unknownsa journal

'This government has done the right thing'

2011-07-27T18:10:00.003+09:30

Mike Rann's ministerial statement to Parliament on the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, 26th of July 2011

ARKAROOLA WILDERNESS SANCTUARY

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:41): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Last Friday, I travelled up to the Arkaroola region of the state with the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Mineral Resources Development to announce that the area would be protected forever. Arkaroola is unique with sensitive environmental, cultural and heritage values.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Kavel!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: See, there is a division on the other side on this issue. When I visited the stunning landscape last year—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —I found its beauty to be compelling and asked the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Mineral Resources Development to examine options to protect it. We engaged in comprehensive discussions in consultation with Doug and Marg Sprigg who hold the pastoral lease, and I know that the minister for the environment had meetings with the traditional owners.

The Minister for Environment and Conservation had direct consultation with other key interested parties about the future management of the Arkaroola area including meeting with the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association on two occasions. In addition, officers from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources also consulted with the traditional owners. The Minister for Mineral Resources Development also held discussions with various mining interests and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy about Arkaroola.

Following those discussions, we decided to give the region unprecedented protection, initially under the Mining Act, but going even further with legislation to specifically exclude mining and giving clear and specific protection to the area. Marg Sprigg has said that she could not wipe the smile off her face, and representatives of the traditional owners have expressed a variety of opinions including relief and also a leader describing it as a dream come true.

Our new legislation will fully recognise the unique character of this remarkable mountain wilderness. We could have settled for what the Greens wanted, which was simply to ban mining, but we were not satisfied that this would provide enough protection from all forms of incompatible development. Such a ban could have been easily overturned administratively with a stroke of a pen by a future government. We are not only protecting it by proclamation but we are backing that up by introducing legislation to protect this unique region for all time and nominating it for further protection as well. [Emphasis mine]

This will involve a three-step process, with the first step being to reserve the area from operation under the Mining Act by proclamation, preventing further exploration and mining titles being granted in the area. The second step will be to enact special purpose legislation to protect the natural, cultural and landscape values of the area in perpetuity. This step would define the area under statute, prohibiting mining, mineral exploration and grazing in the ranges, but specifically providing for the public appreciation and enjoyment of the area, with recreational activities regulated by a strict environmental management plan. The third step will be to nominate the area for listing on the National Heritage List and to seek to have it nominated for World Heritage Listing through the UNESCO process.

It is important to emphasise that the native title rights of the Adnyamathanha traditional owners will be fully respected in this process. This week we will move to reserve the area from the Mining Act. We will have further consultation with stakeholders in the area, including the Adnyamathanha traditional owners as well as pastoral leaseholders, before introducing our bill to protect the area forever before the end of the year.

Arkaroola is one of the most spectacular areas in the world, featuring unique biodiversity with an abundance of national and state conservation rated species. Some of the area's most unique species, such as the Flinders Ranges purple-spotted gudgeon and the spidery wattle, are not found anywhere else in the world. The area also provides a haven for the nationally threatened yellow-footed rock wallaby. We will proceed with nomination of the area under the national heritage listing, working closely with the traditional owners—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —and the pastoral leaseholders. Following that, early next year we will write to the commonwealth seeking World Heritage Listing for the area. The unique nature of the region justified the decision to end mining access.

Earlier this year we renewed the one-year exploration licence for Marathon Resources with strict conditions to allow exploration within Arkaroola, as we were legally obliged to do. We acknowledge that the mining industry needs certainty, which is why earlier this year we made it very clear that the exploration licence in no way conferred a right to mine. Furthermore, we advised that we were actively examining options for the future conservation management of the Arkaroola sanctuary, including the exclusion of mining.

We understand that Marathon has today announced it is taking advice about action to redress the impact of this decision. Marathon Resources was given a licence to explore the Arkaroola area, not a licence to mine. The Minister for Mineral Resources Development will meet with Marathon Resources later this week to hear their concerns about the impact the decision has had on their operations.

This government has been, is and will continue to be unashamedly pro-mining. When we came to office in 2002 there were just four mines operating in the state. Now there are 17, and there are dozens more in various stages of development, including the expansion of operations at Olympic Dam that will create the world's biggest mine. We have successfully worked—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The divisions in the front bench have broken out, even before question time. We have successfully worked with the federal government to unlock an area the size of England for exploration in the Woomera Prohibited Area. The area in and around the Woomera Prohibited Area is estimated to hold—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —mineral resources estimated to be worth—

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, could you just hold on a moment please. Would members please stop shouting at each other across the room. The Premier will be heard in silence.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The area in and around the Woomera Prohibited Area is estimated to hold mineral resources believed to be worth in excess of a trillion dollars. We have a major mining interest examining prospects there with keen interest. The future of mining in South Australia is assured. This government has done the right thing. [Emphasis mine]

As indeed it has...

we won!

2011-07-23T09:45:00.000+09:30

Ladies and gentlemen - we won!

Premier Mike Rann announced the full protection of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary yesterday morning, having flown to the sanctuary to deliver the good news.

Here's the ABC's take -

Arkaroola wilderness mining ban welcomed

There is wide praise for a decision to prevent mining in the remote Arkaroola wilderness region of outback South Australia.

Premier Mike Rann and ministers have flown to the region to announce the SA Government will change the Mining Act as an interim measure, then introduce specific legislation to ban any mining in the area.

Mr Rann says an application also will be made to put Arkaroola on the National Heritage list, with a longer-term aim of gaining World Heritage listing.

"We have decided to give the region unprecedented protection," Mr Rann said.

The Greens have lobbied for a mining ban in the Arkaroola region and the Liberal Opposition opposed the removal of any environmental protection.

"We could have settled for what the Greens wanted, which was simply a ban on mining, but I wasn't satisfied that that would provide enough protection from all forms of incompatible development," Mr Rann said.

Earlier this year, Marathon Resources was allowed a new mining exploration licence for Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The company had faced a ban after it was caught illegally dumping exploration waste in the northern Flinders Ranges in 2008.

To get the new licence it agreed to a conditions imposed by the South Australian Government for it to keep exploring the outback region for uranium and other minerals.

SA Mineral Resources Development Minister Tom Koutsantonis said the Government had made clear the area could not be mined.

"Earlier this year we renewed a one-year exploration licence for Marathon Resources with strict conditions to allow exploration within Arkaroola, as we were legally obliged to do," he said.

"We acknowledge that the mining industry needs certainty which is why at the time we made it very clear that the exploration licence in no way confers a right to mine.

"The Arkaroola wilderness area is a unique environment and as such we are giving it special, one-off, legislative protection."

Marathon Resources shares are in a trading halt.

Widespread praise

Marg Sprigg from the Wilderness Sanctuary is thrilled by the news that there will not be mining.

"It's wonderful. After 40 years or so of my family being here we've achieved what we really hoped to," she said.

SA Greens MP Mark Parnell says the Government's decision acknowledges the region's significance.

"Supporters of Arkaroola come from all sides of the political spectrum. Today the government has announced that it has listened to the people of SA," he said.

Mr Parnell tweeted: "Not surprisingly, the Premier has a dig at the Greens, but most important, no digging in Arkaroola!"

Adnyamathanha representative Enice Marsh said it was a dream come true for Indigenous people to know the area would be protected.

"I just want to thank the people that persevered with this and kept coming to our meetings so that we could document all this," she said.

Former South Australian senator Nick Minchin was involved in the campaign to protect the area from mining development and is pleased with the decision taken.

"This is not a place for mining, it is far too precious to mine," he said.

"I'm a supporter of uranium mining, I'm a supporter of mining generally and this state has a lot of potential for mining but there are some places you simply cannot mine that should be out of bounds for all time."

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond welcomed the Government's decision, but said it should have been made two years earlier.

The Advertiser's take this morning is here. There's also an opportunity to comment, and a poll regarding whether it was the right decision.

Congratulations to Mike Rann and his team for making this historic announcement.

This is a great day for the Flinders Ranges, and a great day for all South Australians who care about their wild environment - a truly unique and irreplaceable resource.

Further, it's a great day for all Australians and all those people across the world who know true value when they see it.

And it's a great day for you; if you wrote to, e-mailed, phoned, petitioned, pamphletted, stuck the sticker on your car, spread the word - it's your victory, too! Congratulations!

A group celebration will be organised shortly - we'll keep you posted!

Thanks again. Go enjoy yourself! You've earned it...

PS A little over 4 years and more than 90 blog posts later, I can't tell you how pleased I am!

(My photos go a good run on the ABC online yesterday, and I've created a gallery below -)

looking west to the armchair from the ridgetop track

in the yudnamutana gorge at mining industry target hodgkinsons - a mining access track is visible at right

sillers lookout, with the yudnamutana gorge below

the prelude - mark parnell's early morning press release anticipating the premier's announcement - the image is from the mouth of the yudnamutana gorge

and, at the top of the page, the rugged terrain at the heart of arkaroola; yudnamutana gorge far below and the freeling heights above, as seen from the ridgetop track

more mysterious moments; mark's motion makes it!

2011-06-09T18:30:00.000+09:30

Be it forever known that on Wednesday the 8th of June 2011 the following motion was carried in the Upper House of the South Australian Parliament -

That this council—

1. Notes that it has been almost 40 months since the initial discovery of illegal waste disposal and vandalism by Marathon Resources in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary; and

2. Calls for the state government to urgently guarantee permanent protection for the iconic and majestic mountains of Arkaroola.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell's motion was carried 'on the voices'; great news!

But the truly strange thing is that both former mining minister Paul Holloway (Labor) and opposition environment spokesperson Michelle Lensink (Liberal) spoke against it!

But both spokespersons for the major parties were at pains to indicate that nothing terrible was going to happen to Arkaroola anyway via the plan they were developing!

Lensink is apparently coy about the use of the word 'vandalism' to describe what we'll call 'the fluorite incident'; "I think he [Mark P] is pushing the envelope a little bit too far." If you've forgotten the details, perhaps you could follow the link and see what you think, Dear Reader?

However, she re-encapsulated the Liberal's position and their proposal to protect Arkaroola -

...we found the government's document, 'Seeking a Balance'.... quite disturbing in that it sought to change the zoning of that area and, in fact, to water down the existing provisions that apply. Indeed, the environmental zone A [the Class A Zone BJD] protection that applies to that area states that mining should not take place unless the deposits are of paramount importance and their exploration is in the highest national or state interest that all other environmental and heritage matters can be overridden.

I think it is fair to say that my leader and I certainly share the view that, given there are some 30,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, potentially, at that site versus what is already a 2.5 million tonne deposit at Olympic Dam, it would be extremely unlikely that those national and state heritage and environmental interests would ever be overridden under those circumstances.

Indeed, my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway has tabled a bill in this place, the Development (Principles of Development Control—Mining Operations—Flinders) Amendment Bill, which was tabled in November last year and which sought to ensure that the zoning which applies cannot be watered down. [Emphasis mine]

On Labor's side former Minerals Minister Paul Holloway admitted that public responses to his government's Seeking a Balance 'mining access' plan "were overwhelmingly in favour of protecting Arkaroola from mining". He went on to outline the government's intentions -

On 22 February this year the Premier advised parliament that he had asked the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Mineral Resources Development to lead a consultation process to identify the best conservation management framework for Arkaroola. This consultation process is currently under way. All options will be considered, including a permanent ban on mining, creating a national park and national heritage listing, with a possible view to seeking world heritage status in the future.

The consultation process, being led personally by the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, is well under way. It involves discussion with key stakeholders, namely, the leaseholders of the Arkaroola, Mount Freeling and Wooltana Pastoral Leases, the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association, who hold native title over the area, and several exploration and mining companies, including Marathon Resources, but also Heathgate Resources, Alliance Craton Explorer and Giralia Resources. Their views are being sought on the best options for conserving Arkaroola's unique values.

Following this consultation process the government will then be in a position to consider which option is the most appropriate to protect the values of Arkaroola. For those reasons this matter is being considered very earnestly by the government. We intend to come to a solution that will be acceptable to the community, and that is why we reject the motion, particularly part 2. Certainly, nothing will happen to Arkaroola either now or in the future that will damage the iconic areas of that region. [emphases mine]

(Let's see - the Premier proposes a ban on mining, a National Park, or heritage protection; these are strikingly different from the three options new Minerals Minister Tom Koutsantonis put to the electors of West Torrens, don't you think? Despite the fact that he is apparently 'personally leading' the self-same consultation process? Intriguing! )

Ann Bressington (Independent) and Kelly Vincent (Dignity for Disability) spoke strongly in favour of the motion to protect Arkaroola.

In fact, the proper protection of Arkaroola has the full support of the entire cross-bench. It's an embarrassment for the major parties, and something of a challenge to explain for those who deride the Upper House as somehow unrepresentative; here are the so-called 'special interests' speaking forthrightly for the majority in this matter, while the major parties are still so beholden to the power of the mining lobby - truly a special interest, if ever there was one! - that they have ended up tying themselves in logical knots!

Now, as you can see, no party wants to be seen to actively oppose protection for Arkaroola - a formal division wasn't called, and the vote was carried on voices!

It's a matter of record!

[PS - here's the link to the relevant Hansard - and here's Mark's take on facebook -

Great to see my Motion to permanently protect Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary passed in Parliament last night. Both Liberal and Labor are flip-flopping and mucking around on making a final decision, but neither was prepared to call a “division” when the vote was awarded to the Greens. So, the record stands: The Legislative Council wants Arkaroola protected. Over to you Premier.

]

the mysterious matter of the minister's mail-out

2011-06-06T17:01:00.003+09:30

Newly-appointed Mineral Resources Minister Tom Koutsantonis has recently sent a letter to (at least some of ) his constituents - i.e. (at least some of) those in his electorate of West Torrens.

This letter deals with the issue of Arkaroola, and canvasses opinions on three options he has proposed for the future of Arkaroola.

This may seem an oddly selective way for a cabinet minister to create policy on a matter of state - indeed, national - significance. Particularly in light of the responses to the state government's own 'Seeking a Balance' 'mining access' blueprint for the northern Flinders Ranges, which was overwhelmingly rejected by respondents who simply didn't want to see the mining industry in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary at all!

