant washdown waters and bleed streams from the reverse osmosis plants are collected prior to disposal into the Namba aquifer via disposal wells. These liquid wastes are combined and concentrated in holding/evaporation ponds, with excess injected into selected locations within the mined aquifer. The injected liquid is acidic (pH 1.8 to 2.8) and contains heavy metals and radionuclides originating from the orebody.

From being inert and immobile in the ore body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now mobile in the aquifer.

The 2004 CSIRO report endorsed the dumping of liquid waste in ground-water yet the information and arguments it used in support of that conclusion were tenuous. The CSIRO report notes that attenuation is “not yet proven” and the timeframe of “several years to decades” could hardly be more vague. The 2004 CSIRO report states in its Executive Summary:

“The use of acid rather than alkaline leaching and disposal of liquid wastes by re-injection into the aquifer is contentious. Available data indicate that both the leach solution and liquid waste have greater concentrations of soluble ions than does the pre-mining groundwater. However as this groundwater has no apparent beneficial use other than by the mining industry, this method of disposal is preferable to surface disposal. Although not yet proven, it is widely believed and accepted that natural attenuation will result in the contaminated water chemistry returning to pre-mining conditions within a timeframe of over several years to decades.”

Elsewhere the 2004 CSIRO report notes uncertainties associated with attenuation:

“The EIA for Beverley and Honeymoon suggest that natural attenuation will occur, however, exact timeframes are not given. The issue of predicting attenuation is made more complex by not fully understanding the microbiological or the mineralogy of the surrounding ore bodies, before and after mining, and how these natural conditions will react with the altered water quality introduced by the injection of leachate, and re-injection of wastewaters. Following general practice, geochemical modelling was undertaken with a series of assumptions where data were not available. Although these assumptions are considered reasonable by the review team, some technical experts have a differing opinion. In any case the results must be considered approximate.

The monitoring results from Beverley are limited by the short duration of mining and operation, and there are currently no completely mined-out areas for which the water chemistry can be followed after mining to verify the extent of the expected natural attenuation. However, pH results for an area that was trial-mined in 1998 and then left until full-scale mining of the same area was due are shown in Figure 13.

Note that whilst other data are available for these wells there are not consistent trends in other analytes. There has been little recovery of groundwater chemistry towards background in the test-production wells other than a favourable change for pH. There are presently no equivalent monitoring data for the northern area, which is presently being mined.”

Even if full attenuation does occur over time, it is unlikely to occur in the timeframe of post-mine-closure monitoring proposed by the mining proponent. The 7/1/09 Beverley Four Mile Project Public Environment – Report and Mining Lease Proposal document states:

“Heathgate proposes an initial period of five years from the conclusion of commercial operations to complete the decommissioning of facilities. A monitoring and maintenance program is proposed to run for a further two years, for a total of seven years from the final conclusion of mining activities. The total monitoring period will be reviewed with the regulatory authorities and may be extended.

“Facilities will therefore be fully decommissioned within seven years from the conclusion of the commercial operation. This period includes a post-completion monitoring period for vegetation maintenance, groundwater sampling, drainage repairs and other activities to ensure the long-term permanent rehabilitation of the site.

The 2004 CSIRO report states:

“Natural attenuation is preferred to adjusting the chemistry of the wastewater prior to re-injection as the latter would result in the need for additional chemicals on-site, generation of contaminated neutralisation sludges which would have to be disposed of, risk of potential clogging of pore spaces in the aquifer and associated higher costs.

Those are not insurmountable problems. Moreover there are alternatives to adjusting the chemistry of waste-water then reinjecting it into the aquifer, such as evaporation followed by management of solid wastes. As the CSIRO report notes:

“10.6 Alternatives to Liquid Waste Re-Injection

“Suggestions made during the community consultation process included not re-injecting the liquid wastes into the aquifer, and neutralisation of waste before re-injection.

“Not re-injecting the waste into the aquifer would require either sophisticated water treatment and/or the installation of much larger evaporation ponds. Both would generate solid wastes to be disposed of in a solid waste repository. When the wastes dried out they would become a possible dust source, which could increase the potential radiation exposure of workers, in particular in relation to dust inhalation, but also from radon inhalation and gamma exposure. Environmental radiation levels at the surface would also increase. These are presently negligible issues associated with the existing ISL practices.

“Neutralisation of the waste liquid prior to re-injection would precipitate out some metal salts, which would need to be filtered before re-injection, and be disposed of in a solid waste repository.

“Also following re-injection it is likely that the re-injection bores would rapidly clog owing to precipitation around the bores, as the injected water and existing acidic water in the aquifer interact. Clogging of re-injection wellfields and associated problems with pipelines and pumps may increase the risk of spills due to operational problems with equipment and increased maintenance.”

None of the issues raised by the CSIRO amount to compelling reasons to support dumping liquid waste in groundwater. Some of the reasons cited are absurd and cast serious doubt over the credibility of the CSIRO review ‒ for example dust suppression is simple and inexpensive.

Recommendation: The SA Department for Energy and Mining should conduct or commission a thorough comparative assessment of the options for managing liquid waste rather than assuming that dumping contaminated liquid waste in groundwater is an adequate solution.

The 2003 Senate References and Legislation Committee report into the regulation of uranium mining in Australia reported “a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance”, it identified “many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment”, and it concluded that changes were necessary “in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage”. On ISL mining, the 2003 Senate report stated:

“The Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available on its safety and environmental impacts.”

“The Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts.”

“Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimised.”

In relation to the Beverley mine, Assoc. Prof. Gavin Mudd notes: “The critical data which could answer scientific questions concerning contaminant mobility in groundwater has never been released by General Atomics. This is especially important since GA no longer maintain the mine is ‘isolated’ from surrounding groundwater, with desires to expand the mine raising legitimate concerns over the groundwater contamination legacy left at Beverley.”

Assoc. Prof. Mudd states:

The mining technique of in situ leaching (ISL), often referred to as solution mining, is becoming an increasingly favoured method for the extraction of uranium across the world. This is primarily due to its low capital and operating costs compared to conventional mining. Little is known about the environmental impact of this method, and mining companies have been able to exploit this to promote the method as “environmentally benign”.

The ISL process involves drilling ground water bores or wells into a uranium deposit, injecting corrosive chemicals to dissolve the uranium within the ore zone, then pumping back the uranium-laden solution.

The method can be applied only to uranium deposits located within a ground water system or confined aquifer, commonly in palaeochannel deposits (old buried river beds).

Although ISL is presented in simplified diagrams by the nuclear industry, the reality is that geological systems are inherently complex and not predictable.

There are a range of options for the chemistry of the mining solutions. Either acidic or alkaline chemical agents can be used in conjunction with an oxidising agent to dissolve the uranium.

Typical oxidising agents include oxygen or hydrogen peroxide, while alkaline agents include ammonia or sodium-bicarbonate or carbon dioxide. The most common acidic chemical used is sulphuric acid, although nitric acid has been tried at select sites and in laboratory tests.

The chemicals can have potentially serious environmental impacts and cause long-term changes to ground water quality.

The use of acidic solutions mobilises high levels of heavy metals, such as cadmium, strontium, lead and chromium. Alkaline solutions tend to mobilise only a few heavy metals such as selenium and molybdenum. The ability to restore the ground water to its pre-mining quality is, arguably, easier at sites that have used alkaline solution chemistry.

A review of the available literature on ISL mines across the world can easily counter the myths promulgated about ISL uranium mining. Whether one examines the USA, Germany, Russia and associated states, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Australia or new ISL projects across Asia, the truth remains the same – the ISL technique merely treats ground water as a sacrifice zone and the problem remains “out of sight, out of mind”.

ISL uranium mining is not controllable, is inherently unsafe and is unlikely to meet “strict environmental controls”. It is not an environmentally benign method of uranium mining.

The use of sulphuric acid solutions at ISL mines across Eastern Europe, as well as a callous disregard for sensible environmental management, has led to many seriously contaminated sites.

Perhaps the most severe example is Straz pod Ralskem in the Czech Republic, where up to 200 billion litres of ground water is contaminated. Restoration of the site is expected to take several decades or even centuries.

Solution escapes and difficult restorations have been documented at ISL sites in Texas and Wyoming.

Australia has encountered the same difficulties, especially at the controversial Honeymoon deposit in South Australia during pilot studies in the early 1980s and at Manyingee in Western Australia until 1985.

The Honeymoon pilot project used sulphuric acid in conjunction with ferric sulphate as the oxidising agent. The wells and aquifer experienced significant blockages due to the minerals jarosite and gypsum precipitating, lowering the efficiency of the leaching process and leading to increased excursions. The aquifers in the vicinity of Honeymoon are known to be connected to aquifers used by local pastoralists to water stock.

Journal articles, conferences papers etc. on ISL mining (and other issues) by Assoc. Prof. Mudd are available online.[6]

A 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report noted:[7]

Field trials” of acid in-situ leach (acid ISL) uranium mining have already occurred at the Beverley uranium mine and the proposed Honeymoon site in north-eastern South Australia. Given the history of leaks and spills that occurred at Honeymoon and Beverley during their “trial” phases, there is significant cause for concern around further such “trials”. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon trial mine in 1999, including one “excursion” of 9,600 litres of “process fluid”, which had a significant uranium and toxic radon gas content, and another in which sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine process unexpectedly traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer. None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the project had been granted state and federal approvals.

During the trial at Beverley through 1998, 500 litres of extraction fluid were spilt, the accident not revealed until 5 months after it occurred. Beverley also experienced a major underground leak of radioactive mining solution to groundwater in 1999, also not confirmed until after state government approvals in 2001.

While one purpose of conducting a “trial” may be to determine the extent and nature of a groundwater system, the injection of acid and radioactive mine waste into aquifers is not an acceptable way of doing this. The South Australian community has a democratic right to participate in decision-making regarding activities with significant environmental impact such as mining. The history of leaks, spills and accidents that characterise ISL mining emphasise the urgent need for full environmental assessment to be conducted before the commencement of any mining, “trial” or otherwise.

The 2007 Friends of the Earth Adelaide report also pointed to severe problems with ISL mining overseas:[8]

Both acid and alkaline ISL mines across the world have left a track record of contamination of surrounding groundwater systems, some of which are the main water supply for communities, with attempts to rehabilitate the groundwater often unsuccessful. Some of the European cases include:

Königstein (Germany): as of 2005, there was still 1,900 million m3 of radioactive and heavy metals contaminated water within the mining zone. This pollution lies within an aquifer that supplies Dresden with drinking water;
Devladovo (Ukraine): the surface of the site was heavily contaminated from spills, and groundwater contamination is spreading downstream from the site at a speed of 53m per year. By 1995 it had already traveled a distance of 1.7km, and will reach the village of Devladovo in the next 12 years;
Bolyarovo, Tenevo/Okop, Haskovo(Bulgaria): very high concentrations of sulfate ions are found in surface water and in the wells of private owners as a result of accidental spilling of solution. All uranium mining and milling in Bulgaria was closed down by government decree in 1992, after over 20km2 of the country was contaminated by uranium industry activity.

The contamination at these and many other sites, including the high concentrations of major ions, heavy metals and radionuclides, has not attenuated significantly over time (as uranium mining companies claim), and instead often migrates through groundwater to pollute other areas.

US geochemist and environmental scientist Richard Abitz comments on his own experience attempting to rehabilitate groundwater at ISL uranium mines in Ohio, Texas and Wyoming. When the mining chemicals are injected into groundwater, he observes, uranium contamination “goes through the roof”. “Once it is in there, the damage has been done”, he says. “It takes hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to transform aquifer water back into a drinkable condition”, and “regardless of the millions of dollars and years of efforts, the water has never been restored.”

Australia’s own problematic experience with ISL uranium mining (limited to the Beverley mine, and the Honeymoon and Manyingee, WA, “trials”), combined with the experience of ISL overseas emphasise the serious risks and impacts of this mining method. That such mining should be permitted in South Australia on a “trial” basis, without environmental impact or public consultation is a grave concern that demands legislative amendment.

[1] Alligator Energy, 2023 Retention Lease Proposal, Executive Summary

[2] https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price

[3] https://reneweconomy.com.au/is-nuclear-power-in-a-global-death-spiral/

[4] Radiation Protection Division, SA Environment Protection Authority, September 2003, ‘Audit of Radioactive Material in South Australia’

[5] Taylor, G.; Farrington, V.; Woods, P.; Ring, R.; Molloy, R. (2004): Review of Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining Process.- CSIRO Land and Water Client Report.

[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20100228164521/http://civil.eng.monash.edu.au/about/staff/muddpersonal More recent ISL papers can be obtained directly from Assoc. Prof. Mudd: https://www.rmit.edu.au/contact/staff-contacts/academic-staff/m/mudd-dr-gavin

[7] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf

[8] Friends of the Earth Adelaide, November 2007, Driving without a license: uranium mining ‘trials’ in SA, http://archive.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/TrialBriefNov2007.pdf

Stop the nuclear dump on Barngarla Country

Please write to senior SA Labor Government politicians and ask them to contact their federal Labor colleagues calling on them to respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, respect the Federal Court’s July 18 decision, and to abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

Send individual emails (not a group email).
The politicians’ names and details ‒ including email addresses ‒ are reproduced below.
Sample text is copied below. You can use this text but feel free to edit and to add your own thoughts.
Make sure to add your name, address and email address at the bottom of your emails.
If you have time, please also send some emails to federal Labor politicians: relevant info is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/kimba/

Thanks!

