a tale of two notices - what a difference a day makes!

On the morning of Thursday 5th of February, 2009, Marg Sprigg, owner of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, received a 'Notice of Entry', dated February 2nd 2009, from Marathon Resources.

This notice stated that the company intended to enter the sanctuary for the purposes of “undertaking mineral exploration which may include geological mapping, geochemical sampling, ground and down-hole geophysical surveys, helicopter assisted surveys and drilling” [emphasis mine.]

As Marg told Local ABC 639 this morning -

[W]e were pretty shocked last Thursday to be given a new notice of entry saying they were coming back and one of the things that they wanted to do was helicopter surveys and drilling; we contacted PIRSA immediately because the report that they put to us last year, 12 months before almost to the day, said that Marathon were suspended from doing any drilling...

Marg, like many of us, had been wondering for some time what precisely was going to happen with regard to Marathon Resources' activities in the heart of the wilderness sanctuary.

That afternoon Greens Legislative Council Member Mark Parnell asked his question in parliament of Paul Holloway, the Mineral Resources Minister. (This exchange has been detailed in the previous posting on this blog.)

Mark found a normally circumspect Holloway either startled (or perhaps irritated?!) into a remarkably frank description of the processes required before he would even think of allowing Marathon back in to drill, none of which are likely to see them doing so anytime soon! Given the expiry of their Exploration Lease later this year this cannot be good news for the company!

Mark and his office then issued a press release denouncing any attempt to re-enter the Sanctuary to drill - as the Notice of Entry text, cited above, clearly states - before PIRSA has even finalised its report on the clean-up or lifted the drilling suspension.


"it's a bit odd..."


Mark's press release was picked up first thing on the morning of Friday 6th of February by ABC radio. The ABC reported that "Marathon Resources says the notice of entry is needed so it can rehabilitate the site and repair roads.".

Furthermore, the company said that Marg had already given them written permission to undertake the repairs they wanted; it's worth hearing what Marg had to say about that this morning -

[T]hey said that I had given them permission on 19th January in writing to go and do the track upgrades, that’s not untrue, I gave them permission to do one tiny track repair that they advised me was damaged due to the rain we had at the beginning of January ... [in order] to reach a spot that otherwise would have been very dangerous, to just finish off their final clean up, so they said they needed the notice of entry and notice to use declared equipment, but they actually advised us of the notice of entry after they had done the clean up ten days before, so it’s all a bit odd... [emphasis mine]

'A bit odd' is the least one could say, surely?


notice of entry 2 - the sequel!


Speaking of odd, Marathon Resources faxed another, brand new, Notice of Entry to the Spriggs on the Friday that stated that they intended to access the sanctuary for the purposes of -

Rehabilitation, revegetation and exploration activities of a low impact nature. Those activities ... may include geological mapping, stream sampling, core re-logging, ground gravity surveys, water and dust sampling, airborne reconnaissance, seed collecting, flora and fauna surveys, Heritage surveys. (No request for drilling activities is made following PIRSA Formal Notice dated 8 January 2008)

Gone are any references to drilling and helicopter surveys! And observe that they refer to a notice given to them over a year ago by Primary Industries informing them that drilling is precisely what they cannot do!

Not only did they rush the new notice up to the northern Flinders - they also issued a retraction of the 'old' one of the day before! I wonder how often that happens?

Marg Sprigg again -

[T]hey gave us one on the 5th January and on 6th January they gave us another one saying they were withdrawing the previous one … the day before and gave us a new one saying that there was no request for drilling activities, a complete turnaround in 24 hours...

seems they're not miners, after all!...


But that's not all Marathon did on the Friday. They also issued a press release, targetting Mark Parnell. It describes Mark's claims as 'reckless and damaging,' and makes fascinating reading in light of the above -

Mr Parnell’s claims that Marathon was trying to recommence mining are fanciful and incorrect. Marathon has never undertaken any mining at its Mt Gee project. The only licence the company has is for exploration.