(Koutsantonis also cannot be unaware of the Sunday Mail's recent polling on the matter - overwhelmingly opposed to mining across all party affiliations; a result similar to online polling sister paper The Advertiser has conducted.)

However, some of us have found the content of the Minister's letter to be even more alarming!

The letter starts out well enough -

The Arkaroola Region has long been recognised as an area of unique scenic beauty with sensitive environmental, cultural and heritage values. It is a stunning landscape, rich in flora and fauna.

No arguments there. But soon we run into this little matter -

The Northern Flinders Ranges is one of the most geologically diverse and prospective areas in Australia, with a long history of exploration and mining and potential mineral and energy resources of national and international significance.[emphasis mine]

(Labor's constant refrain with regard to Arkaroola, here given as 'with a long history of exploration and mining' is a bit like suggesting that there's some meaning inherent in pointing out that a national park has 'a long history of poaching'. Um, that don't make it a good idea, or mean that it should continue, do it?!)

ah, 'potential' - now there's a word!

But it's the bit I've highlighted that's the real worry. Now, 'potential' is one of those magic words that can carry surprisingly heavy loads - indeed, the State Government's comparison of 'potential' mineral resources with 'actual' (in reality sparsely-surveyed) biodiversity values was one feature of the South Australian Museum's criticism of Seeking a Balance.

But 'mineral and energy resources of national and international significance'? Surely you're not referring to the uranium deposits and Mount Gee here, Minister?

Here's a link to the Australian Uranium Information Centre's (UIC) 'resources' page. On it you can see that Australia holds nearly 40% of the world's uranium reserves, far and away the largest chunk of any nation. And if you click the link below the chart you'll see a link to a document entitled 'Information Paper – Uranium Resources and JORC Categories'. In it you'll see the resource at Mount Gee, which is listed as 26.9 kT (26 900 tonnes) of Uranium Oxide - U308 as an inferred resource.

What is an inferred resource? Good question! Well, let's see what it says in the same document -

An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which tonnage, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a low level of confidence. It is inferred from geological evidence and assumed but not verified geological and/or grade continuity. It is based on information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes which may be limited or of uncertain quality and reliability. [emphases are in the original]

So, there's a resource of 27 kT which can be 'inferred with a low level of confidence'! Marathon's own Seeking a Balance submission, newly released under FOI, gives a figure of 28.5 kT for the inferred resource, so let's be generous and call it 30 kT all up.

Marathon also give a figure for an 'indicated resource' - 2.8 kT. That's an order of magnitude less. What does this mean? If we return to the UIC's list, we discover the following -

An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which tonnage, densities, shape, physical characteristics, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a reasonable level of confidence. It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. The locations are too widely or inappropriately spaced to confirm geological and/or grade continuity but are spaced closely enough for continuity to be assumed.

So, we can be 'reasonably confident' that there's 2.8 kT there.

attend to your grades!

There's also a question of the grade of the resource; that is, how much of all the rock you remove is actually going to contain what you're looking for, in this case U3O8.

In Mount Gee's case it's 0.06%, and if you look at the chart you will see that's at the low end of grades for Australian reserves - Jabiluka's proven reserve of 59 kT has a grade of 0.5% (nearly an order of magnitude higher), and it's similarly large indicated (21.7 kT) and inferred (54.7 kt) resources are graded at 0.43% and 0.54% respectively. What this means is you have to dig and crush way less rock to get to the good stuff. Economically this is great news for the miners!

For another interesting comparison, the adjacent Beverly 4 Mile deposit has a 28 kT reserve - pretty-well the same size as Marathon's - but at 0.34% grade, and the In-Situ Leaching method has already been demonstrated and is operating at the existing Beverley plant! (Note: which is not in the scenic ranges!)

Bear in mind here the issue of mining underground at Mount Gee, and just how much it would cost to tunnel into the area - by far the best option environmentally, but not one without impacts, and certainly not cheap!. Perhaps unsurprisingly there's also the issue of why some in the mining industry seem to believe that Marathon Resources is proposing open pits at Arkaroola, despite the state government's having repeatedly - supposedly - ruled that out.

now, that's a deposit

Let's have a look at a an unequivocally - nothing 'potential' about it - 'nationally and internationally significant' resource, shall we? We don't have to travel far - in fact, we can stay in SA, travelling a few hundred Km's to the west to Roxby Downs and the BHP's Olympic Dam deposit.

Returning to the Australian UIC's website we discover -

Olympic Dam, owned by BHP Billiton, is the third largest uranium mine in the world, though with by far the largest single uranium resource in the world.

Mining at Olympic Dam is currently carried out by underground mining. BHP has announced plans to expand the mine from its current 4,500 tonne annual uranium oxide production capacity to 19,000 tonnes a year by 2021.

and further -

The Olympic Dam deposit in South Australia is the single largest deposit in the world.

The extent of the resource at Ranger in the Northern Territory has been confirmed as also being of world significance.

And what's the resource at Olympic Dam?

Again, according to the UIC, a total of 2.327 million tonnes - thats 2, 237 kT. Including 130 kT of proved - the highest level of confidence there is - ore reserves, and more than 1.2 million - that's 1,200 kT - of indicated and 624 kT of inferred resources. They're currently proposing the world's largest open-pit to get to it all, plus the copper and gold that is the basis of the economics of this polymetallic mine.

Need I go on?

look out for the lock out!

And yet, Minister Koutsantonis sees fit to warn his electors of the following -

Placing a ban on exploration and mining in the Arkaroola area would lock away these significant resources now and in the future. This could deny the opportunity for all South Australians to benefit from potential mining investment, employment opportunities and a return to the State from these resources, which are owned by the State.

Now, 'lock away' is about the most inflammatory rhetoric one can use in this setting - it's usually associated with diatribes along the lines of 'the Bloody Greenies want to lock away... [whatever some miner/developer hopes they'll make a lot of money out of]'. I suggest that this phrase has absolutely no place in the lexicon of a South Australian cabinet minister, let alone in a letter to his constituents!

But the idea that the owners of the world's largest uranium resource - absolutely dwarfing whatever may exist at Mount Gee - face serious hardship if denied whatever hypothetical revenue may come from a mine in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is ridiculous!

And then there's the other mines due to come on-line. But you get my point.

taking aim at the class a zone?

And is it a coincidence that the language Koutsantonis uses just happens to look like it's consciously framed in terms of the Class A Environmental Zone legislation that covers the northern Flinders?

You know, the rules that don't allow a mine unless the resource is of 'paramount importance' and mining it is in 'the national interest'?

As I pointed out in my previous post, even Marathon Resources has conceded that it is unlikely to be able to overcome these criteria, and the Liberal Party certainly don't think so! Particularly as there's that other factor to consider -

investigations have shown that alternative deposits are not available on other land in the locality outside the zone

Not only do we have the deposit in Roxby, we have an operating U mine right next door to Arkaroola (Beverley), and, as we have seen above, Beverley's new extension - Beverley 4 Mile (notably even closer to the sanctuary!) is a deposit of a directly comparable size!

And it's not located in one of the most scenic beauty spots and biologically important areas in South australia, to boot!

So, has Tom Koutsantonis served his electors well, do you think, in failing to provide any of this context?

The failure of his own government's Seeking a Balance mining access plan and overwhelming opposition to mining doesn't even rank a mention! He tosses around 'national and international' significance [ooh, sorry, that's 'potential' significance] in relation to the deposits in Arkaroola without providing any proof of his claim. Oh, and the waste-dumping scandal and Marathon's consequent suspension from drilling has apparently also slipped his mind!

And then he finishes off with -

I am writing to seek your views on the future of the environmentally sensitive areas of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. In essence, which of the following options would you support:

1. Complete ban on exploration and mining in the environmentally sensitive areas of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

2. The area should remain available for exploration and mining in the future, but only if and when appropriate and environmentally sensitive methods of mining are developed.

3. Exploration and mining should be permitted now, with appropriate and stringent environmental controls in place.

Well, I know which option I'd choose!

But has he provided the appropriate background information and the balance of views likely to mean that those readers who may be relying on his summation can make informed decisions, do you think? So what is he going to try to tell us any response might mean?

And, have you noticed option number two? Surely we can infer from it that such 'appropriate and sensitive methods of mining' are currently not developed? Oh dear... Well, I wouldn't argue!

Frankly, with a return to active drilling potentially imminent, Mark Parnell's parliamentary motion to for the state government to finally stop stuffing-around and finally announce the full protection of Arkaroola could scarcely have come at a better time!

And don't forget, you can return Koutsantonis' favour, and e-mail or phone and tell him what you think!

Mark Parnell moves new motion to protect Arkaroola

2011-06-03T18:34:00.010+09:30

I've attached Greens MLC Mark Parnell's supporter notification of a parliamentary motion calling on the state government to guarantee the full protection of the mountains of Arkaroola below.

This comes to a vote this Wednesday, the 8th of June.

Dear friends,

Last week in Parliament I moved the following motion:

That this council—

1. Notes that it has been almost 40 months since the initial discovery of illegal waste disposal and vandalism by Marathon Resources in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary; and

2. Calls for the state government to urgently guarantee permanent protection for the iconic and majestic mountains of Arkaroola.

To read my speech, go to: http://www.markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=1038

Enough is enough. The State Government needs to reassure the people of South Australia that they will permanently protect Arkaroola from mining. The longer this issue drags on, the greater the risk that Marathon Resources will be allowed to bring their drill rigs back on-site.

The motion will be voted on in the Upper House on Wednesday 8th June. If you would like to help show your support for protection of Arkaroola, please contact Premier Mike Rann, Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis, and Opposition leader Isobel Redmond.

I thoroughly recommend that you follow the link to Mark's speech, and that you contact the politicians he has indicated.

It is particularly a 'walk-the-talk' test for the Liberal Party.

Leader Isobel Redmond announced - commendably - that the Liberals would move to protect Arkaroola in September last year. In order to do so they have focussed on reinforcing the conditions of the Class A Environmental Zone that covers much of the northern Flinders -

To that end the Liberals will need to amend the appropriate legislation to prevent any reduction in the level of environmental protection that exists under Zone A as it relates to Arkaroola.

I have frequently argued that the terms of the Class A Zone, if understood in English, mean that there is virtually no chance of Marathon being able to establish a mine in Arkaroola. To show why I'll borrow the summation Redmond uses in her media release -

Zone A Protection makes it clear that mining should not take place unless the deposits are of paramount importance and their exploration is in the highest national or state interest. [Emphases are in the original]

So, it's two strikes and you're out for Marathon!

And it seems that even they agree. Here's what they write on Page 61 of their recently released submission on 'Seeking a Balance', the state government's 'mining access' plan for the northern Flinders -

"The current planning arrangements for Environmental Zone Class A are clearly heavily weighted in favour of poorly defined, high value environmental criteria.[...]

Because of Arkaroola's Environmental Zone Class A status a potentially very large and valuable resource may never be developed because of a potential failure to meet the multiple criteria test. [emphasis mine]"

In fact, the whole of section 8.3 of their submission represents one long complaint about the nasty Class A Zone that protects the 'not iconic' Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and reveals that they had anticipated that Planning SA was going to move to a 'triple-bottom-line' exploitation criterion for the area. This would represent the kind of 'balance' Marathon are seeking, they tell us. The kind of 'balance' that puts their drilling rigs back in the heart of the sanctuary, no matter what the science says and what the people of SA may think about it.

Enough really is enough. This circus really has run waaaaaay too long. Note to the Liberals; Mark's motion does not get into specifics. The mechanism that provides the permanent protection for the mountains of Arkaroola remains to be determined.

But what is important is that the commitment be made. Unequivocally.

Before any more areas of the sanctuary have to bear the scars of exploration.

And any time you spent pointing this out to the people Mark suggests, Dear Reader, would be time well spent indeed as far as the wild landscapes of South Australia are concerned.

Arkaroola 'isn't iconic' - Marathon

2011-05-29T10:05:00.004+09:30

Newly disclosed documents reveal that controversial mining company Marathon Resources told the state government that the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is 'legally' only 'a pastoral lease', and that the SA Tourism Hall of Fame listed Eco-Tourism venture isn't 'iconic' -

Marathon considers, however, that the frequent description of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary (legally a pastoral lease) as 'iconic' is wrong or misleading.

This comes from Marathon's own submission on the state government's 'Seeking a Balance' mining access plan for the area, which the company refused to make public at the time and has only recently come to light under FOI .

The company also claimed that Seeking a Balance would risk 'energising anti-mining groups' and increase 'concessions to minority groups'. [See the bizarre chart above!]

Recent Sunday Mail polling has shown 72% of South Australians opposed to a mine in Arkaroola, in line with submissions on 'Seeking a Balance' which overwhelmingly opposed mining, with only 10% being in favour.

I think we can safely identify the true minority in danger of being conceded to here!

Marathon's submission really is quite extraordinary, and I'm not at all surprised that they didn't want it publicly released.

The 'it's nothing special' pettiness directed at Arkaroola itself is remarkable enough, but this is compounded by further insulting accusations, such as page 8's assertions that the Sanctuary must be either 'underwritten by Government hand outs' or have the mining industry 'supplement tourist activities.' Let's get this straight; here's a player in the mining industry complaining about 'government handouts' to the tourism industry?! You couldn't make it up!...

And on page 24 we get more of Marathon's opining on Arkaroola's viability as a business, this time based on anecdotes regarding the seasonality of local tourism taken from a book sanctuary founder Reg Sprigg wrote - in 1984! Last time I checked that was more than a quarter of a century ago...

But they've already quoted Reg on page 16 in order to bolster their case for, what, open-cut mining?! From - wait for it - 1973!

I could go on. But what's the point?

I will just point out that on the same page as the Reg Sprigg cherry-pick last cited Marathon accuses Seeking a Balance of possessing 'questionable methodological validity'. This is pretty ironic - certainly not iconic - coming from the people who have produced the chart posted at the top of this article!