Friends of the Earth Nuclear-Free Campaign

https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste

————

premier@sa.gov.au

Peter Malinauskas

Premier of South Australia

————

officeofthedeputypremier@sa.gov.au

Susan Close

Deputy Premier of South Australia

————

attorneygeneral@sa.gov.au

Kyam Maher

Attorney General of South Australia

————

badcoe@parliament.sa.gov.au

Jayne Stinson

Chair of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee

=====================================================

Politician’s name / position / email address

Date

Dear

The Federal Court on July 18 quashed the declaration of a proposed national nuclear waste dump site near Kimba in SA, citing ‘pre-judgement’ and ‘apprehended bias’. The court case was initiated by Barngarla Traditional Owners, who are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed nuclear dump.

I’m writing to ask you to contact your federal Labor colleagues ‒ in particular Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and resources minister Madeleine King ‒ asking them to respect the human rights of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and to abandon the plan to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.

These are some of the reasons why it would be unfair and unwise to continue to attempt to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country:

It is an unacceptable that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. Jayne Stinson, Labor Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous.”
It is unacceptable that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ‒ which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”. It would be worse still for the Albanese Government to continue to violate the UN Declaration by continuing with its efforts to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.
Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Coalition government. An independent, professional ballot of Barngarla Traditional Owners found no support whatsoever for the proposed dump. Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Coalition government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report. It is unacceptable that the Albanese Government has continued the previous government’s violation of the human rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, and it would be worse still if the Albanese Government continues to violate their rights by continuing with the Kimba nuclear dump proposal.
Dr. Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process” from start to finish that led to the nomination of the Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling process” which led to Kimba being targeted.
Dr. Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
After the July 18 Federal Court decision, Dr. Close called for the Albanese Government to abandon the Kimba dump proposal once and for all and to find a site with which has community acceptance. Dr Close noted that the previous Coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
At its state Convention in October 2022, SA Labor adopted a position that: “SA Labor Caucus supports a veto right for the Barngarla community on this facility. This aligns with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. More recently Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed that the South Australian Labor party strongly opposes this facility and still supports the right of the Barngarla people to have veto powers.”

Please call on the federal Albanese Government to:

Immediately announce that the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country will not proceed.
Adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the Government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines.
Review and amend the undemocratic, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Act, an earlier and similar version of which was described by Labor MPs as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”.
Hold the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency accountable for its racist, incompetent mismanagement of this issue.
Establish a national Independent Commission of Inquiry to map out a path forward for the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

NAME:

ADDRESS:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

Stop the nuclear dump on Barngarla Country

Please write to federal Labor politicians calling on them to respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, to respect the Federal Court’s July 18 decision and to abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

Send individual emails (not a group email).
The politicians’ names and details ‒ including email addresses ‒ are reproduced below.
Sample text is copied below. You can use this text but feel free to edit and to add your own thoughts.
Make sure to add your name, address and email address at the bottom of your emails.
If you have time, please also send some emails to SA Labor politicians: relevant info is posted at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/kimba-sa/

Thanks!

Friends of the Earth Nuclear-Free Campaign

https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste

————

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Please use the online contact form at:

https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

————

Linda.Burney.MP@aph.gov.au

Linda Burney MP

Minister for Indigenous Australians

————

senator.wong@aph.gov.au

Senator Penny Wong

Senator for South Australia

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for Foreign Affairs

————

senator.grogan@aph.gov.au

Senator Karen Grogan

Chair of Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Deputy Chair of Environment and Communications References Committee

————

Mark.Butler.MP@aph.gov.au, minister.butler@health.gov.au

Mark Butler MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

Deputy Leader of the House

————

trade.minister@dfat.gov.au, senator.farrell@aph.gov.au

Senator Don Farrell

Special Minister of State

Minister for Trade and Tourism

Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate

————

Madeleine.King.MP@aph.gov.au

Madeleine King MP

Minister for Resources

Minister for Northern Australia

————

Minister.husic@industry.gov.au

Ed Husic MP

Minister for Industry and Science

===========================================

Politician’s name / position / email address

Date

Dear

Please reassure me that the federal Labor Albanese Government will respect the rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, respect the Federal Court’s decision, and abandon the plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country in SA.

The Albanese Government could appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court. These are some of the reasons why that would be unfair and unwise:

It is an unacceptable that the Albanese government has been attempting to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country despite the unanimous opposition of the Traditional Owners.
It is deeply hypocritical that the Albanese government has been championing a Voice to Parliament at the same time as it ignores and overrides the unanimous voice of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. Jayne Stinson, Labor Chair of the SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee, said: “In this day and age, when we’re talking about Voice, Treaty and Truth, we can’t just turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, those are our values but in this particular instance, we’re going to ignore the voice of Aboriginal people’. I think that’s just preposterous.”
It is unacceptable that the Albanese government has been willing to violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ‒ which states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent”. It would be worse still for the Albanese Government to continue to violate the UN Declaration by continuing with its efforts to impose a nuclear dump on Barngarla country.
Barngarla Traditional Owners were excluded from a so-called ‘community ballot’ by the Coalition government. An independent, professional ballot of Barngarla Traditional Owners found no support whatsoever for the proposed dump. Jason Bilney, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said: “It is a simple truth that had we, as the First People for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote.”
Federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights unanimously concluded in an April 2020 report that the Coalition government was violating the human rights of Barngarla people. Even the Coalition members of the committee endorsed the report. It is unacceptable that the Albanese Government has continued the previous government’s violation of the human rights of Barngarla Traditional Owners, and it would be worse still if the Albanese Government continues to violate their rights by continuing with the Kimba nuclear dump proposal.
Dr. Susan Close, now Deputy Premier of South Australia, said in 2019 that it was a “dreadful process” from start to finish that led to the nomination of the Kimba dump site and that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling process” which led to Kimba being targeted.
Dr. Close noted in 2020 statement, titled ‘Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped’, that SA Labor “has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
After the July 18 Federal Court decision, Dr. Close called for the Albanese Government to abandon the Kimba dump proposal once and for all and to find a site with which has community acceptance. Dr Close noted that the previous Coalition government had botched the process, exaggerating the urgency for the facility and excluding the Indigenous community.
At its state Convention in October 2022, SA Labor adopted a position that: “SA Labor Caucus supports a veto right for the Barngarla community on this facility. This aligns with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. More recently Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed that the South Australian Labor party strongly opposes this facility and still supports the right of the Barngarla people to have veto powers.”

I call on the Albanese Government to:

Immediately announce that the plan to impose a nuclear waste dump on Barngarla country will not proceed.
Adopt SA Labor’s policy giving traditional owners a right of veto over proposed nuclear waste dump sites. That would give traditional owners across the country some confidence that their voices will be heard as the Government progresses plans to store and dispose of waste arising from nuclear-powered submarines.
Review and amend the undemocratic, racist National Radioactive Waste Management Act, an earlier and similar version of which was described by Labor MPs as “extreme”, “arrogant”, “draconian”, “sorry”, “sordid”, and “profoundly shameful”.
Hold the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency accountable for its racist, incompetent mismanagement of this issue.
Establish a national Independent Commission of Inquiry to map out a path forward for the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

NAME:

ADDRESS:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

Zion Lights’ nuclear nonsense

(Last updated 24 July 2023.)

Zion Lights is a British nuclear power advocate. She describes herself (immodestly) as follows: “Zion Lights is a Science Communicator who is known for her environmental advocacy work. She is founder of the climate activist group Emergency Reactor. Zion has become a world-leading speaker on clean energy and evidence-based climate action.”

Lights was sucked into pro-nuclear advocacy by narcissistic MAGA liar and climate denier Michael Shellenberger and even worked for his lunatic organisation before starting a new organisation called ‘Emergency Reactor’.

A statement by Extinction Rebellion (copied below) concludes as follows: “Zion Lights, Michael Shellenberger, the Breakthrough Institute and their associated deniers and delayers are intentionally spreading doubt about the severity of the [climate] crisis and the action needed to respond to it.”

Lights is effectively campaigning to slow the transition to low-carbon energy by promoting nuclear power, the slowest and most expensive low-carbon energy option (not to mention other problems e.g. nuclear power is the only energy source directly connected to WMD proliferation). All that can be said in Lights defence is that she may be campaigning to slow the energy transition inadvertently.

Lights has called for this FoE webpage to be deleted and for FoE to apologise and to sack the author (Jim Green). No response from Lights to any of the substantive issues raised below. She prefers confected outrage, legal threats, and blocking people on social media and her substack such that we no longer have the option to hold her directly accountable for promulgating misinformation. Hardly the approach of a ‘Science Communicator’.

An earlier version of the ‘scientific consensus’ section (below) was sent to Lights’ organisation ‘Emergency Reactor’ as a courtesy and the response comprised nothing other than ad hominem abuse and legal threats. Obviously FoE won’t be sending them any more courtesy emails! If Lights or her organisation wants to respond to anything on this webpage, email the response and it will be published on this webpage, unedited.

Sections below:

Fact-checker Lights on the British nuclear power program

This is a response to Zion Lights’ July 2023 article titled:

Fact check: A brief history of energy politics in the UK: Who is really to blame for stalling the nuclear revival?

Lights states: “Due to years of political inaction, effective protests, over-regulation, and a lack of skilled workers, nuclear builds in the UK are slow and unambitious. … Who’s to blame? Activist groups, short-term thinking, and weak leadership. Anyone who has had the power to build a strong clean energy program, and has failed to do so.”

Political inaction? Successive governments have thrown billions at the nuclear industry, but industry has rejected those offers of taxpayer funds with the exception of EDF / Hinkley Point. (Lights only mentions Hinkley Point in passing, in a list of proposed nuclear power projects.)

Effective protests? Community groups and environment groups have only had a marginal impact ‒ they are up against a large, established industry with bipartisan political support.

A lack of skilled workers? Well, yes, that is an issue, or at least it would be an issue if nuclear companies and utilities were actually building nuclear power plants in the UK, which they aren’t with the sole exception of the 2xEPR Hinkley Point C project.

Here are some key facts and issues that Lights completely ignores.

In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion. The current cost estimate for two EPR reactors under construction at Hinkley Point ‒ the only reactor construction project in the UK ‒ is £32.7 billion (A$63.5 billion). Thus the current cost estimate is over eight times greater than the initial estimate of £2 billion per reactor.

The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point ‒ primarily in the form of a guaranteed payment of £92.50 / MWh (2012 prices), indexed for inflation, for 35 years ‒ could amount to £30 billion.

Those spectacular costs and cost escalations explain much more about the new build program than political inaction, protests, or the purported lack of skilled workers. In a nutshell, nuclear new build is incredibly expensive and incredibly risky … just ask Westinghouse, which declared bankruptcy as a result of its disastrous new build projects in the USA and almost bankrupted its parent company Toshiba in the process.

The delays associated with Hinkley Point have been as shocking as the cost overruns. In 2007, EDF boasted that Britons would be using electricity from an EPR reactor at Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017 – but construction of the two reactors didn’t even begin until December 2018 and December 2019, respectively. Again, that had little or nothing to do with political inaction, protests, or the purported lack of skilled workers.

Nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo said in 2017 that the UK’s nuclear power program faces “something of a crisis”. The following year, Toshiba abandoned the planned Moorside nuclear power project near Sellafield despite generous offers of government support ‒ a “crushing blow” according to Yeo. A crushing blow that had little or nothing to do with political inaction, protests, or the purported lack of skilled workers.

Then in 2019, Hitachi abandoned the planned Wylfa reactor project in Wales after the estimated cost of the twin-reactor project had risen from ¥2 trillion to ¥3 trillion (£16.5 billion). Hitachi abandoned the project despite an offer from the UK government to take a one-third equity stake in the project; to consider providing all of the required debt financing; and to consider providing a guarantee of a generous minimum payment per unit of electricity.

The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities noted that Hitachi joined a growing list of companies and utilities backing out of the UK nuclear new-build program:

“Let’s not forget that Hitachi are not the first energy utility to come to the conclusion that new nuclear build in the UK is not a particularly viable prospect. The German utilities RWE Npower and E-on previously tried to develop the site before they sold it on Hitachi in order to protect their own vulnerable energy market share in the UK and Germany. British Gas owner Centrica pulled out of supporting Hinkley Point C, as did GDF Suez and Iberdrola at Moorside, before Toshiba almost collapsed after unwise new nuclear investments in the United States forced it to pull out of the Sellafield Moorside development just a couple of months ago.”

The UK government hopes to progress the Sizewell C project and is once again offering very generous support including taking an equity stake in the project and using a ‘regulated asset base’ model which foists financial risks onto taxpayers and could result in taxpayers paying billions for failed projects ‒ as it has in the US.

If recent experience is any guide, the government will struggle to find corporations or utilities willing to invest in Sizewell regardless of generous government support.

The same could be said for plans for SMRs (or mid-sized reactors envisaged by Rolls-Royce) ‒ it is doubtful whether private finance can be secured despite generous taxpayer subsidies.

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, incredibly risky, and investors won’t touch it with a barge-pole.

Meanwhile, the UK government reports that renewable electricity generation reached a record share of 47.8 per cent of total generation in the first quarter of 2023, up from 5.8 per cent in the same quarter of 2010, while nuclear fell to a record low (12.5 percent) due to outages in all plants and reduced capacity (i.e. the gradual closure of the ageing reactor fleet).

Lights’ misinformation about the ‘scientific consensus’ in support of nuclear power

One of Lights’ oft-repeated claims is that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ in support of nuclear power. In the Australian context:

Physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski ‒ who led the Australian government’s review of nuclear power in 2006 ‒ now says that “the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed” and he says that nuclear power is no longer cheaper than renewables and the levelised cost of electricity is rapidly diverging in favour of renewables.
The Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, states that nuclear power reactors “are not appropriate for Australia and probably never will be”.
Former Australian Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, a former proponent of nuclear power, now says that nuclear power is “too slow and too expensive”.
Robin Batterham, another former Chief Scientist, and another former proponent of nuclear power, now says that: “To reduce renewable targets in the belief that nuclear will be deployed later at scale would create a material risk of not achieving net zero, or doing so at an excessive cost.”

