|
Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) own and operate the Ranger
uranium mine in the Northern Territory. The mine is around 230
kilometres east of Darwin and is surrounded by Kakadu National
Park.
From its very beginning the operation at Ranger has been a
controversial one. The Ranger ore body was discovered in 1969 by a
joint venture established by Peko Wallsend Operations Ltd (Peko)
and The Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Ltd (EZ). In 1974
this joint venture was broadened with the inclusion of the
Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC).4
Following this came the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the
longest such debate or inquiry on the issue of uranium mining to
date.5
This Inquiry, often referred to as the Fox Report, ultimately gave
a lukewarm and conditional approval to the mine. In 1980 the AAEC
interest was bought out, and Peko and EZ became the principal
shareholders in the operation. In 1987-88 EZ's interests in Energy
Resources of Australia was taken over by North Broken Hill
Holdings Ltd and that company merged with Peko. As a result of
such manoeuvres ERA is now a 68% subsidiary of North Ltd.6
The mine commenced production in 1980 with the mining of the
number 1 pit. This deposit was mined out in December 1994. ERA
have begun developmental work on the nearby ore body number 3 and
intend to bring it into full operation in 1997.
The region in which Ranger is located is a monsoonal one which
sees a major change in climatic conditions between the Wet
(December to April) and the Dry seasons. The issue of water
management has been, and continues to be, a major problem for ERA.
Seasonal variations in rainfall and evaporation often complicate
the models used to predict cases where excessive amounts of water
are kept on the mine site. In these cases ERA has attempted to
gain approval to allow for the direct release of water
contaminated with uranium, acids and heavy metals into the creeks
and the Wetlands of Kakadu National Park. To date these attempts
have been successfully opposed by both local traditional owners
and anti-nuclear activists. However the fact that ERA is prepared
to treat World Heritage listed wetlands as an industrial sewer is
illustrative of the company's environmental concerns.
One other aspect of Ranger's operations that is made more
complicated and problematic because of the nature of the local
environment is that of tailings management. Tailings is the name
given to the fine sand left over after an ore milling process.
There is usually around twice as much liquid waste produced in the
milling process as tailings. Uranium tailings contain about 85%
of the total radioactivity in the ore, including nearly all of the
radium.7
When mining began at Ranger the recommendation of the Ranger
Inquiry was that the tailings be covered by two metres of water to
help reduce the release of radioactive radon gas and to prevent
the dry season winds from blowing radioactive dust across the
surrounding area.8 This requirement proved too difficult for ERA
to meet and it was subsequently altered to a requirement to keep
the tailings damp. There is regular and significant seepage from
the tailings dam at Ranger and its operation has been
characterised by a failure to isolate dangerous and long lived
radioactive materials from a most sensitive environment. The
management of tailings at Ranger appears to represent an
experiment in such a climate and the concern is that the World
Heritage values and the food gathering resource of the adjacent
Kakadu wetlands will be severely compromised if the tailings dam
and the tailings management system proves inadequate.
The Ranger mine has had an adverse environmental impact in
ways other than those concerning water management. One of the
recommendations of the Fox Report was for the federal government
to monitor and control uranium mining activities at Ranger and
anywhere else within the Alligator Rivers Region. In order to do
this the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) was
established. From its inception the OSS's ability to achieve its
stated purpose was limited by its lack of regulatory and
interventionist powers.
Recent years have seen the on-ground monitoring of the Ranger
operation move away from the office of the OSS and instead become
the concern of the Northern Territory Department of Mines and
Energy (NT DME) and ERA themselves. This significant weakening in
the role and mandate of the OSS is of particular concern in the
context of the effects of Ranger's operations on the surrounding
environment.
This was formally acknowledged by former federal environment
minister Senator Richardson, who was hardly known as having an
anti-nuclear perspective. These actions by the Ranger mine, which
have been far too readily accepted by the NT authorities, suggest
that the Commonwealths advice on environmental protection for the
Ranger mine is not being given sufficient weight. The Supervising
Scientist has advised that if this process continues the high
standards of environmental protection in the Alligator Rivers
Region will be threatened.9
The sad truth of the Ranger mine is that this process of
rubber stamping ERA's actions has continued and the integrity of
the Kakadu environment is at risk. Officers within the
supervising authorities have privately acknowledged this state of
affairs.
A memo written by the OSS states:
Rather than achieve better environmental control as
they gain more experience, Ranger are moving the operation into a
more hazardous situation...it merely results in higher
environmental risks at low financial outlay to the mining
company.10
The reality of Ranger environmental assault on Kakadu can be
seen by reference to the incidents reported in the Supervising
Scientist Annual Reports (1985-1994). These are only some of the
environmental breaches reported - the real impacts of the mine may
not be known for years:
- 24 Sept. 85: Due to a tailings line failure, 25 cubic metres
of radio-active contaminated water is sprayed over a 2,000 m2 area
outside the Restricted Release Zone (RRZ);
- 1986: Since commencement of production in 1981, twenty-four
occurrences caused regulatory concern, sixteen of which related to
failings in the tailings pipeline or tailings dam seepage
collector lines;
- March 87: About 500 m3 of water inadvertently released via
pipeline into the Magela Creek when the flow rate was below the
minimum approved level;
- Nov. 88: 500,000 tonnes of low grade ore was incorrectly
placed on the "safe" waste rock dump, possibly for as long as six
months, before a fault in detection equipment was noticed;
- Jan. 89: contaminated water from RP4 released into Kakadu
National park, while 20,000 m3 of contaminated water is released
into Djalkmara Billabong, draining into the Magela Creek system.