Their second-highest 'perceived risk' is the dire threat of a 'confidence boost - anti-mining groups will be energised'!

How about the risks of environmentalists being enervated after having to spend years struggling against something as palpably absurd as a major mine in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, despite the state government and mining industry's incessant 'we're green and responsible' rhetoric? The two combined have certainly succeeded in making this one angry!

Then there's the next-highest risk - that this kind of plan might be 'replicated in other regions'. Yes, imagine the dire state of the world if The Breakaways or the Gawler Ranges were to be afforded anything approaching adequate protection from the mining industry!

(And please note the qualifier lower right of the chart - 'direction and magnitude of impacts are approximate'. They're not kidding!)

Seeking a Balance certainly was a deeply-unsatisfactory document - it's no surprise that the state government has let it quietly die - and if you want to read some real scientific commentary on it's myriad flaws you could start with the South Australian Museum's submission on it!

But you probably won't learn much from this 107 page document that veers between the tediously repetitive and the outlandish!

whack!

2011-02-13T19:10:00.004+10:30

If confirmation were needed that drilling is indeed not thrilling for the South Australian electorate, today's Sunday Mail has provided it in spades.

The Arkaroola campaign is featured on the front page, with a stunning photograph of The Armchair (one of the region's wild post-volcanic peaks) on the front page of the weekly 'Insight' lift-out, in an editorial ('No place for a mine') on page 34, in a magnificent double-page photospread beginning on Page 38, and, crucially, in another double-page poll-based spread on pages 8 and 9 - Voters give Labor a right whack (which could just as well have been called 'Voters give Labor Right a whacking!', but I digress!)

Its worth quoting this piece, which is based on the Sunday Mail's own survey conducted earlier this week -

Labor's woes may be compounded by its recent renewal of Marathon Resources' exploration licence in Arkaroola - the poll found 72 per cent of people felt mining should not be allowed in the region. The "no" vote was a whopping 79 per cent among intending Labor voters - even higher than among Greens' supporters.

Arkaroola director Marg Sprigg said she was distressed by the decision to allow Marathon to continue exploring.

"We don't believe a company like Marathon should be allowed back in here," she said. "They want to do a lot more drilling in a much wider area than just around Mt Gee; they will be drilling into the very heart of Arkaroola."

Marathon is searching for uranium in a 90sq km tenement in the sanctuary. Its drilling rights were suspended in February 2008 after it was found to have illegally dumped exploration drilling waste.

The company says the area has the nation's fifth largest undeveloped uranium deposit with 31,300 tonnes identified.

Marathon chairman Peter Williams said more discoveries were likely and the new phase of exploration would extend several kilometres east of Mt Gee to assess the size of the deposit with drill holes as deep as 500m.

Relations between Arkaroola and Marathon have broken down, with Marathon now planning to fly in workers by helicopter each day from a neighboring property rather than pay to stay in Arkaroola village.

Mineral Resources Development Minister Tom Koutsantonis said the Government - which has heavily promoted its pro-mining credentials - was legally obliged to renew Marathon's licence but was considering a range of conservation options "which may include exclusion, or limiting of mining".

"This does not confer any right to mine the area," he noted. [Emphasis mine]

Here's the figures for that poll:

QUESTION 5: Should mining be allowed in the Mt Gee area of the Arkaroola Sanctuary?

YES - 22% (all), 19% (Labor voters), 25% (Liberal voters), 19% (Greens voters), 8% (Family First voters)

NO - 72% (all), 79% (Labor voters), 68% (Liberal voters), 71% (Greens voters), 89% (Family First voters)

DON'T KNOW - 6% (all), 2% (Labor voters), 7% (Liberal voters), 10% (Greens voters), 3% (Family First voters) [emphasis mine]

Note to the Labor Party - when an institution as conservative as the Sunday Mail carries not only this poll, but this editorial and a front page emblazoned with the 'NO MINE IN ARKAROOLA' sticker and the words 'Ark Up - the fight to save a wilderness' it's clear that in granting a return to active exploration in the sanctuary you have become so divorced from public sentiment that you really are at risk of being forever lost in the wilderness yourselves!

Reshuffling the deck chairs in cabinet didn't work. People want to see results, not the same rhetoric spilling from new faces. The message could hardly be clearer; the old men of the Labor Party have saddled the new blood with an albatross - or perhaps a turkey? - around their necks in the ongoing farce in Arkaroola. Either way, Labor needs to ditch the bird - or pay the price!

I'll finish with one more quotation from the Sunday Mail. I suggest that, if the situation is not swiftly rectified - it will prove prophetic;

The Mt Gee area of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, in the northern Flinders Ranges, is one of Australia's most awe-inspiring landscapes - and also the setting for what looms as one of the biggest environmental battles since the Franklin River protests in Tasmania in the 1980s.

ark up! gear up! listen up!

2011-02-12T15:26:00.003+10:30

You too can be part of environmental campaign history via the simple application of just $20.

Yes, that's all that is required to secure one of these fine 'Ark Up' T-shirts. And this includes postage and handling! Woohoo!

They come with the message 'ARK UP' on the front and 'NO MINE IN ARKAROOLA / www.savearkaroola.com.au' on the back.

So now you can let people know that you object to any proposal to mine this unique wild area in stylish comfort, and help spread word of the campaign. The shirts can be ordered straight from the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary by phoning (08) 8648 4848 or emailing res@arkaroola.com.au.

And while you're sorting that you can listed to sanctuary manager Marg Sprigg talk about the latest developments at Arkaroola, and the history of the sanctuary's experience of dealing with Marathon Resources, via the Radio Adelaide website.

tourism industry condemns new lease

The South Australian Tourism Industry Council has strongly condemned the Rann Government's decision. It remains inexplicable why this government is prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate miners while willfully jeopardising the future of an industry that depends so heavily not only on our unique environment, but on our international image as sound environmental managers -

MINING THE FLINDERS RANGES WILL DESTROY TOURISM

The South Australian Tourism Industry Council (SATIC) strongly rejects any mining activity in Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary as it is imperative that South Australia’s key tourism destinations are protected.

SATIC Chief Executive Ward Tilbrook says any mining activity in the award-winning Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary will damage the positioning and realisation of South Australia as a legitimate world class nature based eco-tourism destination.

“While mining is a finite resource, tourists are an infinite sustainable resource for the State creating 53,000 jobs in South Australia and an economic impact of $4.4 billion, with the Government declaring a target to increase the value of tourism to the State to $6.3 billion by 2014,” Mr Tilbrook says.

“Mining exploration and activity is incompatible with credible nature based tourism, Arkaroola should remain completely protected, the impact of mining activity will damage a spectacular and unique wilderness sanctuary, which is of enormous tourism value to South Australia and is intrinsic to our tourism identity.

“Tourism Australia has declared the Flinders Ranges as one of just ten unique iconic Australian landscapes, and the biodiversity, vast landscape and cultural heritage of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is an integral part of this ‘National Landscape’ accolade.

“I urge the South Australian Government to reconsider any planned mining activity within the Sanctuary.”

drilling not thrilling the electorate!

2011-02-11T10:57:00.006+10:30

You know, I had always thought that the number one priority of any incumbent political party, whatever else they might tell you, was to get re-elected.

But when it comes to the South Australian branch of the Labor Party it would appear that 'it ain't necessarily so'!

The almost incomprehensible decision to allow Marathon Resources to return to active drilling in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a case in point; all they seem to have managed to achieve is to sink their already decidedly, um, whiffy public stock still further!

As local daily The Advertiser noted on Tuesday -

A poll on the AdelaideNow website [The Advertiser online] found more than 80 per cent of more than 2000 respondents opposed mining in the area, and comments published online were overwhelmingly negative.

This is hardly the first such reaction!

In response to overwhelming rejection of their Seeking a Balance 'mining access' plan (SaB) from scientists, geologists, tourism operators and the public alike - and particularly the devastating criticisms from the South Australian Museum ('we advise that this re-assessment of the Environmental Classes, “Seeking A Balance”, be rejected totally' - ouch!) - what do Rann and co. do?

Quietly bin the thing, fail to issue the promised formal response to submissions (perhaps because it could only devolve into some sort of formal acknowledgement of incompetence?) - and hand Marathon another exploration lease which allows them to return to drilling!

Let's get this straight; 80% + of responders thought SaB did not go far enough, by a long chalk, in affording Arkaroola and the northern Flinders Ranges the permanent protection it deserves. 'Seeking' was Unbalanced! Playing irritating spin games along the lines of 'oh, but the mining industry criticised it too' will not do - every time the issue arises the public reaction to the prospect of mining is overwhelmingly negative; the SaB submissions, letters to politicians and the Editor, online polling, talkback... they all produce the same results - huge majorities opposed, tiny minorities in favour.

creative interpretation - just say no!

Even the Liberal Party has come out formally opposing any mine, and has proposed legislation that seeks to ensure the Class A Environmental Zone provisions of the Planning Act - which, if read in English, make any proposal to establish a uranium mine an impossibility - cannot be spun, creatively-interpreted, or 'guidelined' out of existence.

But Labor is apparently bent on pursuing this policy of electoral suicide! So much for a 'new direction'; surely Jack Snelling, John Rau, and Jay Weatherill don't want a spell in opposition from early 2014 just so they can 'get the hang of it', or something?

question, questions

I'm not the only one wondering what is going on. Greens MLC Mark Parnell asked former Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway a series of questions in Parliament on Tuesday -

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:09): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Hon. Paul Holloway, the former minister for mineral resource development, a question about the granting of a new exploration licence to Marathon Resources.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yesterday, Marathon Resources confirmed that they had agreed to accept a new exploration licence over the spectacular and iconic Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary that was offered to them by the Rann government. The response from geologists, ecologists and the wider South Australian community has been predictable: it has been total condemnation.

Also at odds with previous practice, the Sprigg family, the owners of part of the sanctuary and custodians of the rest, were kept totally in the dark about the conditions of the new licence by the Department of Primary Industries. The Spriggs were devastated to discover that the company has been allowed back in to drill for the first time since 2007, which is a clear betrayal of the commitment made by acting minister Jack Snelling on 21 December last year that the licence would contain stricter conditions.

The significant weakening of the conditions that have severely restricted Marathon's operations over the last three years has surprised many. For example, this morning on ABC radio, Matthew Abraham said:

...this program understood from a very good source before Christmas that the Rann government was considering doing the absolute reverse and, that is, not extending the mining lease, the exploration lease and in fact was considering options including making it a national park and banning mining completely from there, so quarantining it...

we don't know what happened from then until now but it was quite good information, (if) I can put it that way. We do know though that Marathon Resources is very well connected, has former Labor senator, former party secretary Chris Schacht first as a lobbyist, now he is a director of Marathon Resources. You do wonder whether he and others got cracking in the interim because that did send a bit of a shiver through Marathon Resources...

My questions of the former minister are:

1.What happened between October and December of last year to change your mind about throwing Marathon Resources out of Arkaroola?

2.Did you have any communication or conversations with John or Davina Quirke from lobbyist firm Pallidon, Chris Schacht, or Senator Don Farrell over the future of Marathon Resources between October and December of last year?

3.Why weren't the Spriggs consulted by PIRSA about the conditions of the new licence, which is a clear breach of the understanding that you previously gave in this place about the importance of the relationship with the owners of the Arkaroola Sanctuary for the future success of mining activities on that site?

4.Why has the requirement for approval of the chief executive of the environment department prior to entering the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to carry out exploration been removed from the new licence?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (15:12): I suggest that the Hon. Mr Parnell reads the press statement that was put out by the acting minister, the now Treasurer, Mr Snelling, in my absence in December. That remains the position, as far as I am aware, in relation to Arkaroola. For any other matters I suggest that he put his question on notice to the new Minister for Mineral Resources Development.

Thanks for that, ex-minister! Holloway's response is, regrettably, stamped from the same boilerplate that has sunk his party so low in public esteem in the first place. The people of South Australia are absolutely entitled to answers on this issue!

So, what would we find if we went looking for Labor's position, other than their obviously allowing a resumption of drilling? Incoming Minerals Minister Tom Koutsantonis has hardly been placed in an enviable position himself! Nevertheless, it was hard not to be struck by the farcical aspects of the news item that appeared 2 days after the announcement of the new drilling lease -

MARATHON Resources may still be banned from mining in the Arkaroola Sanctuary in the Flinders Ranges.

Environmentalists and Opposition parties have slammed the decision that allows the miner to keep exploring the sanctuary where it was found to have dumped radioactive waste.

Newly appointed Mineral Resources Minister Tom Koutsantonis yesterday said as part of the new conditions Marathon must minimise its disturbance to the environment.

"Marathon has been advised that the government is considering a range of conservation options which may involve exclusion, or limiting of mining," he said.

Eh?!

Note to party new-bloods and Mike Rann; yes, pursuing a policy of allowing mining in Arkaroola really is going to cost you! Apart from being simply wrong, this is a serious blow to both your electoral standing and your legacy.

of suspensions, halts, and suspense!

2011-02-04T15:58:00.002+10:30

Marathon Resources, the company that was suspended from drilling in early 2008 after it illegally dumped waste in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - and now wishes to return to active mineral exploration - has requested a trading halt on its shares from the Australian Stock Exchange as of yesterday (ASX)

According to the company's statement to the ASX -

The halt is to allow time for Marathon Resources to confirm the acceptibility of the terms of the renewal of EL4355 offered by the South Australian Government and, if acceptable, implement a capital raising.

Not for the first time, the interested public is left scratching its collective head, and wondering what it all means. They're to be offered a lease. We knew that was coming, sadly. But on what terms?

One person who would really like to know is Marg Sprigg, owner of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. She told ABC news -

It was great concern to think that steps have obviously been taken that we have no knowledge of.

We expected to be involved in the process regarding input into what conditions might be placed on them and it's extremely disappointing to think that after all that's gone the Government has just side-stepped. [see complete item posted below]

Marg had, understandably, wanted to be party to the negotiations in order to understand what the state government were prepared to allow in the conservation area she manages. And yet she was simply ignored; she knows no more about it than you or I do, dear reader!