There are many other scientific opponents of nuclear power in Australia. And there are 190 countries in the world so the Australian experience of disparate scientific views regarding nuclear power could be multiplied by 190.

None of that is likely to stop Lights claiming that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ in support of nuclear power.

Lights refers to a 2018 IPCC report to conclude that “the scientific consensus is that we need nuclear energy to decarbonise.” In fact, the IPCC report maps out many emissions reduction scenarios (including scenarios with nuclear reducing to zero) and its ‘analysis’ of pros and cons doesn’t go any further than scattergun dot-point arguments (including referring to studies finding an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia in populations living within five kilometres of nuclear power plants, and noting that the “continued use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of [weapons] proliferation.”) In short, Lights misrepresents the IPCC report. There are strong indications that Lights — a self-styled ‘Science Communicator’ — hasn’t even read the report: she doesn’t name it, or provide a link/reference, and she misrepresents the living daylights out of the IPCC report and doesn’t seem to have the faintest idea what the report actually says.

Update: An earlier version of the above comments was sent to Lights’ organisation ‘Emergency Reactor’ as a courtesy and the following response was received: “This enail [sic] has been reported as spam and further harassment and defamation relating to Ms Lights will be escalated with the relevant authorities.” No response to the substantive issues.

A ‘Science Communicator’ tries to explain ionising radiation … and fails

Zion Lights calls herself a ‘Science Communicator’ (capitalised). However her article on the health effects of ionising radiation is laughable.

Nuclear medicine

Discussing nuclear medicine, Science Communicator Lights states: “Medical sources are the most significant human-made source of radiation, through diagnostic X-rays.” She evidently doesn’t know what nuclear medicine is (the use of radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis, therapy or palliation) … so shouldn’t be writing about it … and shouldn’t be calling herself a ‘Science Communicator’.

Worse still, Science Communicator Lights seems to think that the beneficial uses of ionising radiation in medicine prove that low-dose radiation exposure is beneficial in general ‒ “a little radiation is good”, she states. Hopelessly and dangerously confused.

Fukushima

Science Communicator Lights states: “Radiation levels of 0.06 millisieverts a day were recorded in Fukushima city, 65km northwest of the plant, which was about 60 times higher than normal, but this amount of exposure is not harmful to human health. Sadly, due to fear of radiation, hundreds of people did die after the meltdown when they panicked during the evacuation process.”

It’s hard to believe that anyone ‒ let alone a self-styled ‘Science Communicator’ ‒ could pack so much misinformation into a few sentences. Fukushima city was well beyond the evacuation zone. Radiation doses in the vicinity of the Fukushima nuclear plant were far higher than 0.06 mSv per day. The internationally-accepted limit for public doses from anthropogenic sources is 1 mSv/yr, well below the 22 mSv/yr level at Fukushima city. Most of the 160,000 evacuees were required to evacuate. The evacuation was a deadly shambles because of the lack of emergency preparedness by TEPCO and the government. The widespread panic was a rational response to the meltdowns, fires and explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Science Communicator Lights blames residents for panicking … which is a grotesque, deeply offensive sleight for which she will never apologise.

Low-level radiation exposure

Lights repeatedly claims that low-level ionising radiation exposure is harmless and suggests that doses below 100 mSv are harmless. She states that radiation levels of 0.06 millisieverts a day (22 mSv/yr) are “not harmful to human health” and that very small doses from eating bananas or brazil nuts “don’t harm anyone”. (For more on bananas, see ‘The Banana Equivalent Dose of catastrophic nuclear accidents’.) Speaking about naturally-occurring radiation from the earth or cosmic radiation, Lights states: “None of this radiation exposure harms people in any of these places.” She states that doses from 0.08‒0.18 mSv “do not pose harm to human health”.

So Science Communicator Lights believes that low-level ionising radiation exposure is harmless. But what do actual scientists have to say about the matter?

Actually, before we get to the scientists, you might want to replicate this experiment. See if you can come up with a more accurate summary than Science Communicator Lights with a simple web-search, and see if you can do so in 60 seconds or less. This is what I came up with (and it is indeed more accurate than Science Communicator Lights). From the US EPA: “Exposure to low levels of radiation encountered in the environment does not cause immediate health effects, but is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk. … Risks that are low for an individual could still result in unacceptable numbers of additional cancers in a large population over time. For example, in a population of one million people, an average one-percent increase in lifetime cancer risk for individuals could result in 10,000 additional cancers. The EPA sets regulatory limits and recommends emergency response guidelines well below 100 millisieverts (10 rem) to protect the U.S. population, including sensitive groups such as children, from increased cancer risks from accumulated radiation dose over a lifetime.”

A 2010 report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation states that “the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for the mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose rates.” In other words, there is no dose below which there is no risk of radiation-induced cancer.

See here for similar statements from the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation of the US National Academy of Sciences, the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and others.

A recent testing of anti-science gibberish from the nuclear lobby involved their efforts to get the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weaken radiation protection standards. The NRC sought wide-ranging scientific advice and said in its 2021 report:

“Convincing evidence has not yet demonstrated the existence of a threshold below which there would be no stochastic effects from exposure to low radiation doses. As such, the NRC’s view is that the LNT [linear no-threshold] model continues to provide a sound basis for a conservative radiation protection regulatory framework that protects both the public and occupational workers.”

The NRC further notes that “authoritative scientific advisory bodies” such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, International Commission on Radiological Protection and the International Atomic Energy Agency “support the continued use of the LNT model.”

The 2021 NRC report further states:

“In addition to the findings of the national and international authoritative scientific advisory bodies, three Federal agencies provided comments on the petitions and supported the continued use of the LNT model as the basis for the NRC’s radiation protection program. The three agencies are the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; and the Radiation Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Furthermore, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) recommends that the NRC continue to rely upon the LNT model.”

Conclusion

We should get our information about the health effects of ionising radiation from scientists, not from a self-styled ‘Science Communicator’ who wouldn’t know science if she fell over it and earns money from nuclear lobbying.

“For many years, I feared radiation more than cancer,” Lights says. Since she acknowledges holding irrational, incoherent views for many years, perhaps we’d best assume she may hold irrational, incoherent views now and for many years into the future.

Response to a July 2023 article by Zion Lights

In Australia, for the same investment, we can get three times more firmed renewable power (generation, not capacity) in one-third of the time compared to nuclear. The cost difference between nuclear and renewables is so vast that renewables are still cheaper even when transmission and storage are costed in.

Perhaps the comparison is more nuclear-friendly in the UK, but I strongly suspect renewables+storage+transmission is still cheaper given the obscene costs of Hinkley Point (over A$62 billion for two partially-built reactors).

So Lights is definitely campaigning to slow the transition to low-carbon energy in Australia, and very likely campaigning to slow the transition to low-carbon energy in the UK. All that can be said in her defence is that she may be doing so inadvertently.

Specifically in Light’s latest article:

* Lights’ claims about the IPCC supporting nuclear power are ignorant or dishonest, the IPCC maps out countless scenarios (including scenarios with nuclear reducing to zero) and its ‘analysis’ of pros and cons is generally reduced to dot-points.

* Lights’ claims about a “scientific consensus” in support of nuclear power are ignorant or dishonest, e.g. the Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, states that nuclear power reactors “are not appropriate for Australia and probably never will be“.

* Ignores profound impacts of catastrophic accidents.

* Ignores the repeatedly-demonstrated connections between nuclear power and weapons (in the UK and elsewhere).

* Light’s ‘millions of lives saved’ meme is nonsense because it assumes nuclear displaces nothing other than coal. Lights fails to note that crucial assumption which is either a gross oversight or dishonest.

* Nonsense about warm water around nuclear plants providing a haven for sea-life is ignorant or dishonest, she surely knows that water intake pipes kill fish by the thousands. (And she should know something about Irish opposition to radioactive discharges from Sellafield.)

Case Study: Close to one million fish and 62 million fish eggs and larvae died each year when sucked into the water intake channel in Lake Ontario, which the Pickering nuclear plant uses to cool steam condensers. Fish are killed when trapped on intake screens or suffer cold water shock after leaving warmer water that is discharged into the lake. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission told Ontario Power Generation to reduce fish mortality by 80% and asked for annual public reports on fish mortality.

* Ridiculous claims about high-level nuclear waste: “spent fuel can be easily transported to another location, and even recycled”. The UK has given up on reprocessing (a polluting, multi-billion-dollar disaster) and has made near-zero progress on a deep underground repository and has wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in the process. The only operating deep underground repository in the world – WIPP in the US ‒ was disastrously mismanaged and under-regulated resulting in a chemical explosion in 2014.

* The UAE project came in under budget? Either Lights is ignorant or lying. The UAE project was years behind schedule and many billions of dollars over-budget. Needless to say, Lights has nothing to say about UAE repression, proliferation and security concerns, South Korean nuclear corruption and how that effected the UAE project, or the secret and possibly illegal military side-agreement to the Korean-UAE reactor contract.

Update: Lights deleted a version of the above comments from the comments thread below her article, and failed to address any of the substantive issues.

Extinction Rebellion Statement

Lights was sucked in to pro-nuclear advocacy by lunatic MAGA liar and climate denier Michael Shellenberger and even worked for his lunatic organisation before starting a new organisation called ‘Emergency Reactor’. Presumably she did at least some research beforehand but still thought it a good idea to work for a serial liar and climate denier. Her claims to be concerned about climate change should be treated with utmost caution. Her claims to be a ‘Science Communicator’ sit uncomfortably with her decision to work for a self-confessed liar.

Copied below is a long statement from Extinction Rebellion which concludes as follows: “Zion Lights, Michael Shellenberger, the Breakthrough Institute and their associated deniers and delayers are intentionally spreading doubt about the severity of the [climate] crisis and the action needed to respond to it.”

Extinction Rebellion Statement on Zion Lights, Michael Shellenberger and the Breakthrough Institute

September 16, 2020

extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-lights-michael-shellenberger-and-the-breakthrough-institute/

There have been a number of stories in the press in the last few weeks with criticisms about Extinction Rebellion by Zion Lights, UK director of the pro-nuclear lobby group Environmental Progress. It appears that Lights is engaged in a deliberate PR campaign to discredit Extinction Rebellion.

For any editors who might be considering platforming Lights, we would like to make you aware of some information about the organisation she works for and her employer, Michael Shellenberger.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS & MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

Environmental Progress is a pro-nuclear energy lobby group. While the group itself was only established in 2016, its backers and affiliates have a long and well-documented history of denying human-caused climate change and/or attempting to delay action on the climate crisis. A quick look at groups currently promoting Zion Lights through their social media channels include climate deniers and industry lobbyists such as The Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Genetic Literacy Project (formally funded by Monsanto).*

The founder of Environmental Progress, Michael Shellenberger, has a record of spreading misinformation around climate change and using marketing techniques to distort the narrative around climate science. He has a reputation for downplaying the severity of the climate crisis and promoting aggressive economic growth and green technocapitalist solutions.

Shellenberger appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show on Fox News just last week to say that the forest fires currently raging in California are due to “more people and more electrical wires that they’ve failed to maintain because we’ve focused on other things like building renewables” and we’ve been “so focused on renewables, so focused on climate change.”

In his recent book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts us All, Shellenberger argues that there are no limits to growth and that environmental problems can be solved by everyone getting richer. The book has been widely criticised by many respected scientists both for its central premise and its misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misuse of the facts. (See here and here.)

His stance on fundamental and vitally important points of scientific consensus around the climate crisis is flat out wrong. In his essay promoting his book published in June of this year on the Environmental Progress website and The Australian – ‘On behalf of environmentalists, I apologise for the climate scare’ – he claims that “climate change is not making natural disasters worse” and that “Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction”. He also argues that “fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003,” and, “The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California.” These claims contradict reports from the IPCC and misrepresent the discussion taking place in the scientific community.

One science advisor with Environmental Progress, respected MIT climate expert Professor Kerry Emanuel, spoke publicly about being “very concerned” about the essay, and felt unsure whether he would remain involved with the organisation.

The article was published in Forbes, before being pulled offline the same day for violating its code of ethics around self-promotion.

A key tactic from the climate delayer playbook used in the essay is that of the repentant environmentalist, according to investigative journalist, Paul Thacker. After gaining credibility by aligning themselves with a section of the environmental movement, the repentant environmentalist then performs a volte face and attacks their former position.

This tactic has also been used by Zion Lights, who first overstated her role within Extinction Rebellion (she was a member of the media team, not ‘co-lead’ as stated on the Environmental Progress website) and then denounced the movement following an apparent change of heart.

BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE

Shellenberger is co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, a lobbying group masquerading as a “think tank”. The Breakthrough Institute has “a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change [which] regularly criticises environmental groups”, according to Paul Thacker. Breakthrough has also been described as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.”

Shellenberger co-founded the Breakthrough Institute with Ted Nordhaus, nephew of economist, William Nordhuas. William Nordhaus features in Merchants of Doubt – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s examination of the PR strategies used both by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. His interventions in the 1990s helped set back essential action on climate change by decades.

Other figures associated with Shellenberger and the Breakthrough Institute include:

Owen Paterson, one of the UK’s most prominent climate deniers who helped with the UK launch of the group’s Ecomodernist manifesto in 2015.
Matt Ridley, coal mine owner, once hereditary Conservative Peer and famous climate delayer / ‘lukewarmist’ who spoke at the UK launch event.

6 BILLION DEATHS?

In an interview for BBC’s Hard Talk last year, one of Extinction Rebellion’s co-founders, Roger Hallam, said that “6 billion people will die” from climate breakdown. The figure was understandably questioned at the time and Zion Lights and others have used this repeatedly to try to undermine Extinction Rebellion’s credibility.