Pedants of the world, please note - Marathon has never undertaken any mining at Mount Gee, because even though it has been drilling holes deep into the mountainside looking for minerals technically this is being done under an Exploration Lease.

Mark's press release had indeed referenced mining in the title, and mentions mining activities (of which drilling would appear to be a significant one, surely?)

But, even then - wouldn't you know? In the body of the Greens' release it says '[y]esterday Marathon Resources served a formal Notice of Entry on the Sanctuary's owners, Marg and Doug Sprigg to re-commence their exploration activities.' Not only does this seem rather clear, it's what actually happened! This is also what the ABC reported.

So, how convincing do you find the company's argument, dear reader? Thought so...


we only want to be nice!...


The Marathon release also states -

On 19th January 2009 Arkaroola Pty Ltd gave written permission to Marathon to carry out track improvements, which requires both use of declared equipment and entry to the site.

This is the permission referred to above for repairs that, according to Marg, were already completed by the time the Notice was issued. They add that -

On 5 February 2009 the Notice of Entry and Notice of Use of Declared Equipment were delivered to Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary by Marathon Resources.

This is the equipment that Marathon is currently using to rehabilitate the sites and repair the roads.

The palpable intent here is to convey the impression that the original notice was only given for those purposes.

But the original document clearly included notice of drilling and helicopter surveys! (And please bear in mind the background as discussed in the previous post.)

Not only do we then need to consider the timing of road repairs issues raised above, if that's all they ever intended to do why on earth did it say anything else on the notice? After a bruising year of negative publicity you'd think the company would be hyper-vigilant in such matters!


PIRSA made us do it!

Marathon Resources delivered the Notices after receiving clear instructions from PIRSA on 20th November 2007 that the company must serve a Notice of Entry every 12 months. Marathon has therefore abided by this PIRSA instruction.

Well, the regulations are not overly clear in this matter, and it will be interesting to see what PIRSA say they meant. But it's pretty obvious that Primary Industries didn't assert that Marathon should serve notice to undertake activities from which they are formally suspended!

This point gave rise to an amusing observation from Marg -

[A]s my understanding is, these are not required annually, once you have a notice of entry and provided you haven’t gone away which Marathon unfortunately hadn’t, that you don’t need to give one annually but apparently it’s a requirement according to Marathon from PIRSA so obviously they have different rules for them...

oblivious to the damage caused...


But before we finish considering the Marathon press release, consider the following gem:

Mr Parnell – with his comments in the Parliament yesterday and in a Media Release issued today - is once again distorting the facts to further his own cause with little respect for the damage he causes to the South Australian resources industry.

As to 'distorting the facts' I'll leave it to readers to judge for themselves!

But here's an open question for the SA Chamber of Mines and Energy and the Department of Mineral Resource Development.

Which, would you say, out of Mark Parnell and his office, and Marathon Resources (given its, um, 'troubled' history in Arkaroola) has caused the most damage to the SA Resources Industry in the minds of the South Australian public?

 

Has Marathon run its race?

Marathon Resources is a company that, despite frequent protestations of its deep commitment to maintaining a 'social licence to operate' (as the industry jargon goes), never does seem to have grasped that what they are trying to do might be, in the eyes of others, alarming.

It probably says much about the kind of mindset that cannot really quite see what all the fuss is about - hell, it's only a uranium mine into the middle of a wilderness sanctuary, after all! - that it also cannot ever quite grasp the likely consequences of its actions in a more general community where that's a very big deal indeed!

Firstly, it almost beggars belief that the dumping scandal could ever have happened. In a marginal situation of the utmost environmental - and political - sensitivity the company should have drummed the importance of being seen not only to be toeing the line, but willingly exceeding it, into all its employees and contractors with monotonous regularity.