Do you recall Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway telling parliament in September 2008 -

When I made my statement I think I mentioned a number of other conditions that Marathon Resources will have to meet before any further exploration will be permitted in that area. One of the obvious ones is its relationship with the landholders. The view I have expressed to any mineral explorer is that, if they do not have good relations with the landholders, the future of mining within those areas is likely to be bleak. [emphasis mine]

Can we assume, then, that common courtesy and 'good relations' is a rule that applies only to others, and not to the state government?

It's not exactly 'transparency,' is it?

So no-one, apart for the Rann government and the company, knows what the proposed conditions of this lease are, including the crucial conditions for any return to drilling. This despite being targetted on a wild area that is clearly dear to the hearts of so many, as the overwhelming support for its preservation that is expressed each time the issue is raised in any public forum indicates.

The Rann government has promised that the environment of Arkaroola will be strictly protected - um, fine, but this is exactly the same statement they've been making throughout! - and that the company will be faced with a year lease with no 'automatic right' of renewal.

so, what can you do?

If you're as concerned about the prospect of a return to drilling as I am, doubtlessly you're asking yourself 'so, what can I do?'

Several things - firstly, you can add your name and comments to The Wilderness Society's cyber-action regarding Arkaroola - if you haven't done so already - as more than 2600 people have at the time of writing. (the action achieved its original target of 2000 signatures in a little over 24 hours - let's see if we can achieve the revised target of 3000 in a few more!) And you can encourage your friends to join in!

Secondly, you could contact your MP, and Mike Rann's office, to voice your concern, or write to The Advertiser.

Thirdly, you could come along to the Wilderness Society's proposed action on Monday the 7th of February at 10.30 am, on the steps of Parliament House. If you can make it along, please do - and remember; the 'someone else' who'll probably make it along if you don't is actually still you!

Here's what TWS propose -

The Rann Government has given permission for previously disgraced mining company Marathon Resources to return to uranium exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. The Government’s decision was held back and only announced in the week before Christmas.

The community protest on the steps of Parliament House will send a message to the Rann Government that this decision has not gone unnoticed, and protesters will call on the Government to protect Arkaroola instead of allowing Marathon to mine it.

This will be a relaxed, non-confrontational event designed to highlight the issue for those of the public who may not even have realised that a new drilling lease may be in the offing (given the 'interesting' timing of the government's announcement!).

And it will be a great opportunity to contribute, and learn more about other avenues for participating in the campaign; plus a great chance to pick up Arkaroola stickers (see at the top of the post - get yours before nearly everyone else does!) and other campaign materials.

You might even get to meet a Labor Maaaaaate (and will they have a proposal for you?!)

Here's the ABC news report in full.

The manager of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is angry that conditions have been decided without her input for a resources company to keep exploring the area in the Flinders Ranges.

There has been a trading halt in shares in Marathon Resources while a renewal of its exploration lease is considered.

The company was caught illegally dumping waste in the wilderness area in 2008.

Sanctuary manager Marg Sprigg said she would like to have had some input into the conditions.

"It was great concern to think that steps have obviously been taken that we have no knowledge of," she said.

"We expected to be involved in the process regarding input into what conditions might be placed on them and it's extremely disappointing to think that after all that's gone the Government has just side-stepped." ABC online 4/02/11

TWS : Tell Mike Rann to protect it!

2011-01-31T20:46:00.003+10:30

The Wilderness Society has launched a cyber-action campaign in a bit to get Premier Mike Rann not to allow a return to active drilling in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The state government announced the renewal of Marathon Resources' exploration lease shortly before Christmas. The government and Marathon are still negotiating the conditions of this lease; for more background see they're baaaaack!.... (If you're new to the issue more generally please read around the blog - and to see the area concerned, climb aboard the Desktop Toyota to take a virtual Ridgetop Tour via the link at right!)

These negotiations have now continued for over a month, and the state government had promised strict environmental conditions, including announcing that they were proposing that there be no 'automatic' right of renewal (irrespective of company 'compliance') for the new 1 year lease. After the amendments to the mining act - acknowledged to be inspired by inadequacies highlighted by Marathon's dumping scandal that was brought to light (literally!) in late 2007 - that were passed last year the public comment period for the proposed new amendments to the accompanying mining regulations closes shortly.

So it's a crucial time in the campaign to preserve this wild region forever.

Whenever the issue arises public opposition to any proposal to mine is overwhelming.

In parliament the Greens remain staunchly opposed - state upper house member Mark Parnell has worked tirelessly on this matter.

And the state Liberal Party has also come round to embracing public opinion. While they have not supported any of Mark Parnell's bills to simply ban mining in the sanctuary, as of last year they are proposing their own legislation that would reinforce the provisions of the existing Class A Environmental Zone that apply to the area.

These should, by rights, make any proposal to mine uranium at Arkaroola simply impossible - at least if they are read and comprehended via any sort of common understanding of the English language! I received an e-mail to this effect from the Leader of the opposition, Isobel Redmond, earlier today, in fact -

The Liberal Party is opposed to the government's attempts to water down Arkaroola's Environmental Class A Zone and we will therefore seek to enshrine its protection by amending the Development Act 1993 in this session of Parliament.

If the Labor party is looking to boost its sinking stocks of public goodwill and rejuvenate its image it need look not further than this issue! This may be Mike Rann's last chance to redeem himself in Arkaroola; and the new guard of the Labor party would doubtlessly do well to take note...

'i can imagine what they are'

2010-12-22T11:08:00.000+10:30

I think this interview between ABC North and West's Annette Marner and acting Minerals Minister Jack Snelling deserves wider attention - particularly for those seeking to understand just how the government is justifying making such an unpopular decision - so I'm posting a transcript below.

Any reader of the following who took the time to comment online on the Advertiser's recent articles on the lease renewal can feel vindicated!

It's nice to see the ABC doing a good job of holding the government's feet to the fire, and you'd have to say that Paul Holloway owes Jack Snelling big time for having to be the actual man-on-the-spot who takes the flack for this decision!... (and the Mount Barker announcement, too! Biiiiiig time!...)

Interview : ABC Radio 639 SA North and West's Annette Marner interviews Jack Snelling, acting Minister for Mineral Resources Development, 21st December 2010

Marner:

I want to go back now to February 2008 when the Rann Government suspended the mining exploration licence of Marathon Resources after Marg Sprigg and her brother, Douglas, of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary found 23,000 bags of drilling waste illegally dumped at Mount Gee, which is in ... the wilderness sanctuary ... Marathon then admitted to dumping a further 40,000 tons in one of the deepest gorges in the Flinders Ranges ... Premier Mike Rann said at the time that this was a significant breach of the company’s licence conditions ... you’ve probably heard on the news that it appears that Marathon’s exploration licence will be extended, give or take the details of it, will be extended for 12 months. Jack Snelling is the Acting Minister for Resources in South Australia and joins us ...

So where does it actually stand? You can’t actually say that the licence has been extended for 12 months, can you at this point, are there not negotiations going on between the Government and the company?

Snelling:

There’s consultation ... the advice to me as Acting Minister was the Government was obliged to renew the licence. The company asked for a renewal of two years - the Government’s granting them a renewal of one year. We’re also proposing to remove the automatic right of renewal that was previously in the licence ... we’re also attaching greater conditions to the ... exploration activities that Marathon can undertake at Arkaroola.

Marner:

Minister, what is the obligation that the Government is under to extend the licence?

Snelling:

Under the existing licence Annette there was a right of renewal, so the company, unless it was in some sort of significant breach of the exploration licence, the Government was obliged to renew the licence, otherwise we’d be exposing South Australian taxpayers to compensation to Marathon-

Marner:

... a significant breach is not the dumping of about ... 53,000 bags of drilling waste illegally?

Snelling:

Well the company, as I understand, have remediated ... the site... the advice to me was that the Government was obliged to renew the licence, without South Australian taxpayers ... to compensation to Marathon.

Marner:

Now you said that there are greater conditions that apply this time, what are some of the key things?

Snelling:

... what I’ve said to the company ... written to the company saying, ‘look, the Government’s prepared to extend your licence. It’ll only be for one year, it won’t be for the two years that you’ve asked for and it’ll be proposed to remove the automatic right of renewal ... there’ll also be conditions on your exploration activity’ ... the Government is in consultation with the company at the moment, but essentially what we’ll have is greater control over the activities that they undertake ... make sure that the ... previous environment in Arkaroola is protected.

Marner:

Well greater control, does that mean greater scrutiny? I mean will officers from the department actually go up there and have a look at what’s going on?

Snelling:

Well, the detail of that’s got to be worked out ... the department will be discussing exactly what those conditions are with Marathon in coming days, but suffice to say that we want to make sure that any exploration activity that’s undertaken at Arkaroola ... causes minimal disruption to the environment.

Marner:

What is your stand about whether mining should actually go ahead anywhere in the wilderness sanctuary at Arkaroola?

Snelling:

Well, the Government’s looking at all the options that are before it. I’m not in a position really to canvass what those options are, but the Government’s acutely aware of the environmental significance of Arkaroola and the importance of protecting it ... we know that there are very strong feelings about it ... we want to make sure that any activity that happens there is done in such a way that the environment is protected.

Marner:

I don’t know if you had a look at page 17 of The 'Tiser [The Advertiser, Newscorp's Adelaide daily BJD] today – the on-line responses under the heading ‘mining at Arkaroola’, what readers to the paper have been sending in to the Tiser-

Snelling:

-I’ve seen the article but not the responses, but I can imagine what they are-

Marner:

“This government has no morals”, says Rhonda of Whyalla; “The most powerful force in all earth, the mighty dollar”, says someone else in the south; “This is disgusting, how can the Government in all logic grant this licence”, says another; “I suppose this is just seeking a balance on how to best reward really bad behaviour.” So that’s just some that are in today’s press Minister.

Snelling:

Look, there are two issues ... firstly there’s the renewal of the exploration licence ... the advice to me as Minister is that the Government was obliged to do it – if we didn’t renew Marathon’s exploration licence then South Australian taxpayers would be liable to pay out potentially millions of dollars to Marathon Resources to compensate them. That’s not something I wanted to do ... so we’ve renewed the licence and fulfilled what we believe is a legal obligation. What the advice from the Government’s lawyers is is we have a legal obligation to renew this licence.

Now as to the issue of mining in Arkaroola that’s I think another issue again. Remember that no application to do any mining has been received by the Government – no-one has put in an application as of yet to do any mining at all; this is purely exploration not mining ... the Government is looking at what its options are, but the Government’s very mindful of the environmental significance of Arkaroola. We want to make sure that that unique landscape is protected ... how we go about that, there is a number of options which are before the Government at the moment which we are considering.

Marner:

Well Minister, thank you very much for joining us ...

...and what a happy time he must have had!

they're back - so it's time to act!

2010-12-21T10:45:00.004+10:30

Marathon's project rattles on for another 12 months despite it's chequered history and clear public opposition.

The Adelaide Advertiser has started examining some of the Labor links of the lobbying muscle being deployed on the company's behalf -

Labor mates' lobbying a 'threat' to Arkaroola

* Sarah Martin, Political Reporter
* From: The Advertiser
* December 21, 2010 12:00AM

POWERFUL lobbyists connected to the Labor Party are winning the fight to mine Arkaroola.

Negotiations between Marathon Resources and the State Government began yesterday after the Government said it would renew the mining company's exploration licence for another year.

Marathon was suspended from drilling for uranium on the northern Flinders Ranges site two years ago after dumping waste in breach of its licence conditions, but new exploration conditions are now being negotiated. Sanctuary directors and conservation groups say the powerful forces backing Marathon - including a Chinese government-owned shareholder - mean protecting the area faces tough opposition.

Former Labor senator John Quirke is the registered lobbyist for Marathon, while another former Labor senator Chris Schacht is a company director. Labor powerbroker and union heavyweight Paul Howes has also lent his support to mining in Arkaroola.

Premier Mike Rann and Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway have both met representatives from CITIC, one of the largest state-owned conglomerates in China and a 17 per cent shareholder in Marathon.

Arkaroola Sanctuary director Marg Sprigg said she feared the lobbying effort would be stepped up over the next 12 months to allow Marathon to resume drilling.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the project was being pushed by "a conga-line of Labor luminaries". "Governments should make decisions on the basis of sound advice, not the sound of highly paid lobbyists whispering in their ears," he said.

A Government spokesperson said it was considering conservation options for the sanctuary.

You can make your own comment on this piece here -

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/labor-mates-lobbying-threat-to-arkaroola/story-fn6bqphm-1225974152919

sticker up!

And you can secure yourself a place in environmental campaigning history by displaying a soon-to-be iconic 'No Mine in Arkaroola' sticker on your car (see above).

Grab your sticker by contacting The Wilderness Society here in Adelaide; phone 8231 6586, or drop in at 7th Floor, 118 King William Street in the city, just north of the Pirie Street intersection.

(While not required a donation would help TWS in the production of more of the stickers! Some organizations aren't quite as cashed up as others... :-) )

they're baaaack!...

2010-12-20T10:42:00.003+10:30

...but what does it all mean?

The SA government has announced the renewal of Marathon's exploration lease over the weekend.

However, what we don't know is the terms under which the exploration component of the lease may be undertaken. In fact, the government has announced that it will be discussing those terms with the company over the next month or so.

This begs an obvious question - why are they not also discussing these terms with Marg and Doug Sprigg, the owners of the Arkaroola Sanctuary? Who better understands the direct impact of exploration activity in these wild, semi-arid ranges?

The widespread and embarrassing scientific criticism of Seeking a Balance, their 'mining access plan' for the northern Flinders Ranges - particularly that coming from the SA Museum - hardly leaves Mike Rann's team in a position where they can credibly claim to have the environmental nous to supervise a mining company operating in this highly sensitive region.

Acting on minerals' minister Paul Holloway's behalf, science minister Jack Snelling has announced -

"There'll be stronger conditions on their exploration activities, stronger controls," he said.