However, during his Hard Talk appearance, Roger was referring to an interview that Professor Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, printed in the Guardian. Rockström was quoted as saying that in a 4°C-warmer world, “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that… There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world.” Rockström is one of the world’s leading researchers on climate “tipping points” and “safe boundaries” for humanity.

After Hard Talk was broadcast, Rockström approached the Guardian for a correction. The journalist had misheard ‘8’ for ‘a’, he said and the quote was changed to, “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or maybe even half of that.” Even by Rockström’s own amendment, he still finds it hard to believe even half of the current population would be able to survive 4 degrees of warming. Whether the loss of life is in the order of one billion or six billion, the prospect is nonetheless horrifying.

You can find a note on the amendment at the bottom of the article.

Our agriculture and our civilisation developed in a stable world. As we move into an increasingly unstable one – with temperatures on track to rise hundreds of times faster than at any period in the last 65 million years – we are entering uncharted territory.

Our climate and our human systems – the flow of people, goods, money, and information, as well as our ability to grow food and water, and generate energy – are all interdependent. How this complex human web will respond to climate and ecological breakdown is impossible to model precisely, but we know that even minor changes in similarly complex systems can cause nonlinear – I.e. major/disproportionate – change. There is a real risk that should multiple climate/ecological shocks hit at once, entire systems could fail or be heavily disrupted, causing ‘synchronous failure’ whose devastating effects would be felt across the world.

Our lack of scientific understanding about how and when this ‘synchronous failure’ could play out is profound and terrifying, given how rapidly we’re entering the unknown.

Nonetheless, leading scientists (including Sir David King, Kevin Anderson, Will Steffen and Aled Jones) are also warning of catastrophic consequences if we continue on our current path.

Extinction Rebellion is highlighting this risk, not to scaremonger but because leading scientists are doing so in peer-reviewed academic journals and media outlets. A group of scientists in Extinction Rebellion have now published an extensive document which has been vigorously peer reviewed. You can read it here.

Zion Lights, Michael Shellenberger, the Breakthrough Institute and their associated deniers and delayers are intentionally spreading doubt about the severity of the crisis and the action needed to respond to it.

We hope that any editors considering offering a platform to Lights, Shellenberger or others associated with the Breakthrough Institute, will first perform journalistic due diligence and interrogate their motivations and credibility.

If you have insider knowledge about efforts to cover-up the true scale of the climate and ecological crisis, visit Truthteller.life.

*This statement has been amended to remove a line which categorised Mark Lynas under the term “climate denier/delayer” because of his association with the Breakthrough Institute, co-authoring of the Ecomodernist manifesto, and criticism of misrepresentation of the science around GMOs.

ANSTO’s never ending accidents, lies, cover-ups, bullying and intimidation

2023 Senate nuclear inquiry:

Senator Canavan asked at the May 15 hearing of the Senate nuclear inquiry: “Has there ever been a safety incident or an issue of radioactive waste at ANSTO?”

That question was taken on notice and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources responded as follows:

“ANSTO advises that it has safely managed its radioactive waste since its establishment 70 years ago. ANSTO publishes comprehensive information on its safety performance in its annual reports. Detailed information related to ANSTO’s safety record is also available on the ARPANSA website.”

Here are a couple of waste-related safety incidents that the Department chose not to inform the Committee about:

1. In early 1998, it was revealed that “airtight” spent fuel storage canisters had been infiltrated by water ‒ 90 litres in one case ‒ and a number of rods had corroded as a result. When canisters were retrieved for closer inspection, three accidents took place (2/3/98, 13/8/98, 1/2/99), all of them involving the dropping of canisters containing spent fuel. The public may never have learnt about those accidents if not for the fact that an ANSTO whistleblower told the local press. One of those accidents (1/2/99) subjected four ANSTO staff members to radiation doses of up to 500 microsieverts (half the public dose limit).

2. On March 15, 2002, an accident occurred during the cropping (cutting) of a spent fuel rod, releasing radioactivity to the spent fuel pond.

We have no doubt that there have been other relevant incidents and accidents that should have been reported to the Senate inquiry by the Department and/or ANSTO.

A string of incidents and accidents at ANSTO in the 2010s resulted in ARPANSA requiring ANSTO to select and appoint an expert independent review team to recommend how to improve safety in Building 23 and related matters. The final report by the independent expert review team contained 85 recommendations to improve safety performance IN JUST ONE AREA OF ANSTO’S OPERATIONS. We shudder to think how many recommendations might arise from a site-wide evaluation. The independent review detailed inadequate safety standards and other alarming findings including that 20% of ANSTO Health staff had experienced bullying over a six-month period.

The accidents in the mid- to late-2010s followed a string of accidents from 2007‒2012. Indeed we doubt if there has been any length of time this century without recurring incidents, accidents and a raft of safety-related problems at ANSTO.

Information on accidents and incidents at ANSTO from 2007 to 2012:

Friends of the Earth collated information about accidents, cover-ups, staff bullying etc from 2007 to 2012:
Lucas Heights whistleblower sparks nuclear safety fears, ABC, 5 May 2010
1 June 2010 – Senate Estimates with Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and ANSTO’s Dr Paterson
Report slams Australian nuclear reactor, ABC Lateline, 8 Feb 2011
Safety breaches at reactor, The Australian, 8 Feb 2011
Nuclear whistleblower treated unfairly The Australian, 8 Feb 2011
Video: Report slams Australian nuclear reactor (ABC Lateline), 9 Feb 2011
Report scathing of nuclear reactor safety ABC, 9 Feb 2011
Nuclear reactor under investigation The Australian, 9 Feb 2011
Nuclear safety breaches concern Opposition, ABC, 9 Feb 2011
Reactor staff ‘bullied over safety concerns’, The Australian, 28 Feb 2011
Backdown at Lucas Heights over safety claims, The Australian, 3 March 2011
Nuclear agency safety ‘stuck in 70s’ The Australian, 24 May 2011
30 May 2011 − Senate Estimates − ANSTO
19 October 2011 − Senate Estimates − ANSTO
20 February 2012 − Senate Estimates − ANSTO
February 2012 − Senate Estimates – ARPANSA
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor bullying exposed, The Australian, 16 March 2012
Third nuclear worker in bullying claim, The Australian, 22 March 2012
KPMG report commissioned by ARPANSA
28 May 2012 − Budget Estimates – ANSTO

mike

Hi Mike, section 5 our submission to a current Senate inquiry has details on costs and cost escalations for planned overseas waste dumps, and info on the 2014 explosion in the US intermediate-level dump, etc. The submission is online at the Senate inquiry site.

Also a mountain of info on failed plans for a national dump in Australia at https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste/

Some of the highlights / lowlights (as discussed):

– plans for a dump on defence department land in the NT were abandoned — putting it on defence department land doesn’t automatically solve community opposition, Traditional Owner opposition, opposition along transport corridors, etc

– under the Howard government, Defence Department publicly opposed plans for a dump near Woomera because of the risk of a missile strike (see articles below)

– appalling mismanagement of waste secretly trucked to Woomera Prohibited Area many years ago: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/woomera/

– no current efforts to find a disposal site for Australia’s long-lived intermediate-level waste (also destined for deep underground disposal), last half-hearted effort was the National Store project from 2001-2004, abandoned at the same time as Howard govt abandoned efforts to impose a dump for lower-level wastes near Woomera

Let me know if you want any more info

cheers, Jim

Nuclear power myth-busting Q&A

Last updated April 2022.

What do scientists say about nuclear power in relation to other energy sources?
Isn’t nuclear power better than coal in the short term because of immediate danger of fuelling climate change?
How does nuclear power stack up against other energy sources by cost of production?
Thorium reactors … aren’t they a good option?
Isn’t nuclear fusion power just around the corner?
Aren’t there new reactors that are fuelled by nuclear waste ‒ wouldn’t this solve the problem of radioactive waste?
Isn’t it true that Finland and Sweden are about to start operating high-level nuclear waste dumps?
Won’t Small Modular Reactors be safer and cheaper?
Doesn’t nuclear power have zero emissions?
Nuclear accidents are rare, aren’t they?
Isn’t it true that Chernobyl only killed 31 people and Fukushima hasn’t killed anyone?
How much water does a nuclear power plant consume?
Are there vested interests in the current resurgence of arguments for nuclear power?

What do scientists say about nuclear power in relation to other energy sources?

In January 2019, the Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, issued a policy statement concluding that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be”. The Climate Council statement continued: “Nuclear power stations are highly controversial, can’t be built under existing law in any Australian state or territory, are a more expensive source of power than renewable energy, and present significant challenges in terms of the storage and transport of nuclear waste, and use of water”.
Nuclear supporters often claim scientific support even where none exists. For example the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is said to support nuclear power on the basis of a 2018 report, but in fact the report simply maps out multiple energy/climate scenarios without endorsing any particular energy sources. In the IPCC’s low-carbon scenarios, nuclear power accounts for only a small fraction of electricity supply (even if nuclear output increases) whereas renewables do the heavy lifting. For example, in one 1.5°C scenario, nuclear power more than doubles by 2050 but only accounts for 4.2% of primary energy whereas renewables account for 60.8%. Moreover, the IPCC reports discusses serious problems with nuclear power, including its contribution to nuclear weapons proliferation, the connection between nuclear power and childhood leukemia, and nuclear power’s high costs.

Isn’t nuclear power better than coal in the short term because of immediate danger of fuelling climate change?

Nuclear power and fossil fuels aren’t the only choices. Renewable power has doubled over the past decade and now accounts for 29% of global electricity generation while nuclear’s contribution is 10% and continues to fall.
The federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources expects 69% renewable supply to the Australian National Electricity Market by 2030. South Australia has already reached 67% renewable supply and will comfortably meet the target of 100% net renewable supply by 2030.
Taking into account planning and approvals, construction, and the energy payback time, it would be a quarter of a century or more before nuclear power could even begin to reduce greenhouse emissions in Australia … and then only assuming that nuclear power replaced fossil fuels. So nuclear power clearly isn’t a short-term option or a ‘bridging’ technology to ease the shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
On the contrary, nuclear power would slow the shift away from fossil fuels, which is why fossil-fuel funded political parties and politicians support nuclear power (e.g. the Nationals) and why organisations such as the Minerals Council of Australia support nuclear power. As Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin notes, support for nuclear power in Australia is, in practice, support for coal.
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated by climate change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage, drought, and jelly-fish swarms. Retired nuclear engineer David Lochbaum states: “You need to solve global warming for nuclear plants to survive.”
Nuclear power programs have provided cover for numerous covert weapons programs and an expansion of nuclear power would exacerbate the problems. Australian energy expert Dr. Mark Diesendorf states: “On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does.”
Nuclear warfare is the quickest path to climate catastrophe. Earth and paleoclimate scientist Andrew Glikson writes: “When Turco et al. (1983) and Carl Sagan(1983) warned the world about the climatic effects of a nuclear war, they pointed out that the amount of carbon stored in a large city was sufficient to release enough aerosols, smoke, soot and dust to block sunlight over large regions, leading to a widespread failure of crops and extensive starvation. The current nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia could potentially inject 150 teragrams of soot from fires ignited by nuclear explosions into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, lasting for a period of 10 years or longer, followed by a period of intense radioactive radiation over large areas.”

How does nuclear power stack up against other energy sources by cost of production?

Nuclear power is far more expensive than other energy sources. Since 2010, the cost of wind and solar PV has decreased by 70‒90% while nuclear costs have increased 33%.
Lazard investment firm provides these figures in its October 2021 report on ‘levelised costs of electricity’:

Nuclear US$131‒204 (A$186‒289)

Wind ‒ onshore US$26‒50

Solar PV ‒ utility scale US$28‒41

In its 2021 GenCost report, CSIRO provides these 2030 cost estimates:

Nuclear (small modular): A$128‒322 / MWh

90% wind and solar PV with storage and transmission costs: A$55‒80 / MWh

The latest estimates for all reactors under construction in western Europe and the U.S. range from A$17.6 billion to A$30.6 billion per reactor and have been subject to spectacular cost overruns amounting to A$10 billion or more. A twin-reactor project in South Carolina was abandoned after the expenditure of A$12 billion.

Thorium reactors … aren’t they a good option?

There are no fundamental differences between thorium and uranium: thorium reactors produce nuclear waste, and they are vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, and they can be (and have been) used to produce explosive material for nuclear weapons.
Thorium reactor technology is not commercially available or viable. Dr Peter Karamaskos states: “Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.”

Isn’t nuclear fusion power just around the corner?

At best, fusion is decades away and most likely it will forever remain decades away. Two articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Dr. Daniel Jassby ‒ a fusion scientist ‒ comprehensively debunk all of the false claims made by fusion enthusiasts.

Aren’t there new reactors that are fuelled by nuclear waste ‒ wouldn’t this solve the problem of radioactive waste?

“Advanced” reactors are not advanced: they are not safer and in many cases are more dangerous and with even greater weapons potential.
Theoretically, these reactors would reduce nuclear waste streams but in practice, fancy concepts such as molten salt reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors “will actually exacerbate spent fuel storage and disposal issues” according to Dr. Allison Macfarlane, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Likewise, ‘integral fast reactors’ coupled with ‘pyroprocessing’ could reduce waste streams in theory … but in practice the opposite has occurred. Commenting on a R&D program in the U.S., Dr. Edwin Lyman notes that “Pyroprocessing has taken one potentially difficult form of nuclear waste and converted it into multiple challenging forms of nuclear waste. DOE [Department of Energy] has spent hundreds of millions of dollars only to magnify, rather than simplify, the waste problem.” See also Dr. Lyman’s important 2021 report, ‘Advanced” Isn’t Always Better: Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors’.

Isn’t it true that Finland and Sweden are about to start operating high-level nuclear waste dumps?