The OSS admits that water release at Ranger is "out of
control";
- 1989-90: OSS finds that the toxicity of water released from
Retention Pond 2 (RP2) into the Magela Creek "can have significant
toxic effects";
- 24 Aug. 91: Approximately 1300 m3 of water from RP2 sprayed
over Ranger perimeter road to suppress dust;
- 26 Feb. 92: during heavy rains water from the high grade ore
stockpile containing significant concentrations of uranium escapes
from its containment sump and flows into Magela Creek, via
Georgetown creek. Increased concentrations of uranium are detected
in both creeks;
- 25 Jan. 93: a blocked drain leads to release of water into the
RRZ during heavy rains;
- 13 April 94: 60 m3 of run-off water and seepage from a high
grade ore stockpile is discharged outside the RRZ following a pipe
joint failure. And so on ...
Indigenous concerns ignored
Ever since ERA began operations at Ranger it has been a source of
difficulty and much heartache for many of the region's traditional
owners.
The Ranger Agreement was first signed after passage of the
Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976. At the time and subsequently
many Aboriginal people involved in this process have spoken of the
severe pressure and coercion they experienced. Many were told that
a failure to approved the Ranger Agreement would result in the
deferment of the Land Rights Act. The Fox Commission was highly
critical of ERA during this period, stating that it had failed
"notably in its evaluation of the total impact on the Aborigines
of the region."5
Two decades later little has changed. Despite ERA's publicity that
the Ranger mine operates "with the understanding and wishes of its
Traditional Owners"11 the reality is somewhat different.
For example over the course of the 1995 Wet season, ERA applied
for, and received, permission to directly dump over 500,000 cubic
metres of contaminated waste mine water. This proposal would have
resulted in significant amounts of uranium, heavy metals and acids
entering into the wetlands and waterways of Kakadu National Park,
traditional areas of great importance as food sources for local
traditional owners. Traditional owners reacted angrily to ERA's
proposal and took legal action to stop the release. Ultimately
their protests, along with those of anti-nuclear activists, were
successful. However, the entire issue highlighted the gulf
between the values held by various stake-holders in the uranium
debate.
Big Bill Neidji is a senior traditional man responsible for
country that would have been affected by ERA's proposal. The
following is an excerpt from a letter drafted by him along with
other family members and sent to Prime Minister Paul Keating in
March 1995:
Today in Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage Area, Big Bill is
alarmed and deeply concerned. For ERA mine proposes to release
contaminated waters that will flood his land.
His authority places little trust in the Government nor with
science. He is extremely doubtful that they would practice a
proper duty of care in relation to the management of the land that
he lives on with his family. For they have not had to learn as he
has. He knows of no scientist or government representative who is
dependant upon land and its food source downstream. He knows of no
scientists or government representative who would even want to
live downstream of the proposed release site.
Yet, he is being asked to place his trust in a science that he
knows very little about. A science that in all its cleverness can
not talk to him in his mother or even his father's tongue. A
science that relies on Aboriginal knowledge to show them how and
why in relation to land management issues. A science that when
attempted to explain itself in English is unintelligible to him
and others around him. He says no.
He is also being asked to place his trust in government decision.
He knows full well of our history and of people that have since
passed on, and when governments have had dealings with fellow
Aborigines. He says no.
He has seen the English language twisted and then turned from a no
to yes. He says Allarda. Translated it means no. Big Bill Neidji,
Senior Traditional Owner of Cannon Hill, Gagadju Country, a Bunitj
Man is asking that you listen to him. To trust in him and his
authority and the science that he knows.
He knows this, that the proposed release of contaminated water
from retention pond number two, is not good for his land and this
country and his people. He believes it will poison the water,
fish, fruits and grasses and kill trees. He believes it will kill
his country, perhaps even him. He speaks for his country, he
speaks for his grandchildren and the families downstream. He asks
for you to act responsibly for what you should value most of all.
Land and its people.
Who in government will heed his words?
Big Bill's question remains unanswered.
ERA is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and is
committed to the continuation of the industry in the Top End.12
The company currently has an ore stockpile sufficient to meet its
contractual obligations for an estimated five years and also
supplies around one third of its long term contracts through the
provision of uranium originating from Kazakhstan.