"The Government's also looking at what its options are with respect to protecting the area and that could possibly mean the exclusion of mining to the most environmentally sensitive parts of Arkaroola."

What does it all mean? Of course there will be 'stronger conditions' on exploration activities - the changes recently made to the Mining Act were triggered by Marathon's waste dumping scandal in Arkaroola! So conditions are 'stronger' already; but what else do they have in mind?

And the exclusion of mining from 'the most sensitive parts' of Arkaroola makes perfect sense if we take an honest look and announce that the whole range area of the Sanctuary is 'the sensitive part'! Other than that we're just back in the dithering, 'dog's breakfast' crazy-quilt zoning territory of the already thoroughly-discredited Seeking a Balance!

It's difficult not to conclude, like Greens MLC Mark Parnell, that 'they're having a bet both ways', holding out hope to both conservationists and miners!

We were promised an official government response to the public submissions on Seeking a Balance along with this lease renewal, by the way, and we look forward to that shortly being made available.

one year only and no autorenewal

The company is being told they're only getting the one year on the exploration lease, and there'll be no automatic right of renewal upon expiration. Some of of us doubt there ever really was an automatic right of renewal to an exploration lease, but Minister Holloway has rather gone out of his way in parliament to justify himself on the basis of these supposed 'automatic expectations'. So, does this amount to painting one's way back out of the corner?

At any rate, clearly it's in the public interest that no company should expect that they're entitled to a renewal of any lease to access public resources.

And the public is definitely entitled to see the highest possible levels of protection for this iconic area of our State. It's time to end the farce of pretending that these necessary protections and mining can co-exist.

Extension granted for mining exploration [ABC online South Australia 20/12/2010]

Mining company Marathon Resources has had its exploration licence for the Northern Flinders Ranges in South Australia extended by one year.

The company applied for a further two years exploration after the licence expired in October.

Acting Mineral Resources Development Minister, Jack Snelling, says the State Government was obliged to approve the application under the Mining Act, but only by one year.

Marathon was caught illegally dumping waste at Arkaroola in 2008. [My link BJD]

Mr Snelling says the company will have stricter operating conditions and will no longer have a right of renewal.

He says the government will consult with the company over the next month to develop the details of the licence.

"There'll be stronger conditions on their exploration activities, stronger controls," he said.

"The Government's also looking at what its options are with respect to protecting the area and that could possibly mean the exclusion of mining to the most environmentally sensitive parts of Arkaroola."

The manager of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, Marg Sprigg, says the changes are a step in the right direction.

"We would've preferred if Marathon hadn't had their licence renewed but we understand the Government's position on this and the struggle to protect Arkaroola will continue on, but it is a clear indication to us that the Government recognises the long term sustainable value of places like Arkaroola," she said.

But Greens MP Mark Parnell says the Government should have banned mining in the area.

"The Government is mucking around with the long term protection of Arkaroola, they're having a bet both ways," he said.

"They're holding out hope to the mining companies that they'll be allowed back in and they're holding out hope to conservationists that long term protection is just around the corner."

cowboys call on parliament!

2010-10-29T17:04:00.003+10:30

In February 2008, as he was announcing the suspension of drilling operations for Marathon Resources after the discovery of 22 800 bags of waste illegally buried in 2 large trenches bulldozed into the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, Premier Mike Rann announced 'we won't tolerate cowboys'!

Well, last Friday a small posse of Cowboys and girls mosied over to the steps of Parliament house because, as they repeatedly hollered while waving their cordless drills, 'it ain't thrillin' if we ain't drillin'.

They begged to be let back, and with regard to their previous sins they pronounced themselves a very sorry bunch indeed. But none of this seems to have persuaded those ornery folks from The Wilderness Society or Dave Noonan from the ACF!

But it's Mike Rann they'd be looking to talk round.

With Mineral Resource Development minister Paul Holloway's amendments to the Mining Act having just cleared the lower house and likely to swiftly pass through the upper house next week, and with the government's own northern Flinders mining access plan Seeking a Balance quietly euthanased last week, the moment of truth is fast approaching for Mike Rann.

So what'll it be Mike - conservation or exploitation? Because as the public submissions on Seeking a Balance made clear, pretty well no-one is buying the line that you can have your wild heritage cake and eat it too in the northern Flinders Ranges.

(It's always interesting to speculate who thinks they know what. Take, for instance, Marathon's recent share price jump!)

RIP SaB

2010-10-24T21:08:00.002+10:30

The Rann government's 'mining access plan' for the northern Flinders Ranges - Seeking a Balance - was quietly put to sleep with very little ceremony on Friday.

It will be mourned by few, including, apparently, mineral resources minister Paul Holloway, who said this of it last week -

(Seeking a Balance) went out for consultation...and several from both sides came back saying they didn't like the way we addressed the issue, so the Government accepted that, and said in that case we will frame a new response and we are in the throes of doing that.

'Several'!? It seems Paul Holloway is still pursuing some false notion of 'balance' by making statements like 'several from both sides'!

Perhaps he might cast the number of responses from the industry side that criticised the plan as being too restrictive on mining as 'several', but those who favoured the preservation of Arkaroola were numbered in the hundreds, not a few tens!

There were more than 450 responses, with 82% of these opposed to a mine in Arkaroola by the Government's own count - and only 10% in favour! (See Seeking is Unbalanced.)

The fact is that the proposal to allow mining in Arkaroola received an absolute whalloping in the SaB submissions, and Paul Holloway knows it! No amount of false-equivalence can conceal this fact.

This included a remarkably embarrassing submission from the SA Museum which described it as 'greatly flawed', and needing to be 'totally rejected'!

Failing to take into account the overall context of the 'balance' (or lack of it) between conservation and mining in South Australia; failing to compare apples to apples (contrasting actual biodiversity - inadequately surveyed at that! - to potential mineral prospectivity); failing to define what the very mining 'infrastructure' it proposed to allow might be; failing to establish the very biological corridors that are central to the government's own strategies elsewhere in the state - this document was deeply, deeply flawed.

This was not a great moment for the Rann Government, and can hardly lead to confidence in their future management of the region!

So when Paul Holloway says 'we will frame a new response and we are in the throes of doing that' what can he mean?

The fact is that his government has categorically proved that it does not have the knowledge to undertake the very project that Seeking a Balance was premised on; the only thing it has shown clearly is it simply does not know enough about the biodiversity and sensitive ecology of the northern Flinders to possibly claim that mining and conservation can coexist or that it could hope to supervise that coexistence!

So what possible 'response' can Rann and co. cobble together now? They simply cannot claim that Marathon can return to active exploration because they have the competence to minimise impacts on a biodiversity they barely grasp.

The fact is they should never have allowed mineral exploration in the core of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the first place, and the only credible option they have is to acknowledge that fact and call off any mineral access, in line with the clear will of the people of South Australia.

crunch time - choose your legacy for arkaroola!

2010-10-09T12:06:00.008+10:30

Marathon Resources' current exploration lease centred on Mount Gee, in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, expires tomorrow - 10/10/10.

Following up from my previous post, I have contacted mineral Resources Development minister Paul Holloway's office and was told that the decision to renew the lease will be tied to an imminent decision about the future of mining in the Sanctuary, and that this decision will be made at the state cabinet level.

Additionally, in the state's upper house on the 29th of September Paul Holloway responded to Greens MLC Mark Parnell's question regarding the lease renewal as follows -

There are really two issues here: one is the licence, but perhaps more important is the long-term position the government takes in relation to how mining operations should be regulated or controlled in future in the Arkaroola area. I would like to have that finalised as soon as possible. In many ways the lease issue, while it has a number of important ramifications, is perhaps a secondary issue.

While Holloway may regard the lease as a secondary issue I doubt that the public feels that way!

In fact, six letters to the editor published in South Australia's major daily The Advertiser yesterday all rather underscore this point - whenever public opinion has been sampled on this matter it is overwhelmingly in favour of conservation of this unique area rather than its exploitation.

That these letters requesting premier Mike Rann not to allow mining in Arkaroola came from as far afield as the UK and Germany should also serve as a warning to his government. This issue will not go away. It affects those who care about the preservation of truly wild places across the nation and across the globe.

Any decision to allow the continuation of mineral exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, no matter how it is rationalised, will be seen by the public as a declaration of intent to support a mine in Arkaroola. Full stop.

There will be no wiggle room for Rann and Co. in this matter. I confidently predict that the bumper sticker shown above - whose first print run was exhausted within days - will proliferate across the nation!

your legacy - what's it to be?

Mike Rann must be thinking of his legacy at this stage of his career. Does he really want to be remembered as the man who let the miners into Arkaroola? Because whatever other good things his government may have done on the environment - and there have been many significant steps forward, including specifically in the field of conservation of wild areas - Arkaroola is what Rann will be most remembered for should he allow a resumption of drilling!

With Mike's mate David Suzuki due in the state to talk about his own Legacy, perhaps he should be asking the internationally famous conservationist what he would recommend that he do for the sake of posterity?

But, let's face it - in all likelihood we know the answer to that question already!

TWS calls for action

So, what can you do to ensure this magnificent area endures for posterity?

I am echoing The Wilderness Society's current call to the Labor Government not to allow mining in Arkaroola below (edited slightly for brevity's sake - if you are unfamiliar with the background to this issue please explore the extensive links on this blog!) -

The next week will be very important in the Arkaroola campaign.

It is completely unacceptable for Arkaroola to remain open to uranium exploration and mining, and we need to put pressure on the Government to consider the future of this precious place.

What can we do? Now is a really good time to get this issue vamped up. Have your say! You can:

1. Write a letter to the editor. Try sending a letter into a few different newspapers – it doesn't hurt. For tips, click here. Small or local newspapers are easier to get published in if you are writing a general letter that isn't a response to an article. Or try sending yours into bigger newspapers such as The Advertiser, The Australian, The Independent Weekly...

2. Contact a politician to tell them that we should protect Arkaroola. Try..

The Hon. Paul Holloway
Minister for Mineral Resources Development

GPO Box 2832
ADELAIDE SA 5001
ministerholloway@saugov.sa.gov.au

3. Contact SA Premier Mike Rann:

The Hon. Mike Rann MP

GPO Box 2343
Adelaide SA 5001
premier@saugov.sa.gov.au

4. Make it heard! ... put up a link on your facebook page, tell your grandparents about it, spread it throughout your networks, email friends,call up radio stations, twitter it, share photos, whatever!

And if you get a letter published, let's celebrate! Send me an email or write on our facebook wall to tell us about it.

"Some places are too precious to mine... Arkaroola is one of them."

counting down and out - where are we in the run up to 10/10/10?

2010-09-28T21:15:00.010+09:30

Marathon Resources' Chris Schacht - a former federal Labor senator - gave us another 'interesting' take on his company's situation in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary yesterday, declaring on radio that they are entitled to be there because it turns out Arkaroola is only a pastoral lease, rather than a sanctuary!

On the Local 891 morning show the ABC's Matthew Abraham had responded to Schacht's original assertion that Marathon is entitled to mine in Arkaroola because 'it's a pastoral lease' by asking if it wasn't also a 'wilderness reserve'. Schacht responded -

No no, it’s a pastoral lease, under the law of South Australia it is a pastoral lease and the Arkaroola owners pay a fee as a pastoral lease, and that … by being a pastoral lease it has mining entitlements.

Those who have been following this issue - and this blog - may remember some of Chris Schacht's other 'interesting' takes, particularly at this time last year where he more-or-less suggested on the same ABC program that what Marathon had done during the dumping scandal was only a little light littering, and that the deposit at Mount Gee is 'the second biggest single deposit of uranium after Roxby Downs'! (See Dial M for Misinformation?!')

Just as before, it is surprisingly easy to refute Schacht by going to - Marathon's own publications! The company publicly released a federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) referral for their proposed project in September 2007. In it, in section 2.3 on page 3 marked 'Locality' you will find the following -

The Mount Gee deposit is located on the Arkaroola Pastoral Lease, a gazetted Sanctuary under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. The Arkaroola Sanctuary is operated as an ecotourism venture, hosting accommodation, scenic and educational activities. [Emphasis mine. h/t Dennis Walter]

In fact, at the Sprigg family's instigation Arkaroola was first declared a 'private wildlife sanctuary under [the] fauna conservation act' in 1969! And was formally declared a Sanctuary under the 1972 NPWS Act in 1996, nine full years ahead of Marathon's 2005 lease. [See here]

I think that's rather definitive, don't you? The anachronistic persistence of the mining industry's over-reach is one thing, this areas legitimate right to preservation - as espoused by those who can genuinely see it - is quite another.

but wait, there's more! -

Of course, the fun never really ends when some are involved, and Schacht also asserted -

I would point out that Mr Parnell’s amendment to ban all mining at Arkaroola, about eight, ten days ago … in the Legislative Council, the Labor and the Liberal party combined to defeat it, 15 votes to five. So both major parties opposed his amendment to ban mining full stop at Arkaroola.

Um, weeeeell, technically yes, Chris, but were you listening to the bit where the leader of the opposition actually said the following just before you spoke?

We believe that the Government’s intention is to allow mining. We want to seek to prevent them from doing that... at the moment Arkaroola is in an... environmental class A zone, where conservation of the environment and landscape is the paramount aim and the objective says mining operations should not take place unless the deposits are of such paramount importance and that exploitation is in the highest national or state interest that everything else can be over-ridden and we don’t think that you’d ever get to that situation given that there’s potentially about 30,000 tonnes in Arkaroola and 2.5 million at Olympic Dam … we want to maintain it as a Zone A, but the Government in their [Seeking] a Balance report at the end of last year wanted to move the boundary of Zone A and make it much more accessible to mining...[emphasis mine]

or even? -

our position is we believe Arkaroola’s precious and shouldn’t be mined [emphasis mine]

Or perhaps you read the press release on her website, Chris? It's helpfully called 'Liberals will move to protect Arkaroola' and this is what it says -

The State Liberal Party has decided that it will reject any proposal by the Government, now or in the future, to water down the Environment Zone A Protection that protects Arkaroola.