Finland and Sweden have been working on repositories for high-level nuclear waste for decades ‒ their plans are many years behind schedule and operation has yet to begin. They haven’t demonstrated safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste for a single year let alone the 300,000 years that it takes for high-level nuclear waste to decay to the level of radioactivity of the original uranium ore.
Other countries operating nuclear power plants ‒ including the US, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. ‒ have not even established a site for a high-level nuclear waste repository, let alone commenced construction or operation. To give one example of a protracted, expensive and failed attempt to establish a high-level nuclear waste repository, plans for a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada were abandoned in 2009. Over 20 years of work was put into the repository plan and A$12 billion was wasted on the failed project.
A January 2019 report details the difficulties with high-level nuclear waste management in seven countries (Belgium, France, Japan, Sweden, Finland, the UK and the US) and serves as a useful overview of the serious problems that Australia has avoided.
No operating deep underground repository for high-level nuclear waste exists, but there is one deep underground repository for long lived intermediate-level nuclear waste − the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the US state of New Mexico. In 2014, a chemical explosion ruptured one of the barrels stored underground at WIPP. This was followed by a failure of the filtration system meant to ensure that radiation did not reach the outside environment. Twenty-two workers were exposed to low-level radiation. WIPP was closed for three years. A deeply troubling aspect of the WIPP problems is that complacency and cost-cutting set in within the first decade of operation of the repository.

Won’t Small Modular Reactors be safer and cheaper?

Small modular reactors (SMRs), if they existed, would be just as accident-prone as large reactors. Proposals to situate SMRs underground pose unique safety threats from flooding and accessibility. They would still produce long-lived radioactive waste and be useful for weapons production.
Only two SMRs are said to exist ‒ one in Russia and one in China ‒ but neither meets the ‘modular’ part of the definition: serial factor production of reactor components (or ‘modules’).
Electricity from SMRs is expected to be more expensive than that from large, conventional nuclear reactors. There is no current market for SMRs and companies are refusing to make the huge investments required because of the high risks.
Most of the handful of SMRs under construction are over-budget and behind schedule; there are disturbing connections between SMRs, weapons proliferation and militarism more generally; and about half of the SMRs under construction are intended to be used to facilitate the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves (in the Arctic, the South China Sea and elsewhere).

Doesn’t nuclear power have zero emissions?

A 2009 paper prepared for the Australian Uranium Association estimated that the nuclear power life cycle generates between 10‒103 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh, which is far lower than fossil fuels ‒ but as uranium ore grades decline emissions would increase to as much as 248 gCO2e/kWh. As well as emissions from mining and milling uranium ore there are emissions associated with the transport and processing of fuel.

Nuclear accidents are rare, aren’t they?

There have been over 200 nuclear power accidents.
Nuclear theft and smuggling are serious, unresolved problems. As of 31 December 2018, an International Atomic Energy Agency database contained a total of 3,497 confirmed incidents reported by participating States since 1993, of which 285 incidents involved a confirmed or likely act of trafficking or malicious use, and for an additional 965 incidents there was insufficient information to determine if it was related to trafficking or malicious use.
There have been an alarming number of deliberate attacks on nuclear plants. Examples include Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1981; the United States’ destruction of two smaller research reactors in Iraq in 1991; attempted military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980‒88 war; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear plant in Syria in 2007.

Isn’t it true that Chernobyl only killed 31 people and Fukushima hasn’t killed anyone?

United Nations’ reports in 2005/06 estimated around 9,000 deaths among those people most heavily exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl and populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The estimated death toll rises further when populations beyond those three countries are included. For example, a study published in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths across Europe. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that there will be 27,000‒108,000 excess cancers and 12,000‒57,000 excess cancer deaths due to exposure of radiation from Chernobyl.
In a study of the health impacts of the March 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan (multiple nuclear reactor meltdowns, fires and explosions), the World Health Organisation stated that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).
Radiation biologist Ian Fairlie estimates around 5,000 fatal cancer deaths resulting from exposure to radioactive Fukushima fallout. In addition, there is no dispute that at least 2,000 people died due to the botched evacuation of Fukushima and the mistreatment of evacuees over the following years.

How much water does a nuclear power plant consume?

Nuclear requires water in the mining and production of uranium fuel, generation of electricity and cooling at nuclear reactors, and for the management of wastes.
Reactors are generally situated near lakes, rivers or the ocean to meet cooling water requirements. There are two types of cooling systems used for nuclear power ‒ either ‘once-through’ or recirculating. With once-through systems, warmer water is discharged back into the environment, often having a significant impact on the local ecology.
A single nuclear power reactor operating for a single day typically consumes 36‒65 million litres of water. A 2006 paper by the Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services states: “Per megawatt existing nuclear power stations use and consume more water than power stations using other fuel sources. Depending on the cooling technology utilised, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations.”
By contrast, the REN21 ‘Renewables 2015: Global Status Report’ states: “Although renewable energy systems are also vulnerable to climate change, they have unique qualities that make them suitable both for reinforcing the resilience of the wider energy infrastructure and for ensuring the provision of energy services under changing climatic conditions. System modularity, distributed deployment, and local availability and diversity of fuel sources − central components of energy system resilience − are key characteristics of most renewable energy systems.”

Are there vested interests in the current resurgence of arguments for nuclear power?

Yes, corporations with vested interests in nuclear power and uranium routinely promote dishonest arguments in support of nuclear power. For example, the Minerals Council of Australia promotes ‘clean nuclear’ and ‘clean coal’.
In addition, right-wing ideologues promote nuclear power as part of the ‘culture wars’ and they hope that nuclear promotion will divide the Labor Party and the environment movement. Those efforts have been unsuccessful and self-defeating ‒ the only splits that have emerged in recent years are within the Coalition parties, with the SA, NSW and Tasmanian Liberal parties and the Queensland branch of the Liberal-National Party opposing nuclear power and calling for more support for the expansion of renewable energy sources. At the federal level, there is bipartisan support for Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia.
Lastly, beware of pro-nuclear ‘greenwashing’ ‒ corporate-funded fake environmentalism. An Australian example was the ‘Bright New World‘ group which accepted secret corporate donations. Another example is the fake ‘Australian Greens for Nuclear Energy‘ group.

Paladin Energy goes bust

Jim Green, Nuclear Monitor #847, 21 July 2017

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/847/paladin-energy-goes-bust

“It has never been a worse time for uranium miners.” ‒ Alexander Molyneux, CEO of Paladin Energy, October 2016.¹

Paladin Energy Ltd appointed administrators on July 3 after Electricité de France (EDF) called in a US$277 million debt that Paladin was unable to pay.² Paladin is a uranium mining company based in Perth, Western Australia. The company is 75% owner of the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia, 85% owner of the Kayelekera uranium mine in Malawi (in care and maintenance since 2014), and it owns sundry ‘nonproducing assets’ in Australia, Canada and Niger.

The administrators, from KPMG, will continue to operate Paladin on a business-as-usual basis until further notice. Paladin said its management and directors “remain committed” to working with the administrators to restructure and recapitalise the company.²

Paladin “was formerly a multi-billion-dollar company and was once the best-performed stock in the world” according to The Australian newspaper.³ The company’s share price went from one Australian cent in 2003 to A$10.80 in 2007, but has fallen more than 200-fold and traded at 4.7 cents before trading was suspended in early June 2017.⁴ Paladin had just US$21.8 million in cash at the end of March 2017.⁴ The company’s losses totalled US$1.9 billion between 1994 and 2014.⁵

Later this year, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), which already owns 25% of the Langer Heinrich mine, may purchase Paladin’s 75% stake. The move comes as a result of CNNC seeking to exercise a debt-default option to acquire the 75% stake. Paladin wanted to challenge CNNC in court, but after consulting with debt holders agreed not to do so due to prohibitive cost.⁶ Paladin could gain US$500 million from the sale but will still be in debt. In addition to the US$277 million it owes EDF, Paladin owes bondholders US$372 million.³

Assuming the Langer Heinrich sale goes ahead, Paladin will have nothing other than ‘nonproducing assets’ and the Kayelekera mine – which also a nonproducing asset since it is in care and maintenance. So the administrators have very little to work with. Just keeping Kayelekera in care and maintenance costs about US$10 million per year.⁷

Paladin said in 2014 that its decision to place Kayelekera on care and maintenance “is the latest in a sequence of closures, production suspensions and deferrals of major planned greenfield and brownfield expansions in the uranium sector, including Paladin’s decision in 2012 to suspend evaluation of a major Stage 4 expansion of the Langer Heinrich Mine in Namibia.”⁸

Paladin said in 2015 that a price of about US$75 per pound would be required for Kayelekera to become economically viable⁹ ‒ but that price hasn’t been seen since 2011 and it is more than three times the current spot price and more than double the long-term contract price.¹⁰ Paladin also said that the availability of grid power supply would be necessary to restart Kayelekera, to replace the existing diesel generators.⁹

Selling nonproducing assets

Late last year, Paladin was reduced to selling nonproducing assets for a song. Paladin sold a number of Australian uranium exploration projects to Uranium Africa for A$2.5 million, including Oobagooma in Western Australia and the Angela/Pamela and Bigrlyi projects in the Northern Territory.¹¹ Paladin told shareholders that the assets were ‘noncore’ and it was unlikely the company would be in a position to conduct any meaningful work developing the projects over the next decade.¹¹ The A$2.5 million did little to improve Paladin’s financial situation, but the company is also spared from further spending on rates, rents and statutory commitments payable to keep the tenements in good standing.¹¹

Last year, Paladin also sold its 257.5 million shares in uranium exploration company Deep Yellow for A$2.6 million, with shares priced at one Australian cent a share.¹¹ Deep Yellow, like Paladin, is an Australian-based company whose main interests are in Africa. Deep Yellow is now headed by John Borshoff, who founded Paladin in 1993 and agreed to step down as managing director and chief executive in August 2015.

Some ‘nonproducing assets’ can’t be sold, not even for a song. Paladin hoped to sell a 30% stake in the Manyingee uranium project in Western Australia to Avira Energy for A$10 million, but Avira did not raise the required capital by the 31 March 2017 deadline.¹² Avira said in April 2017 that investors who had previously committed to support its capital increase had withdrawn as a consequence of a “challenging” environment for new uranium projects in Western Australia.¹² Development of Manyingee (and all other non-approved deposits) is prohibited under the policy of the current Western Australian government.

The Australian Financial Review reflected on happier days for Paladin: “John Borshoff was once one of Western Australia’s wealthiest businessmen. The founder of Perth-based Paladin Energy developed an enviable portfolio of African uranium mines supposed to satiate booming global demand for yellowcake. When the company’s Langer Heinrich mine began shipments in March 2007, as the spot price for uranium eclipsed $US100 per pound, Paladin was worth more than $4 billion.”¹³

Borshoff, described as the grandfather of Australian uranium, made his debut on the Business Review Weekly’s ‘Rich 200’ list in 2007 with estimated wealth of A$205 million.¹³ Reuters describes Paladin as the world’s second largest independent pure-play uranium miner after Cameco and the seventh or eighth largest globally.¹ When the company’s two mines in Africa were operating, annual production capacity was about eight million pounds of uranium oxide ‒ about 5% of world demand.

Paladin gambled and lost

Paladin gambled and lost, relying heavily on debt financing to quickly develop the Langer Heinrich and Kayelekera mines in Africa.¹³ Another failed gamble was to sell primarily on the spot market, thus missing the opportunity to lock in long-term contracts when the price was relatively high¹³ ‒ the long-term contract price has halved since the Fukushima disaster.

Another failed gamble was Paladin’s A$1.2 billion hostile takeover bid for Summit Resources in 2007.¹³ Paladin owns 82% of Summit, which is sitting on uneconomic uranium deposits in Queensland ‒ an Australian state which bans uranium mining. In 2015, Paladin booked a A$323.6 million write-down on its exploration assets in Queensland.¹⁴

A July 2013 mining.com article said that “to put things lightly, management is overpaid”, and suggested that management’s focus may be “on its own best interests rather than the interests of all shareholders”.¹⁵

Dave Sweeney, nuclear free campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, told Nuclear Monitor:

“Paladin’s ambition and appetite has always exceeded its capacity and competence and now the gap between its inflated promises and its profound under-performance is absolute. This company has always been a uranium bull. It’s former CEO John Borshoff promised unrealistic wealth for Africa while dismissing Fukushima as a ‘sideshow’. When the market was buoyant they paraded their portfolio and were market darlings, now they are desperate, dateless and on administrative life-support.

“A real concern here is the impact on the environment and communities in which Paladin operate. The risk is that more corners will be cut in African operations in relation to rehabilitation, worker entitlements and environmental protection. Paladin’s boom to bust case study is a further clear example of the lack of independent scrutiny of the uranium sector and also reflects poorly on the activities of Australian miners operating in nations with limited governance and regulatory capacity.”