Instead we discovered not only the 22 800 bags of waste - some of it radioactive - buried in large trenches in the heart of the sanctuary, (along with laboratory paraphernalia!) No, we also saw a cavalier and utterly unwarranted assault on a geological monument - the Mount Gee fluorite deposit - by a Marathon employee. Don't think this was trivial; this combination of a contemptuous act and lax supervision has cost this company dearly! We'll see why shortly.


a notice of entry


On Thursday morning Marathon Resources served a 21 day 'notice of entry', a statement of intention to bring its 'declared' equipment back to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, on its owners, Doug and Marg Sprigg.

Let's step back a moment and put this in context. The company is suspended from drilling because of the waste scandal. The company has only recently completed the long and arduous clean-up. They had had considerable, protracted, and very public difficulty in finding a final destination for some of the waste, as communities down through the Ranges reacted against taking it, and only via the State Govt.s compulsory powers did it find a final home at the far distant Inkerman landfill. Primary Industries and Resources (PIRSA) has not issued its final report on the clean-up, nor can it authorise a resumption of drilling until it has done so, even presuming the Department could find in favour of the company's returning.

So the reaction - at least in that (rather large, surely?) part of the community which is not blasé about the prospect of mining in wildernesses - to a notice apparently stating Marathon's intention to return was one of genuine alarm.

The company claimed later that the notice served on the Spriggs was purely an annual formality, as required by PIRSA.


'i have no intention whatsoever of approving that'


Perhaps so. But if so, a little timely explanation might well have been in order! Because even the PIRSA Minister, Paul Holloway, seemed to be alarmed by the news. Here he is, responding to questioning by Greens MLC Mark Parnell in the state's upper house:

...[A]s far as the government is concerned, the clean-up of the Mount Gee region and exploration in the Arkaroola area by Marathon is not yet complete, and it will not be complete at least and until the department formally signs off on the work that is being done. I have certainly had no formal application from Marathon, and, certainly, I would not even contemplate one until the process is completed...

It is certainly news to me that Marathon has served a new notice of entry. As I said, I have no intention whatsoever of approving that [emphasis mine], or even considering any approach from it until the matters have been finalised to the satisfaction of the department.

The Minister was also surprisingly - and rather unprecedentedly - forthright on the topic of the chances of Marathon's returning to drill at any stage in the near future. This is where the oh-so-costly mangled fluorite deposit re-enters the discussion -

In any case, I can say to the honourable member that he would be aware that some issues arose in relation to the fluori[t]e matter that pointed to some deficiencies within the Mining Act in terms of how these matters might be dealt with.

I will be bringing some amendments into this parliament. Certainly, I would not be contemplating any further activity by Marathon at least and until that legislation was in place, and that might well be some time away...

In any case, I think that, at the very least, the deficiencies of the Mining Act that were brought to light by Marathon's activities need to be corrected. Then, I think, the government would have to give consideration to the impact of any further exploration and, in particular, any public benefit that would come out of that given the history of this matter. I am not even going to consider that until at least those two preconditions are met, and I expect it would be some time at least before the legislation would be considered by this parliament.

'Any public benefit' indeed!

Marathon must drill to prove its viability to investors. The company cannot drill in the cooler months, as this is Arkaroola's peak tourist period. Marathon's exploration lease expires in November this year. I'll leave it to the gamblers among you to determine what, in the light of the above, the odds would be of their being given another. And did I mention the state election due in early 2010?

Now, we'll never know what the Minister's response might have been without the additional spur of the news of the company delivering a 'notice of entry'. I have appended the full transcript below to allow the reader to judge for themselves.

But I can't help but think that this latest in a series of failures of imagination - an inability to perceive the likely consequences of your actions in the minds of those with different values, even where those values simply cannot be ignored - has sealed Marathon's fate.


it is a big deal


Memo to all mining companies - and particularly to all their contractors - it is a big deal! What those pet ogres 'The Greenies' think does matter. And don't be so sure that the values you dismiss as 'backward' or 'extreme' aren't in reality those of the majority of the thinking community.