ERA has also invested heavily in the nearby Jabiluka deposit, the
largest undeveloped
uranium deposit known in Australia. Jabiluka was first discovered in the
early 1970's
and for the next two decades Pancontinental Mining Ltd (Pancon)
attempted to develop
the deposit into a working mine.13
Pancon were continually frustrated by the anti-uranium movement
and the federal Labor Government's "three named mines policy". In
1991 Pancon sold the deposit to ERA for $125 million and have
since quit any involvement in the uranium industry. Since that
time ERA have renamed the deposit North Ranger which appears to be
part of an attempt to have the deposit viewed as an extension of
the existing Ranger mine.14
The push to mine Jabiluka has increased in recent times with ERA
lobbying to obtain approval to develop. In the December quarter of
1995 North Ltd appointed Richard Knight to its board. Knight, a
former chief executive of ERA, is now North's general manager of
development.15
His recent appointment has been interpreted by industry watchers
as a sign that expansion is to be one of North's prime corporate
objectives. Phillip Shirvington, ERA's current chief executive,
recently defined the company's hopes for Jabiluka in a media
comment, "we would aim to develop North Ranger and have it
operational by 1999".16
According to ABC Radio National's "Earthbeat" programme (22/3/96),
the election of the Howard Liberal government has now removed the
obstacle of the (albeit hypocritical) three mines policy of the
ALP, and North is now going ahead with its plans to undertake
underground mining operations at Jabiluka, and transport the ore
twenty miles to Ranger for processing. Environmental groups have
already expressed their grave concerns about further mining in
Kakadu, the increased threat posed to waterbirds, and the
possibility that yet more tailings will hamper the disposal of
what already exists. While Environment Minister Robert Minister
has promised the usual "stringent environmental controls",
Resources Minister Warrick Parer has already hit out at opposition
to increased uranium exports as environmental "extremism".
As ERA increases the pressure to develop Jabiluka, concern is
growing among many traditional owners, anti-nuclear activists and
environmentalists about the social and ecological effects of
uranium mining in the Magela Creek flood plain. Although situated
within the boundary of the Kakadu National Park, Jabiluka was
excised from the park in March 1979 in a move which left the door
open for mining. Critics of the proposal to mine Jabiluka are
calling for the deposit to be reincorporated into Kakadu as the
best way of preventing the region being turned into a sacrifice
zone to facilitate ERAs corporate ambitions.17
Cape York Peninsula - Riding Roughshod over Aboriginal Concerns
The Aboriginal People of the Cape York Peninsula have been
campaigning for the return of their lands and the protection of
the high conservation value areas on the Peninsula for a number of
years. It has been estimated that between five to eight million
hectares of Cape York Peninsula are of potential World Heritage
value. In 1991, after an extensive campaign involving traditional
elders and conservation groups, the Starcke region was declared
National Park and Aboriginal Freehold. In 1995 state Premier Wayne
Goss indicated that he would support the creation of an East Coast
Conservation Zone. The campaign received a major boost when the
Cape York Regional Agreement was signed between traditional
owners, pastoralists and conservation interests in February 1996.
The agreement is a significant statement of community support for
protection of Cape York Peninsula.18
With the change of state and federal governments, much of this
progress now hangs in the balance.
Despite the developing consensus within the Cape York community,
the mining industry continues to override Aboriginal concerns and
compromise the region's conservation values. Two mining companies
are currently active in the region: Mitsubishi at Cape Flattery
and Comalco at Weipa. Three other areas are threatened by mining:
Shelburne Bay; McIlwraith Range and Silver Plains.18
The Silver Plains region is situated to the north of Lakefield
National Park and east of Coen. It is the traditional homelands of
the Lamalama, Umpila, Ayapathu and Kaanju people, and includes the
largest area of rainforest on the Peninsula.18 In March 1996 an
agreement was reached on a proposed plan for the distribution of
over 307,000 hectares of proposed national park (57%) and
Aboriginal land (43%).19 Located within the region is a mining
lease owned by North Ltd.
In 1990 Geopeko (now North Exploration Ltd) was granted a series
of Authorities to Prospect (ATP) for mineral sands of the coast of
the Silver Plains region. The ATP is on Umpila land, and the
traditional owners were not in favour of exploration of the
area.20
North drilled an exploratory line across a dune system (in
addition to three already drilled) and went ahead with a flora
study that it had previously agreed to postpone. In a further act
of disrespect, North announced that it would not wait the three
month period requested by the Umpila until their desired
anthropologist was available to do survey work. On instructions
from the Umpila, the Tharpuntoo Aboriginal Service retained a
legal firm to fight North's actions. At this juncture then Federal
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tickner, rejected any
further activity until further surveys were completed. By early
1991 it appeared that North had discarded plans for any further
testing in the area. It has not closed the books on the Silver
Plains leases, however, and the region remains threatened by
mining.20
Unfortunately, it is not unusual for mining companies to pressure
for site clearance by committing themselves financially, prior to
undertaking consultation. North justified the short timeframe for
consultation by stating it could not "delay the million dollar
program due to [the] shortness of the dry season". One Geopeko
agent even went so far as to comment that the request for an
Umpila-appointed anthropologist was an attempt by Aboriginals to
get mineral rights over and above the rights of everyone else.20
The broader mining industry - in which North Ltd plays an
important part - has already begun distancing itself from what it
terms "World Heritage 'icons'". According to the Minerals Council
of Australia the "Cape York land grab [is] not on...Cape York is a
huge area that should be available to all Australians for
development, commercial and recreational purposes".21
|