References:

Geert De Clercq, 3 Oct 2016, ‘Desperate uranium miners switch to survival mode despite nuclear rebound’, www.reuters.com/article/us-uranium-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1230EF
World Nuclear News, 3 July 2017, ‘Paladin Energy enters administration’, http://world-nuclear-news.org/UF-Paladin-Energy-enters-administration-0307177.html
Paul Garvey, 4 July 2017, ‘French debt forces uranium miner Paladin into administration’, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/french-debt-forces-uranium-miner-paladin-into-administration/news-story/b366be6e20bbaa2cf8b0439b64ef6168
Nick Evans, 11 Aug 2015, ‘Borshoff cedes control of debt-laden Paladin’, West Australian.
Mike King, 19 Jan 2015, ‘Paladin Energy Ltd revenues soar 79% but shares sink’, www.fool.com.au/2015/01/19/paladin-energy-ltd-revenues-soar-79-but-shares-sink/
Greg Peel, 11 July 2017, ‘Uranium Week: Taking Its Toll’, www.fnarena.com/index.php/2017/07/11/uranium-week-taking-its-toll/
Rachel Etter-Phoya and Grain Malunga / OpenOil, Oct 2016, ‘Kayelekera Model & Narrative Report’, http://openoil.net/kayelekera-model-narrative-report/
Paladin Energy, 7 Feb 2014, ‘Suspension of Production at Kayelekera Mine, Malawi’, www.marketwired.com/press-release/paladin-energy-ltd-suspension-of-production-at-kayelekera-mine-malawi-tsx-pdn-1876805.htm
Sarah-Jane Tasker, 8 Jan 2015, ‘Paladin Energy alerts ASX to spill at Malawi uranium mine’, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/paladin-energy-alerts-asx-to-spill-at-malawi-uranium-mine/story-e6frg9df-1227177696428
https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price
Esmarie Swanepoel, 15 Dec 2016, ‘Paladin holds a fire sale’, www.miningweekly.com/article/paladin-holds-a-fire-sale-2016-12-15
World Nuclear News, 3 April 2017, http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=4499e9a24a&e=ae5ca458a0
Tess Ingram, 7 July 2017, ‘Paladin Energy: from market hero to administration’, www.afr.com/business/mining/uranium/paladin-energy-from-market-hero-to-administration-20170706-gx6a84
Henry Lazenby, 14 May 2015, ‘Paladin Energy narrows nine-month net loss’, www.miningweekly.com/article/paladin-energy-narrows-nine-month-net-loss-2015-05-14
Tommy Humphreys, 10 July 2013, ‘Uranium outlook and Paladin Energy risk profile’, www.mining.com/web/uranium-outlook-and-paladin-energy-risk-profile/

Paladin Energy’s social and environmental record in Africa

Jim Green, Nuclear Monitor #847, 21 July 2017,

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/847/paladin-energys-social-and-environmental-record-africa

Paladin Energy’s operations in Africa ‒ the Kayelekera uranium mine in Malawi and the Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia ‒ have been marked by regular accidents and controversies. The WISE-Uranium website has a ‘Hall of Infamy’ page dedicated to the company.¹ Some of the accidents and controversies are listed here and a more detailed account is posted on the Nuclear Monitor website.²

April 2006: Paladin CEO John Borshoff told ABC television: “Australia and Canada have become overly sophisticated. They measure progress in other aspects than economic development, and rightly so, but I think there has been a sort of overcompensation in terms of thinking about environmental issues, social issues, way beyond what is necessary to achieve good practice.”³

November 2006: NGOs groundWork and the Centre for Civil Society gave out the ‘Southern African Corpse Awards’ ‒ an annual mock ceremony for big business ‒ in Durban. Paladin was awarded the ‘Pick the Public Pocketprize’ thanks to a nomination from Malawian NGOs.⁴

2007: Criticisms of operations at Kayelekera outlined by the Catholic Church and other Malawian community and environmental organisations included the following issues of concern: inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment; flaws in community consultation; government deferring its role in safeguarding community interests to the company; destruction of cultural and historic sites; increased social disorder; unfair compensation for those forcibly relocated; and undue interference with makeup of community based organisations.⁵

4 January 2007: Two Malawian NGO members were ordered to go to the Karonga Police Station by the Chief of Police and threatened with arrest for taking an Australian photojournalist sponsored by the two Australian unions (MUA and CFMEU) to Kayelekera. The Chief of Police said they were acting on a complaint from Paladin.⁶

March 2007: Paladin’s Kayelekera project would not be approved in Australia due to the major flaws in the assessment and design proposals, independent reviewers concluded. Their report covered baseline environmental studies, tailings management, water management, rehabilitation, failure to commit to respecting domestic laws, use of intimidation and threatening tactics against local civil society, improper community consultation and payments to local leaders, and destruction of cultural heritage.⁷

27 March 2008: The open pit at Paladin’s Langer Heinrich mine was flooded with run-off water from a rainstorm and was out of use for about one month.⁸

April 2008: A spill of a large quantity of sulphuric acid at the Langer Heinrich mine raised questions about safety procedures at the mine. The Namibian newspaper was informed that a mine employee lost grip on the hose transferring the acid from a truck to a storage facility. The employee apparently fled to call for help, after which a forklift dumped a large quantity of caustic soda on the spill to neutralise the acid. The result was explosive ‒ a series of loud bangs could be heard from a distance, but nobody was injured.⁹

16 March 2009: A chemical fireball and explosion killed two workers and badly injured another at the Kayelekera mine. Over the next two days, the fatal accident prompted 200 contract workers to strike over pay and working conditions. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists noted in a 2015 report that three more workers, including a contractor, died in other incidents at Kayelekera in the years after the fireball.¹⁰

18 March 2009: Malawian police fired tear-gas at workers at the Kayelekera mine construction site. The workers, mostly casual laborers, were on a sit-in since the previous day to pressure management for better working conditions. The strike forced Paladin management to temporarily shut down the mine and evacuate its senior managers to Lilongwe.¹¹

August 2009: Neville Huxham from Paladin Energy Africa said: “We’re taking the uranium out of the ground, we’re exporting it to be used for productive purposes, so we should be getting a medal for cleaning up the environment.”¹²

September 2009: Australia’s Fairfax press reported on the Kayelekera mine: “The company’s approach has caused friction with local non-government groups, which took legal action to impose tougher controls on the project in 2007. The case was settled out of court. Since then it has been accused of lax safety standards (three workers have died in accidents this year) and failing to bring promised benefits to local communities …”¹³

Australian-based scientific consultant Howard Smith said regulations were ”essentially a self-regulation system, which will ultimately result in releases [of contaminated water] that are under-reported, uncontrolled and hidden from the affected public.”¹³

October 2009: Fourth death in 2009 at Kayelekera. The company said that an employee had died at the mine as a result of a mini-bus rollover on October 7. Paladin said 19 people including the driver were injured, with 15 admitted to hospital. Paladin advised on August 25 that a construction contractor had died at the mine, also as a result of a motor vehicle incident. The company reported on April 5 that two sub-contractors had died in a flash fire at the mine construction site on March 16.¹⁴

September 2010: Paladin orders miners to work at Kayelekera in spite of a shortage of dust masks. A Nyasa Times undercover journalist who visited the mine on 23 September 2010 found that most miners did not wear masks, and their hands and face were caked with uranium ore. The workers protested to management about the development. The geology superintendent of the mine, Johan De Bruin, confirmed the lack of dust masks. In a September 23 email sent to mine workers, he ordered staff to continue working despite the shortage of dust masks. “Mining is a 24 hour operation and cannot be stopped as a result of a shortage of available dust masks,” said De Bruin in his September 23 email.¹⁵

June 2011: A truck driver died in an accident at the Kayelekera mine ‒ the Tanzanian national died after the truck he was driving struck a water tank.¹⁶

15 August 2011: Progress on Expansion Phase Three of the Langer Heinrich mine came to a standstill after employees of the main contractor, Grinaker LTA, downed tools due to grievances related to impending layoffs. According to a workers committee representative, more than 600 employees stopped work at noon on August 15 and continued to strike the following day.¹⁷

2012: CRIIRAD, a French NGO specialising in independent radiation monitoring, conducted radiation monitoring activities around the Kayelekera mine. Its report stated: “CRIIRAD discovered hot spots in the environment of the mine and a high uranium concentration in the water flowing from a stream located below the open pit and entering the Sere river. Results that relate to the radiological monitoring of the environment performed by the company are kept secret. The company should publish on its web site all environmental reports. No property right can be invoked to prevent public access to Paladin environmental reports (especially as Malawi State holds 15 % of the shares of the uranium mine). It is shocking to discover that million tonnes of radioactive and chemically polluting wastes (especially tailings) are disposed of on a plateau with very negative geological and hydrogeological characteristics.”¹⁸

11 May 2012: Workers at Kayelekera went on strike over labor conditions: The local workers told Nyasa Times that they were demanding a pay increase from Paladin. Workers downed tools on May 11, halting production at the site. On May 16, Paladin announced than an agreement in principle was achieved for a return to work by the striking employees.¹⁹

December 2012: Paladin threatened 75-year old Australian pensioner Noel Wauchope with legal action for posting on her antinuclear.net website an article critical about Paladin’s operations in Malawi. The threat backfired when it was publicised in the widely-read Fairfax press in Australia. Fairfax business columnist Michael West wrote: “The price of Noel Wauchope’s concern for the people Karonga was a long and intimidating letter of demand from Ashurst on behalf of the uranium company Paladin Energy … “²⁰

2013: A detailed report by the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development states:²¹

“Consistent with what many analysts and commentators have said, this research study unequivocally established that the benefits that Malawi, as a country, is gaining from the deal made with Kayelekera are tangential and dismal. Among the reasons why benefits are skewed more favourably towards the mining company are that the negotiations were done hastily under an atmosphere that was not transparent. Furthermore, the government officials involved were not experienced and were no match for the skilled negotiators for Paladin.

“Above and beyond this, the major problem that contributed to the disproportionate sharing of benefits are the country’s archaic laws that fail to hold the Multinational Corporation (MNCs) more accountable to pay taxes and remit profits to Malawi. … The investment incentives offered to Paladin have revenue implications to the Malawi government. These include; (1) 15% carried equity in project company to be transferred to the Republic of Malawi, (2) Corporate tax rate reduced from 30% to an effective 27.5%, (3) 10% resource rent reduced to zero, (4) Reduced Royalty rate from 5% to 1.5% (years 1 to 3) and 3% (thereafter), (5) removal of 17 % import VAT or import duty during the stability period, (6) immediate 100% capital write off for tax purposes, The capitalisation (debt: equity) ratio of 4:1 for the project, and (7) stability period of 10 years where there will be no increase to tax and royalty regime and commitment to provide the benefit of any tax and royalty decrease during the period. This clause in the agreement statement implies amortization of profits. This means that there shall be a reduction or cancellation of taxes to be paid during future years of subsequent profits as a means to compensate the debt accrued by the company during years of registering losses.”

27 June 2013: About 300 workers, including mine staff and contractor employees, picketed at the Langer Heinrich mine, protesting the way they were being treated and paid. The protesting workers and media were barred from the mine site where the demonstration was supposed to take place.²²

July 2013: UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, rubbished the Kayelekera uranium mine deal between Malawi and Paladin, saying Malawi had a raw deal that is robbing the poor. He said that over the lifespan of the mine, Malawi is expected to lose almost US$281 million. “Mining companies are exempt from customs duty, excise duty, value added taxes on mining machinery, plant and equipment. They can also sign special deals on the rate of royalty owed to the government,” he said.²³

30 July 2013: An employee died in an accident in the Kayelekera mine’s engineering workshop after being struck in the chest by a light vehicle wheel he was inflating.²⁴

October 2013: The Opposition People’s Transformation Party (PETRA) appealed to government authorities to renegotiate what it called the “stinking development agreement” between Malawi and Paladin regarding the Kayelekera mine.²⁵

3 October 2013: Three miners were injured at Langer Heinrich following a “serious electrical incident”. Paladin said two of the workers received significant burns while a third worker suffered smoke inhalation. One of the workers was flown to South Africa for treatment.²⁶ On October 30, Paladin announced that the injured worker flown to South Africa had died in hospital.²⁷

February 2014: Paladin reported that a truck carrying a container of uranium from Kayelekera overturned. The container fell loose and was punctured by a tree stump, and a “small quantity” of uranium oxide concentrate spilled out. Paladin said the uranium and the soil it came in touch with were removed and taken back to the tailings dam at the mine.²⁸

2 October 2014: About 50 employees staged a protest at the Langer Heinrich Uranium (LHU) mine’s head office in Swakopmund before handing over a petition listing their complaints. Workers employed by companies sub-contracted to LHU claim they had been mistreated at work. The workers from Sure Cast, Gecko Drilling, LBS, Quick Investment, RVH and NEC Stahl claimed they were made to work without benefits, such as medical aid, transport allowances and pension.²⁹

November 2014: Paladin came under fire from a coalition of 33 Malawian civil society groups and chiefs over its proposal to discharge mining sludge into the Sere and North Rukuru rivers. The toxic substances that would flow from the tailings pond at the Kayelekera mine into Lake Malawi 50 kms downstream include waste uranium rock, acids, arsenic and other chemicals used in processing the uranium ore, the coalition said. The lake provides water for drinking and domestic use to millions of Malawians. Part of the lake is protected as a national park.³⁰

2015: A report by the office of Namibia’s Prime Minister said there is a lack of safety at the Langer Heinrich mine and that workers are not aware of policies, rules and procedures as outlined in the radiation management plan.³¹

January 2015: At the Kayelekera mine, heavy rain caused a liner in the plant run-off tank to rupture, releasing some 500 cubic metres (500,000 litres) of material to the bunded areas of the site. Up to 50 litres may have overtopped one of the containment bunds.³²

February 2015: About 60 permanent employees of the Langer Heinrich mine participated in a demonstration to hand over a petition to mine management. Employees sought the removal of the manager for human resources on allegations of victimising employees as well as disregarding employees’ safety. They also accused him of implementing a new salary structure without union agreement. The workers, through the Mineworkers’ Union of Namibia (MUN), also demanded the removal of the mine’s managing director, saying he had total disregard for the union. Workers also said the mine never implemented recommendations made after a 2013 accident that claimed the life of a miner. The workers’ petition said: “Our members are exposed to safety hazards. The company does not properly investigate incidents at the mine.” The workers also alleged that the removal of contract workers from the mine resulted in a lack of rest and increase in fatigue.³³