And further - you really cannot, as the biblical injunction reminds us, make a silk purse out of a sow's ear! No amount of public consultancy, PR spin, or general 'greenwashing' will save a really ugly project. The problem isn't that the public hasn't been sufficiently exposed to your point of view - the corporate media (and its cowardly public analogue) ensures we're relentlessly drilled with it - it's that we don't agree with you!


let's identify all the mining exclusion zones


So now the focus changes.

As I've said repeatedly, Marathon should never have been allowed to enter the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the first place. This was the primary error that we must now work to correct. No company, not even the Govt. backed Heathgate Resources, must be allowed to operate in the high conservation value areas of the northern Flinders Ranges.

The Minister has spoken of the need form a dialogue with conservationists to identify those areas that are simply inappropriate for mining activity, as has the Chamber of Mines and Energy. Well, here's the first. And it's high time we identified the remainder.

Because this kind of unnecessary conflict is simply in no-one's best interest,be they an aspiring captain of industry or ardent conservationist!


the full parliamentary transcript thurs. feb 5th

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about Marathon Resources.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In September last year, in response to questions about the clean-up and disposal of radioactive and other waste illegally dumped in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, the minister stated that Marathon Resources' exploration licence continued only because the company 'needs some authority in order to undertake the activities about which we have been talking, that is, the removal of the waste'. When questioned further, the minister said, 'As to the future of the exploration licence, that is something that we will have to await until the clean-up is finished.'

Last week, Marathon Resources released a statement to the Stock Exchange stating that its clean-up was completed on 18 December last year and that all rehabilitation and revegetation works relating to the formal rectification plan were completed early last month, and a report by the independent consultant verifying the work was submitted to PIRSA on 23 January. This morning, the owners of the wilderness sanctuary, Marg and Doug Sprigg, were served by Marathon Resources with a new notice of entry and notice of equipment. Now that the clean-up is complete, it seems that Marathon is preparing to resume its exploration activities once the minimum 21-day notice period expires. My questions of the minister are:

1. Now that the clean-up is complete and the company has served a new notice of entry, when will he make a decision on whether Marathon Resources will be allowed to resume its exploration activities and, in particular, its drilling activities?

2. Has Marathon Resources made a formal reapplication to resume its drilling activities, and has it submitted a new declaration of environmental factors?

3. Considering the high level of public interest in this issue, is there any scope for public comment on whether the company can resume its exploration activities?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:49): As the honourable member said in his questions, a report was handed to the department on 23 January. The department has not yet signed off on that issue so, as far as the government is concerned, the clean-up of the Mount Gee region and exploration in the Arkaroola area by Marathon is not yet complete, and it will not be complete at least and until the department formally signs off on the work that is being done. I have certainly had no formal application from Marathon, and, certainly, I would not even contemplate one until the process is completed. In any case, I can say to the honourable member that he would be aware that some issues arose in relation to the fluoride matter that pointed to some deficiencies within the Mining Act in terms of how these matters might be dealt with.

I will be bringing some amendments into this parliament. Certainly, I would not be contemplating any further activity by Marathon at least and until that legislation was in place, and that might well be some time away. It is certainly news to me that Marathon has served a new notice of entry. As I said, I have no intention whatsoever of approving that, or even considering any approach from it until the matters have been finalised to the satisfaction of the department. I understand that work is completed. I am not questioning that the work may not have been done satisfactorily, but that needs to be certified by the relevant authorities.

In any case, I think that, at the very least, the deficiencies of the Mining Act that were brought to light by Marathon's activities need to be corrected. Then, I think, the government would have to give consideration to the impact of any further exploration and, in particular, any public benefit that would come out of that given the history of this matter. I am not even going to consider that until at least those two preconditions are met, and I expect it would be some time at least before the legislation would be considered by this parliament.

MARATHON RESOURCES

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:52): As a supplementary question, given the minister's response about his lack of knowledge of the notice of entry having been given, will the minister bring back to the council some advice on the validity of those notices and, in particular, the validity of the 21 day statutory periods under those notices, as well as any advice on whether, if invalid, those notices would have to be reissued at some future date?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:52): I think that is a reasonable point. I will certainly have that looked at as a matter of urgency.