In its “Seeking a Balance” Report of late 2009 the Government suggested removing the Zone A Protection over the area of Arkaroola which is subject to the exploration licence of Marathon Resources. Removing this protection would open the door for miners to access Arkaroola.

Zone A Protection makes it clear that mining should not take place unless the deposits are of paramount importance and their exploration is in the highest national or state interest.

The Liberals believe that Arkaroola must be protected by maintaining its Environment Zone A Protection. Whilst the Liberals are very supportive of mining, including uranium mining, in this state, Arkaroola deserves the highest environmental protection.

To that end the Liberals will seek to amend the appropriate legislation to prevent any reduction in the level of environmental protection that exists under Zone A as it relates to Arkaroola.

So, leaving aside the politics of the Libs not supporting a Greens bill, it's clear that they will take the line that the Environmental Class A Zone provisions of the Planning Act, if understood in plain English, mean that mining is not possible now, and is not foreseeably likely ever to be possible, in the Arkaroola Sanctuary.

Just as was clearly the intention of those who wrote them. Just as I have frequently asserted myself.

remind me again; why are the miners even there?

This, being the state government's own legislation - in fact, Minister Holloway is responsible for it in his role as Planning Minister - rather begs the question of why Marathon was allowed to be there in the first place.

And what it is doing there now, for that matter. It's very hard to disagree with another of Redmond's statements -

[T]he Government shouldn’t have issued the new licence in our view, because if you don’t want mining to take place why would you issue a licence for people to explore given especially that these people breached their previous licence and therefore the Government would have been quite entitled not to renew it.

(Though this also begs the question of why the Libs waited so long to outrightly oppose mining - how different the state election result might have been had they taken this principled position ahead of the last lease renewal! But we press on, noting missed opportunities all 'round...)

Yes, Marathon's lease renewal is due on 10/10/10.

And now we find ourselves in a situation where Minister Holloway continues to defend his 2009 decision on the basis of his bizarre analogy of a perceived automatic entitlement to a drivers licence renewal. Is anyone, even Paul Holloway, really convinced by this line?

Minister, might we not consider that, if there'd been a serious and persistent breach of the rules that pertain to it, no-one should be entitled to view any licence as A Right. Particularly a right of access to profit from a public resource? And impinge upon very public landscape? Particularly where this licence renewal was actually at your absolute discretion?

In the circumstances hiding behind 'strict-interpretation' proceduralism was a cop-out, surely?

(And even if we accept your own analogy, does the community really expect that we must automatically renew the licences of, say, persistent hoon offenders even if they're not technically suspended at the time their renewal falls due and their fines are not in arrears? This coming from a government that wants to confiscate and crush cars! Similarly, as Matthew Abraham pointed out, this is ironic coming from a team that was perfectly happy to draft populist and draconian anti-association laws to contend with the bikie menace, real and imagined!)

now, there's no call for a ruckus down on the plantation!

Then there's what I think of as the Slavery argument. You know; we've always has Slavery here in the South - in fact, we've just celebrated the centenary of Slavery. Our economy depends on it. Therefore Slavery is an unquestionable good and it's persistence cannot be challenged. Substitute 'mining' and 'Arkaroola' for 'Slavery' and 'the South' and you get the idea! I'm not saying they're moral equivalents - the point, and it should be obvious, is that it's not exactly, um, logical to reason like this! 'Is' does not mean 'ought' and all that...

Oh, and then there's 'Sovereign Risk' - always pronounce it with The Capitals - an Economic voodoo term that might sound impressive but whose applicability in this situation is, well, debatable, to say the least! Just imagine the flight of investors had Marathon been held to account by withholding a new lease in light of their serious and persistent breaches of the existing one! Or if another one tenth of one percent of the land area of SA was taken out of the hands of the mining industry, leaving them with only 93% or so to work in! Oh, the humanity!...

But now we know what Holloway will probably do, come the lease renewal on the tenth, if he hasn't done so already. (My attempts to query his office directly on this for the last couple of days may yield results tomorrow!)

What we don't have to do is wear this. I don't think that Labor can seriously doubt that being seen as the only advocates of a possible mine in Arkaroola is electorally suicidal. The community's patience is wearing very thin indeed: Labor blew last year's opportunity to get out of it; if they persist now just watch the issue go national, and their poll numbers take a serious - yes, even more so! - dive...

it's the write time for the Liberals...

2010-08-09T16:24:00.003+09:30

Neither of the major political parties have covered themselves in glory over the Arkaroola issue.

In fact, it says a good deal about the status of 'democracy' in Australia that while the responses to Seeking a Balance, The Advertiser's online polling and the reader's comments associated with it, demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to mining, both the Liberals and Labor are seemingly more intent on an alleged bottom-line, and being seen as 'pro-business' and 'pro-development' than they are on acting to represent the will of the people in Parliament.

And, despite veritable mountains of rhetoric being piled up around us in recent decades, all too often it seems the protection of the environment is foremost in the consciousness of our elected leaders (at least those from the major parties) only up to the precise point at which some bright spark proposes a means to make even larger piles of money out of dramatically altering it!

Whereupon all bets are off, and the rhetorical focus switches to 'jobs', which, in any honest evaluation of Australian political language, is a polite way of saying 'profits', at least while it is still more-or-less impossible to achieve the latter without the former.*

Arkaroola, unfortunately, is hardly a unique example. But it is a very telling one.

the Liberals

Which brings us to the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in South Australia - the Liberal Party.

Had the Liberals had the foresight to bring a platform that included the full protection of the remaining wild areas of the northern Flinders Ranges to the state election earlier this year - as individual Liberal parliamentarians had proposed; this is more, unfortunately, that can be said for any member of the Labor Party - they may well have won it! Several races in marginal seats were very tight indeed, and the Greens primary vote was sufficient for formal or informal preferences to have swung the outcome - not to mention attracting a few more primary votes!

But is the Liberal leadership, like their Labor counterparts, too tied up with issues of 'responsible' governance in a Corporatist State to concern themselves with mere popular enthusiasms for preserving places of great beauty and biological, geological and social importance?

exploration is not mining!

For instance, here's what Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond told ABC News last week, regarding Marathon Resources' exploration lease in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary -

The difficulty I guess is that Marathon Resources have an exploration lease, now the Government chose to renew that exploration lease and if you're going to give someone an exploration lease then they've got the expectation that they're going to be able to mine it if they find whatever it is they're looking for. [my emphasis]

[NOTE: See Isobel Redmond's (remarkably prompt) reply to my letter regarding this matter which is appended below. The text that follows was written before I received this.]

Bong! It is genuinely disturbing that a senior politician could say this - the granting of an exploration lease does not automatically entitle any explorer to mine any materials that they may happen to find - and never has done so! One wonders why we'd go to the trouble of having Exploration Leases and Mining Leases if the one led automatically to the other?

Exploration is a risky business. Marathon is not entitled to 'expectations' merely because it has had a lease renewed - it has been told repeatedly that the area it is operating in is a landscape of tremendous ecological and historical importance, and that all exploration and mining activities would be significantly restricted accordingly. (And readers might well have formed their own opinion of the company's actual performance within such constraints.)

They have also been repeatedly told that any (relatively cheap) open-cut mining operation is completely out of the question, though it's become an open question as to what extent they have taken this on board! Other historical mineral explorers had been told the same thing, and accepted it.

Even within the - to my mind - utterly faulty logic of assuming this unique area could ever be opened up to exploration and hope to preserve its wild character no player could legitimately have an 'expectation' that they would be entitled to mine unless they could meet the most stringent environmental standards. Hence the very expensive tunnel that was the focus of reassuring us this remarkable balancing act could be pulled off!

exploration is mining!

But I agree with Redmond's reasoning to a more limited extent: it is this very notion of 'automatic' expectations that one activity will proceed to the other that is the major reason that Arkaroola should never have been open to exploration in the first place.

Visiting Arkaroola has been all the rage of late (heck, I've done it twice myself!). Various Parliamentarians have made their way up there recently, and this can only be a good thing as the very presence of the place can only exert a powerful pull to preserving it.

Redmond and other Liberals have recently completed an official tour, and the party is now deliberating their policy on mining there accordingly.

Given Redmond's reasoning above it seems clear that any Liberal support for continued exploration must also be read as Liberal support for mining. (And at this stage of the game Labor must concede the same for their part.)

Here's what the Liberal member for Goyder, Steven Griffiths, told local ABC radio last week.

ABC journalist: ...and you’ve been in Arkaroola having a look with the Liberal Party, does the Liberal Party have a position on Arkaroola yet?)

Griffiths: No, we’ve had presentations from Marathon Resources and also from the Sprigg family … wonderfully informed people, all of them, there’s no doubt … it’s an amazing part of nature that’s created this wonderful place … Marathon have a lot of work to do to try and get through any environmental impact statement requirements. The Sprigg family are doing all they can to convince people who will one day vote upon this not to support mining. There’s a lot of things to look at still. The Liberal Members that have been here and Isobel Redmond has been part of our team as Leader, has been up here looking at it today … we’ve all been very impressed by what we’ve seen and the Sprigg family and what the generations of people who have been here have put in to this property is just amazing.

With Marathon's next lease renewal due in less than 2 months - on 10/10/10 - the spotlight is certainly back on this issue.

its the write time (again!)

And so I find myself exhorting you, dear reader, that if you have a mind to it would be worth your while to once again to step up to the keyboard - or over to the phone - on Arkaroola's behalf. The Liberals must be reminded of the place Arkaroola and the wild ranges hold in the hearts of South Australians.

Here is my letter to Isobel Redmond, which i have cc'ed to Shadow Environment Minister Michelle Lensink and Shadow Mineral Resources Development Minister Mitch Williams (contact details below). Plus see her response attached.

Isobel Redmond
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House, Adelaide, SA

Dear Isobel Redmond,

I am writing to you to encourage you and your party not to support the continuation of exploration and mining activity in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

I was pleased to hear that a delegation of Liberals had visited the area recently, and I am sure you cannot fail to have been impressed by its rugged and timeless beauty.

I note your own comments to the ABC last week indicate that you feel that a company that has been granted an exploration lease has a reasonable expectation that it will be able to mine. I cannot say that I agree with you - miners have been warned many times that the bar has been, and will continue to be, set very high indeed in this region and they can hardly claim to assume any 'automatic' rights to mine in it.

However, since you have made your own expectations clear I repeat my call to you and your party to oppose both exploration and mining in the Sanctuary.

I point out that submissions to 'Seeking a Balance' were overwhelmingly in favour of 'higher restrictions' on mining in the area by the government's own calculations. But my own investigations based on sampling the first (alphabetically) 100 of the 450+ submissions indicate some 90% of respondents are actively opposed to mining in Arkaroola full-stop, not just in favour of more stringent conditions.

The Advertiser's own online polling revealed a similar striking level of support, as did the associated comments that when closed at no. 104 were running almost exclusively in favour of preservation.

In fact, the support for Arkaroola would appear to be so overwhelming that if you had chosen to take a platform supporting its preservation to the last state election, and thereby managed to secure Greens preferences - or even gained primary votes - in key marginals, you may well have won it!

The people of South Australia do not want to see Arkaroola mined - there are plenty of opportunities to extract uranium across the state that do not involve permanent damage to a unique wild ecosystem,

Yours Faithfully,

Bill Doyle

reply from Isobel Redmond

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your email regarding the need to protect the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

As you correctly note, a number of Liberal MP's went there last week on what was essentially a fact-finding mission. We met with both the Spriggs and the representatives of Marathon Resources.

What I was trying to make clear in my radio interview was that:

1.If the government intended not to allow mining there, it should have not given a Mining Exploration Licence in the first place, or not have reinstated the licence after it was suspended.

2. The liberal team having undertaken this field trip in order to understand the issues, it would be inappropriate for me to simply announce a position on behalf of the team when we have not yet met as a Party room to discuss it.

I will ensure that your views, and those of many other concerned citizens are brought to the attention of my colleagues during that discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me,

Regards,

Isobel Redmond

I wholeheartedly agree with Point 1. Appeals to 'World's Best Practice' standards notwithstanding, with the Leader of the Opposition having made the 'support for exploration = support for mining' equation so clear what remains is to see what position the Libs themselves intend to take.

contact details

Isobel Redmond
Leader of the Opposition

Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide SA 5000

phone - (08) 8237 9137 Country Callers
fax - (08) 8237 9126
toll free - (SA Callers): 1800 182 097
e-mail - heysen@parliament.sa.gov.au

Michelle Lensink
Shadow Minister for Environment and Conservation

Legislative Council,
Parliament House,
North Tce
Adelaide, SA, 5000

phone - (08) 8237 9434
fax: - (08) 8212 7075
toll free - (SA Callers): 1800 182 097
e-mail - Michelle.Lensink@parliament.sa.gov.au

Mitch Williams
Shadow Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Deputy Opposition Leader

30 Ormerod Street
Naracoorte SA 5271
phone - (08) 8762 1211
fax - (08) 8762 1121
e-mail - mackillop@parliament.sa.gov.au

*If you doubt this try examining the contrasting political rhetoric surrounding, say, 'cuts' to the 'public service'.

For a start, the 'public service', it seems, is a sort of vast, congealed collective entity, unlikely to contain any individuals.

Public servants of all stripes - state and local government officers, administrators, teachers, nurses, etc. - generally don't hold positions so sacred as to merit the term 'jobs', nor have they achieved the exalted status of 'workers'. Perhaps they don't even have 'families' - and could they ever even hope to be 'battlers'?

No! Laying them off en-masse is almost a virtue, albeit, perhaps, a mildly distasteful one. Exalted status is apparently only available to those who work for the most profitable - and all too frequently the most environmentally destructive - sectors of private industry. A Party may well take up a platform that loudly proclaims a desire to 'save' the 'jobs' of, ooh, let's say 300 timber workers or miners and simultaneously propose to 'cut' 10 000 public service 'positions' - and no-one bats an eyelid!

what a croc!

2010-07-18T16:44:00.008+09:30

Jason Kuchel is the head of the SA Chamber of Mines and Energy, the state's peak group for the industry.