April 2015: Despite opposition from a group of 33 civil society organizations, Paladin began discharging treated waste water from the Kayelekera mine into the Sere River. The discharge of contaminated water was expected to take place for three months. Paladin decided to discharge the waste because the dam at the Kayelekera mine was full, raising the possibility of unplanned and uncontrolled discharges after heavy rains.³⁴

June 2015: A report by ActionAid stated that Malawi ‒ the world’s poorest country ‒ lost out on US$43 million revenue from the Kayelekera mine over the previous six years due to “harmful exemptions from royalty payments from the Malawi government, and tax planning using treaty shopping by Paladin.”³⁵

Australia’s Fairfax press reported: “Between 2009 and 2014, Paladin Energy moved $US183 million out of Malawi to a holding company in the Netherlands and then on to Australia. A 15-page report by London-based ActionAid has found the Dutch transfers and a special royalties deal – in which Malawi’s mining minister agreed to drop the initial tax rate applied to the uranium mine from 5 per cent to 1.5 per cent – have cost the Malawi public $US43 million. In Africa’s poorest nation, where per capita GDP is just $US226 a year and life expectancy 55, that money could provide the equivalent of 39,000 new teachers or 17,000 nurses, according to the aid group.”³⁶

December 2015: Matildah Mkandawire from Citizens for Justice wrote: “In August this year, Citizens for Justice and Action Aid Malawi, with support from the Tilitonse Fund, organized an interface meeting with the local communities, government representatives at district level and Paladin representatives. The aim of this meeting was to discuss the concerns of the community regarding the failure of Paladin to stick to the agreements in the MOU. Paladin cancelled with us at the 11th hour claiming they needed a formal letter of invitation and not the one they got from the community. The meeting had to go ahead without them although this left the community furious as the issues they wanted to raise were key to their health and sanitation, environmental health and social well-being. The lack of clean water, and the delay in providing educational and health facilities as agreed, spoke volumes of the company’s lack of responsibility for the community it operates in.”³⁷

2016: A human rights body in Malawi sued Paladin Africa Ltd for alleged damage the Kayelekera mine has caused to some miners and the surrounding communities in Karonga district. The Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation accused Paladin of not prioritising the welfare of its employees and the community.³⁸

16 June 2016: Security guards at the mothballed Kayelekera mine downed tools over poor working conditions.³⁹

September 2016: Human Rights Watch released a detailed report on mines in the Karonga region of Malawi, including the Kayelekera uranium mine: “Using Karonga district in northern Malawi as a case study, the report documents how Malawi currently lacks adequate legal standards and safeguards to ensure the necessary balance between developing the mining industry and protecting the rights of local communities. It examines how weak government oversight and lack of information leave local communities unprotected and uninformed about the risks and opportunities associated with mining.”⁴⁰

20 December 2016: Eight Tanzanians were arrested while travelling to participate in a fact-finding mission of the Kayelekera mine. They are from the area where the Mkuju River uranium mine is planned in Tanzania. They were accused of trespassing, spying and working as foreign agents. They were denied bail and held in sub-standard conditions; their legal access was impeded and their legal team harassed with death threats and the mysterious disappearance of their laptops; their legal defence team was prevented from fully cross-questioning witnesses; and the trial was postponed on six occasions, each time disrupting the defence team that travelled from Lilongwe and Dar-es-Salaam. In April 2017, after almost five months in detention, the eight people were convicted of Criminal Trespassing and carrying out a reconnaissance operation without a permit, and given suspended four-month sentences.⁴¹

January 2017: Paladin and the Malawi government rejected requests to disclose the results of water monitoring performed in the surroundings of the Kayelekera mine.⁴²

References:

WISE-Uranium, ‘Paladin Energy Ltd Hall of Infamy’, www.wise-uranium.org/ucpalhi.html
‘Paladin’s social and environmental record, https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/847/nuclear-monitor-847-21-july-2017
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F12858%2F0004%22
Patrick Bond, 24 Dec 2006, ZNet.

Paladin persecutes Australian photojournalist in Malawi

Background on Recent Developments at the Kayelekera Uranium Mine, 2007, www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1429
MUA News, 15 Jan 2007, ‘Australian Company Uses Malawian Police Against Critics’, http://mua.org.au/news/general/malawi.html
Mineral Policy Institute, March 2007, ‘Paladin Resources Kayelekera Uranium Project in Malawi, Africa would not be approved in Australia, concludes independent reviewers’, http://web.archive.org/web/20080719214944/http://www.mpi.org.au/campaigns/waste/malawi/
Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 March 2008; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
Namibian, 25 April 2008; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
Will Fitzgibbon, Martha M. Hamilton and Cécile Schilis-Gallego / International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, 10 July 2015, ‘Australian Mining Companies Digging A Deadly Footprint in Africa’, www.icij.org/project/fatal-extraction/australian-mining-companies-digging-deadly-footprint-africa
Nyasa Times, 18 March 2009; The Nation, 19 March 2009.
12. IPS, 24 August 2009.
Tom Hyland, 20 Sept 2009, ‘Miner accused on slack safety’, www.smh.com.au/world/miner-accused-on-slack-safety-20090919-fw3q.html
Sydney Morning Herald, 8 Oct 2009; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#KAYELEKERA
Nyasa Times, 25 Sep 2010; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW
Nyasa Times, 19 June 2011; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW
The Namibian, 17 Aug 2011; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
Bruno Chareyron, 2015, ‘Impact of the Kayelekera uranium mine, Malawi’. EJOLT Report No. 21, www.ejolt.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150222_Report-21.pdf
Nyasa Times, 11 May 2012; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW; www.miningweekly.com/article/kayelekera-production-back-on-track-2012-05-16
http://antinuclear.net/2013/09/02/ashurst-paladin-attack-this-website-with-legal-threats/
African Forum and Network on Debt and Development, 2013, ‘The Revenue Costs and Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment in the Extractive Industry in Malawi: The Case of Kayelekera Uranium Mine’, www.afrodad.org/index.php/en/resource-centre/publications/category/22-economic-governance.html
The Namibian, 2 July 2013; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
22 July 2013, ‘End of mission statement by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food’, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13567&LangID=E
Paladin Energy Ltd July 31, 2013; Esmarie Swanepoel, 31 July 2013, ‘Fatality at Paladin mine’, www.miningweekly.com/article/fatality-at-paladin-mine-2013-07-31
Nyasa Times, 5 March 2013.
Esmarie Swanepoel, 3 Oct 2013, ‘Electrical accident injures three at Langer Heinrich’, www.miningweekly.com/article/accident-injures-3-at-langer-heinrich-2013-10-03
www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
17 Feb 2014, ‘Product Shipment Incident near Kayelekera Mine, Malawi’, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paladin-energy-ltd-product-shipment-120000130.html
Namib Times, 7 Oct 2014; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
Environmental News Service, 25 Nov 2014, ‘Uranium Mine Sludge Discharge Permit Threatens Lake Malawi’, http://ens-newswire.com/2014/11/25/uranium-mine-sludge-discharge-permit-threatens-lake-malawi/
The Namibian, 10 July 2015; www.opm.gov.na; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
Esmarie Swanepoel, 10 Feb 2015, ‘Kayelekera no threat to environment – Paladin’, www.miningweekly.com/article/kayelekera-no-threat-to-environment—paladin-2015-02-10
Esmarie Swanepoel, 7 Jan 2015, ‘Paladin reports spill at Malawi mine after minor storm’, www.miningweekly.com/article/paladin-reports-spill-at-malawi-mine-after-minor-storm-2015-01-07

Sarah-Jane Tasker, 8 Jan 2015, ‘Paladin Energy alerts ASX to spill at Malawi uranium mine’, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/paladin-energy-alerts-asx-to-spill-at-malawi-uranium-mine/story-e6frg9df-1227177696428

New Era, 20 Feb 2015; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#LANGERH
www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW

ActionAid, 17 June 2015, ‘An Extractive Affair: How one Australian mining company’s tax dealings are costing the world’s poorest country millions’, www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/malawi_tax_report_updated_table_16_june.pdf
Heath Aston, 11 July 2015, ‘Australian miner accused of dodging tax in world’s poorest country’, www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-miner-accused-of-dodging-tax-in-worlds-poorest-country-20150710-gi6uzv.html
Matildah M. Mkandawire, 17 Dec 2015, ‘Uranium mining in Malawi: the case of Kayelekera’, Nuclear Monitor #816, www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/816/uranium-mining-malawi-case-kayelekera
Norbert Mzembe, 22 June 2016, ‘Malawi: Paladin Africa Sued for ‘Gross Damage”, www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=13429

Capital Radio Malawi, 22 June 2016, www.capitalradiomalawi.com/news/item/6349-paladin-africa-sued-for-gross-damage
www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW

Nyasa Times, 17 June 2016; www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW
Human Rights Watch, 27 Sept 2016, ‘”They Destroyed Everything”: Mining and Human Rights in Malawi’, www.hrw.org/report/2016/09/27/they-destroyed-everything/mining-and-human-rights-malawi or www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/accessible_document/malawi0916_etr_web_1.pdf
David Fig, 2 April 2017, ‘Why Malawi’s case against the Tanzanian eight is a travesty of justice’, https://theconversation.com/why-malawis-case-against-the-tanzanian-eight-is-a-travesty-of-justice-75555

Menschenrechte 3000 e.V., 28 Feb 2017, ‘Report on 8 Tanzanian Environmental and Human Rights Defenders arbitrarily detained in Malawi since 22. Dec. 2017’, www.uranium-network.org/images/pics/REPORT-MR3000-TUAM-update-1.pdf

Front Line Defenders, www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/8-tanzanian-environmental-defenders-convicted

www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#KAYELEKERAVT

Malawi Times, 12 April 2017.

Bright Phiri & Nicely Msowoya, ‘REPORT on the continuation of court case against 8 Tanzanians detained in Malawi, on 13. and 14. February 2017’, www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/PhiriMsowoya17214.pdf

BBC, 25 Jan 2017, ‘Fears of river poisoning in Malawi’, www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38751257

www.wise-uranium.org/umopafr.html#MW

‘Dam busters: Aborigines battle BHP over water rights’, and ‘Why BHP is facing a minefield’

‘Dam busters: Aborigines battle BHP over water rights’

Chris Mitchell, 4 March 2022, The Australian

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/dam-busters-aborigines-battle-bhp-over-water-rights/news-story/5771234ab2fca122009e83720ecbaf01

In the driest state in the driest continent on earth, tremors from Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge sacred site have travelled through the outback dust to buffet BHP, the globe’s second biggest miner – ironically over water.

The May 2020 Juukan fiasco has put the spotlight on BHP’s giant Olympic Dam project, its use of Great Artesian Basin water and its ongoing failure to strike financial agreements with native title claimants on its giant mining lease.

BHP is defending legal rights providing it free access to artesian basin water and a mining tenement granted before the High Court’s Mabo decision up-ended land rights in Australia three decades ago.

But Indigenous advocates say the Juukan fiasco has changed mining and the way it interacts with heritage issues and argue BHP needs to take into account developments in native title recognition in the decades since the original leases were struck with governments in the 1980s.

BHP’s legal rights start with the 1982 Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act signed with former mine owner Western Mining. BHP inherited the rights when it bought the mine in 2005 and has almost unprecedented powers over resources and water within its 12,000sq km Stuart Shelf exploration lease.

BHP is also in discussions with native title groups about the original Olympic Dam Agreement it settled in 2008 with the Kokotha, Barngarla and Kuyani. Of these only the Kokotha have been granted formal native title over parts of BHP’s Stuart Shelf exploration area.

Essentially BHP’s problem now is how to balance the very valuable 40-year-old legal rights it has under the indenture with later rights found in a native title determination in favour of the Kokotha in 2014 and the rights of the other two claim groups. It is also negotiating with the Arabana and the Diyari (sometimes spelt Dieri) over other their rights associated with the Mound Springs.

In the absence of firm commitments for change by BHP, Indigenous groups and conservationists are becoming increasing frustrated at what they see as stonewalling by the mining giant.

The report into Rio Tinto’s Juukan Caves destruction, released in October and titled A Way Forward, has shone a light on indigenous engagement in the mining industry. It contained criticism of BHP by Aboriginal interests, including the Arabana tribe, and South Australian conservation groups. They focused on Olympic Dam’s heavy reliance on water from the Great Artesian Basin and expressed concerns it represented an environment risk – particularly to the Mound Springs Aboriginal heritage sites north of the mine.

“Unfortunately our springs are disappearing … The cause … is water taken from the GAB by BHP’s mine at Roxby Downs,” Arabana chairperson Brenda Underwood told the Juukan Caves report.

While BHP and the state government believe the springs remain healthy, environmentalists fear a possible expansion of the Oak Dam copper-gold-uranium project, 65km southeast of Olympic Dam, could take daily water use from the basin to well beyond 50 million litres a day. BHP says it is averaging 34 million litres a day now. BHP moved to allay concerns in February, backing a $15m “study”, partly funded by state and federal governments, into a desalination plant proposed for the Spencer Gulf to pump water to the state’s northern mines.

But conservation and Indigenous groups see the move as a bid to alleviate political pressure on the company even as it tries to protect its rights under the 1982 (Indenture Ratification) Act, which confers almost unprecedented powers over resources and water within its 12,000sq km Stuart Shelf exploration lease.

Conservationists say BHP is trying to control the water agenda, to maintain its privileges under the Indenture Act. But some hope it will be pragmatic enough to cut water demand from the basin if it eventually decides to proceed with Oak Dam.

Asked last week if BHP management was formally committed to ending Great Artesian Basin water use, a spokesperson could not point to any firm commitments.

“We continuously monitor and publicly report our water draw under a program approved by the South Australian government,” the BHP spokesperson said.

Environment campaigner and consultant David Noonan, who provided extensive submissions to the Juukan inquiry, is sceptical of the desalination plant announcement first published in Adelaide’s The Advertiser in February.

“BHP’s Oak Dam copper-uranium project usurps due process. BHP is claiming 1982 legal privileges (under) the Indenture Act special water licence grant of priority rights to extract … GAB public water resources free of charge for multi-decades.”

Noonan says even if the desalination plant were built BHP could be taking Great Artesian Basin water until the end of the decade. He wants to hear a formal commitment from senior management about alternative water sources.

The company’s position is not easy. It paid for a project that came with the rights set out in the indenture and these rights have a very substantial economic value to shareholders. Yet as Juukan shows, much corporate damage can be done when short cuts are taken in the area of Aboriginal heritage.

A BHP spokesperson said on heritage issues, “We recognise that the framework for protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage in South Australia can be improved. Our submission to the (SA) parliamentary inquiry (last year) suggests ways to further strengthen the 1988 Act, including requiring land users and traditional owners to prepare management plans, providing rights of appeal, and increasing financial penalties for breaches.”

The company committed last year to updating the indenture, which was legislated on the 1979 Heritage Act.

BHP has publicly said it will work with the government to update the indenture in line with the 1988 Act, with which most of the State’s miners must comply. The Kokotha fought a long battle to win their native title determination in 2014 after a claim was lodged in 1996.

Kokotha directors say dealing with BHP on the Olympic Dam Agreement before and after their native title court win has been challenging. At this point they are not receiving mining royalties and are unhappy with employment opportunities for Kokotha people.

BHP is powerful in South Australia. There has been a flow of senior company managers into the bureaucracy and vice versa for many years under both sides of politics.

Premier Steven Marshall is Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and well regarded by stakeholders.

BHP paid the South Australian government royalties of $136m last year. Its Olympic Dam project 560km north of Adelaide is the state’s largest mining venture and the world’s biggest uranium mine, a global top four copper mine and producer of gold and lead.

But it would be fair to say native title holders and groups with established heritage interests do not wield the sort of power in Adelaide that big miners do.

On royalty payments, BHP says its 2008 Olympic Dam agreement was originally negotiated for the proposed Olympic Dam expansion (ODX) that was shelved in 2020 for cost reasons and that a new agreement needs to be worked out. ODX a was to include an open pit 4.1km long, 3.5km wide and 1km deep.

The company’s Aboriginal engagement team are mindful expectations have changed across the industry since Juukan and BHP will need to be seen to be engaging seriously on the expectations of traditional owners and groups with prior interests in heritage sites.

Some among the Kokotha believe that like the Indenture Act itself, an Olympic Dam agreement negotiated before the Kokotha achieved native title should be written off completely and an entirely new agreement established.

BHP’s leadership is facing a different set of circumstances from either 2005 when it bought the mine or 1982 when the indenture was legislated.

Its commitment to try to comply with the 1988 Heritage Act could create an opportunity for the Kokotha, as native title holder, to demand more power over Olympic Dam heritage issues given it has just been appointed a RARB (Registered Aboriginal Representative Body) with formal power over heritage determinations in its native title area. Legal documents considered by the Kokotha board late last year make it clear one option now is to seek an entirely new Olympic Dam agreement.

The Kokotha board has also considered options for how its RARB status may work in the interests of the other ODA signatories, the Barngarla and the Kuyani.

BHP has flagged some changes to the way it operates that could reduce its own power over its own asset.

BHP’s new local Indigenous engagement boss, Allan James, understands exactly how important it is to the company and a possible expansion to Oak Dam that BHP is seen to be negotiating with traditional owners in good faith. A Way Forward says mining companies need to ensure native title holders give “free, prior and informed consent” for future projects. This will also make miners work harder to improve the skills of board members on registered Native Title Bodies Corporate and to ensure they share internal company knowledge with traditional owners.

James is himself a native title holder from the northern Goldfields in WA where he was born and raised as a Wongi/Yamatji man. He was brought in to oversee local engagement across Australia four months ago and has previously worked for Rio and Newmont.

“We have a number of local traditional owners involved in this team and participating on the front line in these negotiations. The organisation is really serious about how we approach engagement. We are out there on the ground, having these really difficult conversations walking in both worlds. We are sitting in an industry perspective but we also know we wear a community hat.”

It remains to be seen if BHP’s senior management will prove as receptive to the changing expectations of miners in Aboriginal social performance as those who work in its engagement team – and traditional owners – want the company to be.
As for the state government, there seems to be little pressure on BHP. A spokesman this week said: “BHP currently complies with its obligations to the government but if its operations were proposed to change, then its obligations would also be reconsidered.”

But Michael Turner, a former director of Kokotha and current adviser on the Kokotha Native Title Compensation Settlement Trust and the Kokotha Charitable Trust, says he has been dealing with BHP for much of his adult life and the experience has not been positive.

“Compared with dealing with OZ Minerals there is just no comparison really. In terms of our agreement with OZ Minerals we are all one. We successfully negotiated a long-term agreement between the two parties with little involvement of lawyers. We worked directly with OZ Minerals and the agreement took just over 12 months,” Turner said.

OZ Minerals provides compensation, employment opportunities and long-term educational packages including scholarships to the Kokotha community from its Carapateena copper mine operations site. “The relationship between the Kokotha and OZ Minerals is very respectful,” Turner said.

“Don’t get me wrong. We have had our ups and downs but overall it’s been great.” Negotiations on BHP’s Olympic Dam Agreement had been disappointing.

“We have been calling for a review of the Olympic Dam agreement for many years and it has constantly been deferred. They’re refusing to move forward but we have continually engaged with BHP. It would be great if BHP could keep to its word and respect the wishes of the Kokotha people and review the ODA for the benefit of generations to come,” Turner said.

Former Kokotha Aboriginal Corporation deputy chair Chris Larkin, a director on the Kokotha Culture and Heritage Committee, doubts that BHP is negotiating in good faith.

“While Kokotha’s lawyers think BHP’s negotiating with them in good faith BHP is backdooring Kokotha by harassing the government to try to extend the Indenture Act,” he said.

But a spokesperson for BHP said: “The ODA remains in effect notwithstanding the determination of native title, and requires all three groups to be consulted. While this can be complex at times, we have processes in place … We will continue to work collaboratively and respectfully with all parties …”

“BHP will continue to work … on employment, training, business and community investment opportunities …” the spokesperson said.

‘Why BHP is facing a minefield’

Chris Mitchell, 5 March 2022, The Advertiser

https://todayspaper.adelaidenow.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=23a5b7bd-e6d5-4a82-972e-347f65874b3a

Australia’s biggest company and the world’s second biggest miner, BHP, may disappoint conservationists and Aboriginal native title holders who had hoped for commitments to reform of heritage issues and underground water use at its Olympic Dam mine before the March 19 state election BHP, the Big Australian, with market capitalisation of $230bn, paid the state government royalties of $136m last year. Its Olympic Dam project 560km north of Adelaide is South Australia’s largest mining venture and the world’s biggest uranium mine, a global top-four copper mine and producer of gold and lead. BHP is powerful in SA.

Premier Steven Marshall is Aboriginal Affairs Minister but it would be fair to say native title holders do not wield the sort of power in Adelaide that big miners do.
Yet BHP has flagged some changes to the way it operates that could reduce its own power over its own asset.

Under the 1982 Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act signed with former mine owner Western Mining, BHP, which bought the mine in 2005, has almost unprecedented powers over resources and water within its 12,000sq km Stuart Shelf exploration lease.

BHP has been criticised by conservation groups and Aboriginal interests in last year’s report into rival Rio Tinto’s destruction of Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. The report includes criticism from the Arabana tribe of the mine’s heavy reliance on water from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), and particularly from the so-called “Mound Springs” Aboriginal heritage sites north of the mine.

On February 15, The Advertiser revealed BHP would back a new $15m study, partly funded by state and federal governments, into a Spencer Gulf desalination plant to pump water to SA’s northern mines. But BHP is still far short of publicly committing to end its use of GAB water.

Conservationists say BHP is trying to control the water agenda, to maintain its privileges under the Indenture Act. But some hope it will be pragmatic enough to cut water demand from the GAB if it eventually decides to proceed with its Oak Dam copper-gold-uranium mine 65km southeast of Olympic.

Asked last week if BHP was formally committed to ending GAB water use, a spokesman said: “We continuously monitor and publicly report our water draw under a program approved by the SA government.”

BHP is not just under pressure for environmental reasons. It is in discussion with three native title groups about the Olympic Dam Agreement it settled in 2008 with the Kokatha, Barngarla and Kuyani.

Of these, only the Kokatha have been granted formal native title over parts of BHP’s Stuart Shelf.

BHP’s problem now is how to balance the very valuable 40-year-old legal rights it has under the indenture with rights found in a native title determination in favour of the Kokatha in 2014.

The company committed last year to updating the indenture, which was legislated on the 1979 Heritage Act.

BHP has publicly said it will work with the government to update the indenture in line with the 1988 Act, with which most of the state’s miners must comply.

The Kokatha fought a long, 18-year battle to win their native title in 2014. Kokatha directors say dealing with BHP on the ODA before and after their native title court win has been challenging.

At this point, they are not receiving mining royalties and are unhappy with employment opportunities for Kokatha people.

Michael Turner, a former Kokatha director and current adviser on the Kokatha Native Title Compensation Settlement and Kokatha Charitable trusts, says he has been dealing with BHP for much of his adult life.

“Compared with dealing with OzMinerals, there is just no comparison, really,” he said. “In terms of our agreement with OzMinerals, we are all one. We successfully negotiated a long-term agreement between the two parties with little involvement of lawyers.”

OzMinerals provides compensation, employment and long-term educational packages to the Kokatha community from its Carapateena copper mine. “The relationship between the Kokatha and OzMinerals is very respectful,” Mr Turner said.

But negotiations on BHP’s Olympic Dam Agreement had been disappointing.
“We have been calling for a review of the ODA for many years and it has constantly been deferred,” he said.

“They’re refusing to move forward. It would be great if BHP could keep to its word and respect the wishes of the Kokatha people and review the ODA for the benefit of generations to come.”

A BHP spokesman this week said: “The ODA remains in effect notwithstanding the determination of native title, and requires all three groups to be consulted.
We will continue to work collaboratively and respectfully with all parties.”

The final report into the May 24, 2020 destruction by Australia’s second-biggest miner, Rio Tinto, of the Juukan Caves in Western Australia’s Pilbara was released in October. In it, Arabana chair Brenda Underwood says: “Unfortunately, our springs are disappearing. The cause … is water taken from the GAB by BHP’s mine at Roxby Downs.”

BHP and the state government believe the springs remain healthy but environmentalists fear a possible expansion to the Oak Dam could take daily GAB water use well beyond 50 million litres a day. BHP says it is averaging 34 million litres a day.

Environment campaigner and consultant David Noonan, who provided submissions to the Juukan Inquiry, is sceptical of the desalination plant announcement.

Mr Noonan says even if it was built, BHP could be taking GAB water until the end of the decade. He wants to hear a formal commitment about alternative water sources.
BHP’s Aboriginal engagement team is mindful expectations have changed across the industry since Juukan and BHP will need to be seen to be engaging seriously with traditional owners. Some believe an ODA negotiated before the Kokatha achieved native title should be written off and a new agreement established.

The company’s position is not easy. It paid for a project that came with indenture rights that have a substantial economic value to shareholders.

Yet, as Juukan shows, much corporate damage can be done in the area of Aboriginal heritage.

“We recognise that the framework for protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage in SA can be improved,” a BHP spokesman said.

Mining is changing in the wake of Juukan. Rio Tinto’s decision to blow up an area sacred to traditional owners – which led to the sacking of its global CEO, Jean-Sebastien Jacques, and two senior local executives – is still reverberating around the industry.

BHP’s new Indigenous engagement boss, Allan James, knows it is important to be seen to be negotiating with traditional owners in good faith.

“We have a number of local traditional owners involved in this team and participating on the frontline in these negotiations,” says Mr James, a Wongi/Yamatji man from WA. “We are out there on the ground, having these really difficult conversations, walking in both worlds. We are sitting in an industry perspective but we also know we wear a community hat.”

It remains to be seen if BHP’s management will prove as receptive to the changing expectations as those who work in its Aboriginal engagement team – and traditional owners – want it to be.

A BHP spokesman said it had invested $2m in Indigenous grants in SA in the past 18 months and spent $3.3m with Indigenous contractors this financial year. He said the company had taken more than 50 traditional owner recruits into Olympic Dam since 2020.

Fact-checker Lights on the British nuclear power program

Lights’ misinformation about the ‘scientific consensus’ in support of nuclear power

A ‘Science Communicator’ tries to explain ionising radiation … and fails

Response to a July 2023 article by Zion Lights

Extinction Rebellion Statement

Extinction Rebellion Statement on Zion Lights, Michael Shellenberger and the Breakthrough Institute

What do scientists say about nuclear power in relation to other energy sources?

Isn’t nuclear power better than coal in the short term because of immediate danger of fuelling climate change?

How does nuclear power stack up against other energy sources by cost of production?

Thorium reactors … aren’t they a good option?

Isn’t nuclear fusion power just around the corner?

Aren’t there new reactors that are fuelled by nuclear waste ‒ wouldn’t this solve the problem of radioactive waste?

Isn’t it true that Finland and Sweden are about to start operating high-level nuclear waste dumps?

Won’t Small Modular Reactors be safer and cheaper?

Doesn’t nuclear power have zero emissions?

Nuclear accidents are rare, aren’t they?

Isn’t it true that Chernobyl only killed 31 people and Fukushima hasn’t killed anyone?

How much water does a nuclear power plant consume?

Are there vested interests in the current resurgence of arguments for nuclear power?

‘Dam busters: Aborigines battle BHP over water rights’

‘Why BHP is facing a minefield’