This is what he had to say last Thursday regarding there being no need, as far as his industry is concerned, to create any special conservation legislation designed to protect the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary -

"Some people would like to see blanket bans on most of South Australia and if you end up with everywhere being off limits or almost everywhere being off limits then where do we get our resources from?" he said.

"If the concern is about the environment then companies need to demonstrate that they can mine in an environmentally-sensitive fashion."

Firstly there's that tired old straw-man argument about nasty Greenies who want to lock up the whole state, leading to a situation of 'everywhere (or almost everywhere) being off limits' and no resources being extracted - frankly, this claim is as absurd as it is dreary!

Those who don't already know this need only glance at the map posted above, which shows all the areas of South Australia that are actually off-limits to the mining industry. (Dark green areas - some of the red bits are excluded from exploration but are actually existing mines!) The best - conservative - calculation I can make is that this amounts to about 7% of the state.

Complete protection for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and surrounding ranges would not even add one tenth of one percent to that figure!

And is this really an industry hemmed in on all sides by 'no go' conservation regulations?

See for yourself. Lets add all the mining, petroleum and geothermal leases currently in existence to the map above, shall we? (I'll also pause here to remind you that the mining industry has access to more than 70% of the reserve system. They're the areas in light green you can sort-of see buried under all those leases!)

Need I say more? (For more discussion see seeking a balance - the missing maps.)

And what precisely does 'if the concern is about the environment' mean?

Concern about the environment should be the first consideration in an area like Arkaroola, and if the mining industry truly wants to be seen as ecologically responsible backing mining in this area is a bloody funny way to go about it! (If not bloody-minded!...)

Greens MLC Mark Parnell will introduce legislation to fully-protect the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary into the state's upper-house on Tuesday. It says a lot about the state of our 'democracy' that neither of the major political parties is likely to support this legislation, despite all the evidence indicating overwhelming support for Arkaroola being fully protected. You may wish to remember this in the run-up to the forthcoming federal election.

So, in honour of the occasion I've decided to bring an old friend back out of his enclosure -

take a virtual ridgetop tour on the desktop toyota

2010-06-29T19:18:00.005+09:30

Stop one: Mount Gee.

Welcome to the VRTT - the Virtual RidgeTop Tour. This tour focuses specifically on those areas of this section of Arkaroola targetted by the mining industry - and made available to them by the state government and its 'Seeking a Balance' (SaB) mining access plan.

Other tours of the industry's target areas will follow - but why not start with one of the most famous 4WD treks in Australia?

(For the complete selection of images see the ridgetop tour set on flickr.)

First stop - see above - Mount Gee, the crystal mountain. This is how it looks as you approach it along the Ridgetop Track.

Mount Gee has been the major target for Marathon Resources' recent exploration drilling program, and has been extensively investigated by previous miners. While Seeking a Balance has placed the already heavily drilled upper sections of Mount Gee into the relatively restrictive Access Zone 2a, this photo is taken from an area assigned to Access Zone 3 - 'standard mining regulations only' apply (that is, no extra conservation protections have been assigned here in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. This designation is given to the bulk of this central portion of Arkaroola Sanctuary.)

(You can follow our progress on the VRTT and the state government's proposed mining access zoning in better detail here. A detailed discussion of SaB's proposed zoning can be found here.)

Stop two: Mount Painter.

The upper slopes of this extinct mud-volcano are also assigned to 'no high impact' exploration activity Access Zone 2a. However, non-intrusive ground-sampling and aerial exploration is still permitted, and 'infrastructure' (undefined) may possibly be installed here. Mining companies may also hope to tunnel in underneath it from adjacent access zones that allow it (and simultaneously saving themselves $millions in vertical drilling in the process! See later discussion for Access Zone 2b.)

Stop three: the Split Rock lookout.

Here at the lookout itself we have reached a small area where mining is not actually permitted(!) (It's perhaps worth noting that several - unkind, surely? - expert opinions offered to the Seeking a Balance consultation observed that the area immediately around Split Rock has been previously explored and found to contain no minerals worth obtaining! Perhaps it's just a coincidence!?)

However, we can see plenty of countryside the miners can hope to target from here, including Mount Painter, as seen here, and as discussed at stop two immediately above.

And if we swing our view to the west we can see Mount Gee again, and the valley lying to its east between it and Mount Painter. The small basin lying immediately below Mount Gee - here obscured by a low ridgeline - was the site of the illegal dumping of 22 800 bags of waste, some of it radioactive, by Marathon Resources.

This basin is assigned to Access Zone 2b, which differs from Zone 2a in that it allows for drilling. The two zones share a proviso allowing for the installation of 'infrastructure' (still undefined), and would-be drillers and infrastructuralists must obtain the Department for Environment and Heritage's approval before proceeding. (Given that SaB itself and its zoning is a joint project of the DEH and Primary Industries SA [PIRSA] Minerals conservationists may not want to get too excited about this!)

In fact, if we zoom in...

...we can see extensive exploration scarring on the flanks of Mount Gee above this basin. And even some of Marathon Resources' polytanks! (Click the image to see details)

All this apparently constitutes 'rehabilitation' in PIRSA's eyes - you'll forgive me if, as a professional revegetator, I fail to subscribe to their 'optimistic' theories about what can actually be done to genuinely rehabilitate such wild semi-arid areas. Particularly given the recent persistence of drought conditions! As we'll see, the area between Mount Gee and Siller's Lookout - the outward-bound terminus of both the real RTT and this virtual version - is extensively scarred by exploration tracks old and new.

Here we see Split Rock itself. It's a great spot and worthy of its Access Zone 1 full protection - sadly the East Painter Gorge, which you can see falling away below it, is not so lucky.

In fact, like the spectacular Yudnamutana Gorge (we'll see it from Siller's Lookout as we travel on, and a separate virtual tour of it is pending), one side of East Painter (short tour also pending) is afforded some - relative - protection (in this case Zone 2b with its DEH approval for drilling), while the other is left in Access Zone 3 - 'standard exploration and mining access'!

The East Painter and Yudnamutana Gorges also happen to be the most viable access routes from the core of the sanctuary - where the bulk of the currently-claimed uranium deposits are located - to the adjacent plains, where any processing facilities would be located.

Moving along...

...we pause to admire some local wildlife (in this case a Diamond Dove)...

...and pass the Armchair on our left. Like its neighbouring peaks, the Armchair itself is in Access Zone 2a, but all the country you can see in the foreground here is assigned to Access Zone 2b - drilling allowed with the DEH's approval.

'Infrastructure' can conceivably be installed anywhere in this region. I'll leave it to you to imagine this!

You can see an extensive network of exploration scarring from access tracks in the foreground here, another reminder of how sensitive these semi-arid regions actually are. (Click on the image for a larger version and more detail.)

We will come back to the Armchair on the return journey.

Moving on we finally reach...

Stop three: Siller's Lookout

Now we are back firmly in Access Zone 3 - 'standard exploration and mining access'. No specific conservation provisions apply to Siller's Lookout itself and the bulk of the surrounding countryside you can see here. And this despite the Environment Minister of the time saying, while launching SaB -

I think what people need to rest assured about is that when they think about Arkaroola and they think about the iconic spots, the things that they have in their minds will be now [be] protected

(See Not a great Lookout for Siller's for more on this issue.)

Now we're directly overlooking the Yudnamutana Gorge. The state government has decreed, in its wisdom, that almost all of the land on the southern and eastern (right-hand side here) of the gorge is assigned to Access Zone 3 - no additional protections - while the northern and western side is allocated to either Access Zones 2a or 2b.

Could you see this as a view overlooking a haulage route, or the right-of-way for a slurry pipeline? With a large processing facility and extensive leach dams out on the plains near the mouth of the gorge?

Or perhaps we might even see the mouth of an access tunnel, and trucks continuously entering and leaving the decline? Sure, Marathon sometimes say they intend to tunnel in from the plains and mine underground, but even that will require extensive access tracks and ventilation and emergency access shafts, and somehow in late 2009 online investment gurus Fat Prophets had formed the impression they're still looking to implement open cuts! (See It's the Pits!)

And SaB is a document that supposedly sets up access regulations for all mining operations in the far-northern Ranges, not just Marathon's. These 'Mining Access Zone' designations render this area perpetually vulnerable!

Turn north and look out towards over the upper Yudnamutana Gorge and the Mawson Plateau. The Mawson Plateau - the dark line of very high country on the horizon - is assigned to Access Zone 1; that is, No Access! Hoorah! (Some people also unkindly insist it's not prospective, either! But no matter...)

Other than that what you can see is a mosaic of SaB Zones 3 (everything on this side of the deep Yudnamutana Gorge, which lies at the rear of the ridge in the middle-ground) and 2a (everything beyond that and up to the plateau.)

So it's anything goes (PIRSA variant) in the foreground and perhaps parking the infrastructure to support it at the rear! This to be inserted into one of the most spectacular views in South Australia; seriously, you could not make this stuff up!

So we pause a little longer at the lookout to take in the sights and wonder how anyone could see this as a great spot for a mine. And then retrace our route...

...pausing to absorb the beauty of a hanging valley of mallee and spinifex that is the home of flitting grasswrens (and located in drilling-accessible Zone 2b)...

...and return to the Armchair (a fitting place to end any trip, surely?!)

Again, note the exploration tracks on the ridge opposite. The country you can see here is drilling-accessible Zone 2b in the foreground while the Armchair itself at rear is Zone 2a, and hence can theoretically be mined underneath from the surrounding country. Not to mention the potential for installing 'infrastructure'; whatever that might be!

That concludes our short tour. Thanks for riding the Desktop Toyota! Tell your friends!

(Don't forget you can see the full set of images on flickr!)

it's the pits!

2010-05-19T18:05:00.010+09:30

this is the arkaroola wilderness sanctuary...

...and this is a hole in the ground! if you can spot the difference - read on!

Reading Paul Howes' - National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union - submission on Seeking a Balance, the state government's 'mining access' plan for the northern Flinders Ranges, is a rather extraordinary, and also disturbing, experience.

Extraordinary, for a start, for what it contains.

For one, a table, on page 4, under AWU letterhead, entitled 'Marathon's vision for an enduring legacy.' I think it's fair to assume this was drafted by the company. This sets a range of Marathon's proposed activities against a background of the specific targets of the South Australian Strategic Plan.

Now, why would they do that? There's already a specific plan for the Flinders Ranges, and the much-discussed Class A Zone is the core of it.

Perhaps because -

The AWU notes the concerns of Marathon Resources in this regard and also their support for a triple bottom line approach instead of zoning which was being pursued by the South Australian Government through Planning SA in 2008 but which has apparently progressed no further since December 2008.

In other words, it seems Marathon were expecting a 'get out of jail free' card with respect to the Class A Environmental Zone restrictions - which, after all, effectively make mining uranium in Arkaroola impossible if the document is read and understood in plain English.

This may help to explain recent press comments where Marathon have supported Class A as sufficiently restricting upon them without need of further regulation, despite its apparently going well beyond that and dealing them a death-blow; they were simply expecting to be able to effectively bypass these 'precluding' restrictions.

it's the pits!

But the real concern for me was to be found in the AWU's submission's appendix: 5 verbatim pages taken from online investment gurus Fat Prophets' November 2009 assessment of Marathon Resources position in the light of Seeking a Balance.

Marathon have a history with Fat Prophets, having originally seen their share price perform rather nicely, thank you, after it was made one of their recommended stocks in 2006. We can only assume that FP and MTN (Marathon) have worked pretty-closely together. So it's very striking to see the following included -

The mining concept for Mount Gee will include a mixture of open pits and underground mines targeting high-grade zones.

What is it with the open cuts? Marathon are supposed to know that any such program is absolutely out of the question. As minerals minister Paul Holloway told Parliament in February 2008 -

This government has... also made it clear to companies that we will not allow any mining involving significant surface disturbance; in other words, there would be absolutely no chance of getting any sort of open-cut mining or anything like that in the area. [Emphasis mine]

Could that be any more straighforward? And yet here, nearly two years later, is a declaration by a presumably well-informed party claiming open-cuts will be an integral part of the process!

We must also remember what Marathon told The Advertiser's Cameron England in regard to the legal dispute between former Marathon CEO Stuart Hall and the company. Hall, they alleged, had publicly announced a proposal to access the area exclusively via a very long decline (tunnel), so as to reduce potential environmental impacts in the ranges. This was costed at a fairly-alarming half a $billion, and Marathon complained that Hall had made the statements...

...'without authority from Marathon's board of directors', and at a time when the firm was assessing the feasibility of various options for mining Mt Gee.

Marathon said the statements did not reflect Marathon's then current intentions, and Mr Hall should have known the statements would have 'a material adverse impact on Marathon's capacity to procure debt.'

Yet the 'all underground' aspect was supposed to be one of the projects key 'environmental' selling points!

The public has a clear right to be told; is Marathon simply - and inexplicably - persisting in planning open-cut operations in the heart of the Arkaroola sanctuary, despite being repeatedly told it's out of the question? Or are they doing so with the state government's knowledge and consent, implied or otherwise?

(For more discussion see tunneling in for some pure black comedy.)

Could this perhaps help to explain why Marathon has chosen to withhold its own submission on Seeking a Balance from the public? Surely we are entitled to know what they are planning? Not only is Arkaroola a state icon, a unique wild landscape, and one of our premier tourism destinations - the minerals concerned are, after all, the property of the people of Australia.

And, before we stray too far, note the reference to 'mines' - plural - in the Fat Prophets quote above.

So, the AWU submission has sent us us an ominous message indeed! One that we cannot ignore if we care for the future of SA's truly wild areas.

one-sided article stirs community indignation

2010-05-16T15:54:00.008+09:30

Perhaps you have already caught The Advertiser's front-page article of Friday giving great play to the Australian Workers Union's claim that we need to mine the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary?

The article as originally published was strikingly one-sided, putting the case of the union, SACOME, Marathon, the Australian Uranium Association, and a brokerage house to spruik the supposed economic advantages of Marathon's plan, and specifically to negate the need to have further 'restrictions', as in those put forward in the state government's Seeking a Balance 'mining access' plan, placed on mining.

It then gave space for limited counterclaims, focussing mainly on film-maker Rolf de Heer, which perhaps also explains the fairly remarkable choice of a still from 'The Tracker', featuring the film's villain - a very hissable Gary Sweet - holding David Gulpilil in a collar and chain, as a front-page image to accompany the article. (The internationally acclaimed film was made in Arkaroola, for reasons of landscape spectacle that de Heer makes clear, but this still photo scarcely conveys a sense of this.)

Now Rolf de Heer is a fine man to defend the sanctuary, and a great film-maker, but such a limited sample is no way fairly represents the breadth and depth of the opposition to any proposal to mine Arkaroola. I have tackled these issues in a letter to the Editor that is attached below, but I will point out here that, apparently after objections and the intervention of Senator Nick Minchin, the article has been significantly revised to put the case opposing mining much more strongly.

In fact, the AdelaideNow (The Advertiser online) SA homepage banner for the article has transformed itself to 'Arkaroola too precious - Minchin.' This is interesting given that the headline of the piece is still 'Union calls for uranium mining in Arkaroola sanctuary'!

This may also be a response to The Advertiser's own online polling - as of the time of writing the responses to the question 'Should mining be allowed in Arkaroola?' were running as follows -

Yes, we need the cash - 7.16% (105 votes)
No, it'll cause irreperable damage - 79.88% (1192 votes)
Under strict conditions - 12.96% (191 votes)

('Strict conditions' are nowhere defined.)

worthy of comment

Online comments on the article appear to have closed on Friday afternoon at number 102, overwhelmingly - and I do mean overwhelmingly - favouring complete protection for Arkaroola. They're well worth a read and should greatly cheer any real friend of wild Australia.

Again, the message to the state government could scarcely be clearer; if this is, in fact, a democracy the miners must pack up and leave the sanctuary! Or be made to do so.

My letter is as follows -

Dear Editor,

I was dismayed to read your front page article of Friday that reported that the Australian Workers Union and some mining and brokerage firms are promoting the mining of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and the adjacent wild ranges.

I do not feel that this piece gave an accurate assessment of the situation, or managed in any way to convey the depth and extent of opposition to mining that was clearly indicated by reading the publicly available submissions made on the state government's Seeking a Balance 'mining access' plan.

In fact, it seems likely that the forces in favour of mining, which amounted to only 10% of the submissions received by the government's own count, ran to the media shortly after the release of submissions in order to attempt to confound a very clear message; that the overwhelming majority of respondents call for Arkaroola to be protected for posterity.

Your paper has already highlighted the SA Museum's opposition; not only did it produce a formal submission to this effect, there were further submissions on behalf of individual staff members.

To these we can add calls from other academics - biologists and geologists, including a Primary Industries SA former chief geologist - from across the state and across the globe. In the light of all these the government cannot hope to maintain that it has adequately assessed the biological and heritage values of this unique region.

The tourism industry was particularly prominent in submissions, both at a small business and association level. Ecotourism Australia's submission reminds us that the Flinders Ranges attracted 439,000 overnight stays and $169 million in 2007, and that 97% of foreign visitors participated in nature-based activities while there. The industry, a major employer, and local government are understandably gravely concerned at the damage any mine will do to the appeal of the ranges.

Marathon's claims for the value of the uranium resource and its benefits to the economy, on the other hand, are both speculative and controversial.

The Sprigg family have benefitted the state enormously in their role as custodians of this magnificent landscape. They deserve our full support in ensuring it endures forever. The Advertiser's own online poll, and particularly the comments attached to the associated article, have served to spectacularly reinforce this unambiguous message from the people of South Australia.

Bill Doyle

it's the minimum!

I must also point out here that Seeking a Balance contains one very clear message 'The area zoned in this document is the minimum area for protection.'

Call to mind that the utter inadequacy of existing levels of protection, and the lack of any capacity to enforce them, was made abundantly clear by Marathon's waste-dumping scandal, and yet certain industries and organizations, in calling for no extra protections whatsoever, are apparently so used to getting their own way that they feel any such constraints - however feeble they might be (and most respondents certainly recognised SaB's as feeble) - simply cannot be intended to apply to them.

Inadequate to the task of protecting the ranges as it is, Marathon and the industry brought SaB on themselves in response to community outcry - let us never forget - and yet they are happy to rattle on about 'Sovereign Risk' as though this was some caprice on the part of government!

The word 'arrogance' comes quickly to mind, if not outright 'hubris'!

(The 'mission creep' of the phrase 'Sovereign Risk' as it evolves from an economic term applying strictly to a given state's willingness and capacity to meet its debts into a standard tool of the deregulationist mantra when faced by any potential new restriction, no matter how reasonable or obviously called for it might be, is a discussion for another day!)

punching the numbers

I am systematically working through the list of publicly-available submissions.

As of the first 100 submissions alphabetically - this out of more than 450 - I find that 90% wish to see no mining in Arkaroola and/or the adjacent ranges, and a further 5% want restrictions on mining greater than SaB would afford. Only 4% wish to see the area opened up to mining.

I will complete my own assessment of all submissions, but I will observe here that the state governments' own count that suggests 82% wish to see 'further restriction', while doubtlessly roughly accurate, does not make clear the extent of outright opposition to mining, full stop.

I will close this post with a quotation that concludes a submission for a former senior geologist for Primary Industries SA, which indicates the extent to which protection for Arkaroola gets support across the spectrum of opinion on mining -

In conclusion, I am pro-mining (in the right environment) and I am pro-uranium as a source of energy, but I (and every other sensible person) would not consider condoning mining under Wilpena Pound if an economic mineral resource was discovered there. The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in its entirety should be seen in exactly the same light.

seeking is unbalanced!

2010-05-12T16:10:00.008+09:30

Submissions on Seeking a Balance, the state government's 'mining access' plan for the northern Flinders have been assembled and made available online. And the message could hardly be clearer.

Overwhelmingly the public do not want to see mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. They also want to see the heritage values of the Flinders Ranges protected.

And virtually no-one loves 'Seeking a Balance' no matter which side of the argument they're on! Some submissions are particularly scathing - embarrassingly so for the state government, given their provenance, in several instances.

We know the following from the state government's own preliminary assessment, obtained via a Greens FOI request:

485 submissions in total

57% South Australian
23% other Australian
15% indeterminable (but probably largely Australian)
4% from overseas

86% from private citizens, 14% from companies and organizations.

On Seeking a Balance itself -

Generally there was little support for the document's proposals. However, many responses did not attempt to discuss the document or the zones proposed by it. Discussion overwhelmingly focussed on feelings towards mining in Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The figures given for this are -

50% unspecified (it would be be interesting to see how many of these simply say 'Don't Mine Arkaroola'
39% unsupportive
10% supportive 'with refinement' (More detail required here, methinks!)
<1% supportive

for and against

On mining in Arkaroola -

Supporting further restrictions on mining 82%
Supporting reduced restrictions on mining 10%
Unclear 8%

Now, I've quickly downloaded 50 submissions where I wasn't already familiar with the contents. From this rough sample I found the following:

For 'reduced' restrictions on mining in the Arkaroola Sanctuary: the SA Chamber of Minerals and Energy, the Australian Workers Union, the Australian Uranium Association, some Mining companies, and, we can only assume, Marathon itself, but interestingly Chairman Peter Williams hasn't chosen to share his submission with us.

Supporting further restrictions - or simply outrightly opposed to - mining in Arkaroola, and frequently also in much of the rest of the Flinders also: Flinders Ranges Tourism Operators Association, (in fact many and various tourism operators), Adelaide Bushwalkers, Eco Tourism Australia, District Council of Mount Remarkable, Port Augusta City Council, academics from universities here and across the world, Rolf de Heer (Director of 'The Tracker'), the Nature Conservation Society, the Friends of Flinders Ranges National Park, North Flinders NRM, Operation Flinders, the Conservation Council, Flinders Ranges National Landscape Project Committee, Warraweena Sanctuary, the SA Tourism Industry Council, the Scientific Expedition Group, the president of the Field Geologists Club of SA, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

And let's not forget the extremely difficult to refute - and thereby politically embarrassing - submission from the SA Museum that caused a stir in the week leading up to the state election.

Even Geothermal explorers Petratherm can't see why there are any 'standard mining regulations only' access areas in the core of the Arkaroola Sanctuary!

In summary; when considering mining in Arkaroola - those who stand to gain financially from mining either specifically in Arkaroola, or from the industry more generally, might be comfortable the idea of mining the Sanctuary. (Even that's not completely sure!)

But the remainder - and this is more than 4/5ths of those who responded - love the environment of the northern Flinders as it is and wish to see it enhanced and preserved. They also strongly support existing businesses that they suggest any mining project may severely impact.

It could hardly be clearer. The state government has nowhere to go from here but to declare the Arkaroola Sanctuary off limits to the mining industry, as they should have decades ago.

I have recently spent some time in Arkaroola, and some new sets of images can be linked to from the slideshow at right. I will be posting samples form several of these shortly on this blog as 'walk through' tours of the regions in question.

where are the Liberals? and everyone else for that matter?

2010-03-09T18:41:00.001+10:30

The ABC 891 radio show with Matthew Abraham and David Bevan raised a very valid question this morning -

I spent the last few weeks wondering why the Liberals haven’t been able to seriously court the Green vote … I mean seriously, as in get together with Mark Parnell, who’s the Greens Leader in the Upper House here in South Australia, and do a preference deal with them and say … here’s some key issues that we can agree on – no mining in Arkaroola [emphasis mine] … the people who got Isobel Redmond into that position are people like Nick Minchin and Iain Evans, they don’t want any mining up there, so it’d be something that they would gladly hand over, concede to the Greens, it wouldn’t be a concession at all.

David Bevan ABC 891 Morning Show 09/03/10

The ABC has not done a particularly good job in reporting the Arkaroola issue throughout. For one, its performance during last year's lease renewal process was poor to the point of being misleading; I still meet people who tell me that the new lease was actually given to a 'different mining company' for an area 'nearby' ('and weren't they looking for gold or something?'), and all of this confusion was directly attributable to ABC reporting at the time.

(Let me restate here that exactly the same company was reassigned exactly the same lease - only the number changed, from 3258 to 4355 - in order to develop exactly the same Uranium deposit. The company - Marathon Resources - would be the first to tell you so.)

Likewise, last time I had cause to comment on the ABC's Matthew Abraham and David Bevan's performance it was, sadly, to note their contribution to the propagation of the bizarre claim that Marathon resources was only suspended from drilling operations for 'littering' in Arkaroola ( see Dial M for Misinformation) and providing a platform for some of Marathon board member Chris Schacht's other 'colourful' ideas.

However, I must say that exactly the question David Bevan has asked - or, at least, the 'why the heck have the Liberals not managed to capitalise on this obvious vote-winning issue?' variant - has crossed my own mind, and the minds of many others concerned over the fate of the Sanctuary.

I have actually written to both Isobel Redmond and to shadow Environment spokesperson Michelle Lensinck raising this very point. It must say that both the replies I received were unintentionally blackly comic, in that in each case they happily accused the Labor Party of not 'coming clean' and simply declaring whether it supported mining in Arkaroola or not, while simultaneously using precisely the same 'weasel' terminology as Labor uses in order to avoid making exactly this same commitment themselves!

And it's telling that Liberal leader Isobel Redmond, when challenged by Labor that she had 'turned her back on BHP' (as if! here we'll pause to note the usual silly, overwrought invective that characterises Australian politics!) responded as follows on radio 5AA in January this year -

As I’ve explained repeatedly, in the time since I’ve been leader I’ve met with Marathon, with Heathgate, with Santos, with Centrex, with all the major mining companies in this state

Well, if Marathon's the first cab of this mental rank I reckon we can pretty-easily surmise Ms. Redmond's attitude to them!

where the heck is everyone?

This lack of support raises a broader question - where the hell is everyone else on this issue?

The Greens have been the only party to consistently attempt to fight for this magnificent area - and, we should note, one of Australia's ecotourism icons and a phenomenally successful South Australian small business in its own right.

Senior Liberals Nick Minchin and Iain Evans have spoken out prominently in its defence. Their party, however, has not.

In fact, it seems that the remaining bulk of the state's politicians and the relevant Federals have been collectively washing their hair! (Yes, I have contacted Nick Xenophon's office - twice - to no avail.)

The lack of attention paid to this issue and the poor quality of reporting on it (with the notable exception of the Independent Weekly) has been a scandal in itself. Meanwhile the forthcoming state election seems to have degenerated into a risible soap-opera with the Premier cast as the villainous cad (a more unlikely suave lothario is hard to imagine, surely?), and this is about the most ridiculous reason for changing a government I can conceive of.

Yet here we have a real issue affecting one of the state's environmental and economic icons and the bulk of the self-styled custodians of our culture and heritage in both politics and the media are all looking the other way ('Ooh, something shiny!')

As many submissions on Seeking a Balance pointed out it's fortunately now pretty difficult to conceive of Queensland mining the barrier reef - but what is truly, definitely inconceivable is that anyone could propose to do so without provoking a roar of local public indignation that would be heard loud and clear all the way over here in Adelaide.

But attack a South Australian icon and the ruckus wouldn't rouse a light sleeper in the next room!

Apart from the the positive forces listed above we must add The Wilderness Society, the Spriggs themselves and their network of friends and supporters, all those who have been writing letters and making submissions (which in all likelihood includes you, dear reader!) and the heroic and time-consuming efforts of film-maker Tim Baier. I apologise if I've forgotten anyone, but my point is that the band is still remarkably - shamefully - small.

With what numbers we have we've all been struggling with little success to be heard in the vast, jaded shoulder-shrug which is nit-picking, cynical politics in SA, where caring passionately about something important is actually a disadvantage!

So, sadly, it seems South Australian are made of lesser stuff! I could say that we don't deserve Arkaroola - but, the real question to ask is whether Arkaroola deserves us!

'a strong collective voice'

2010-03-02T10:45:00.006+10:30

Firstly, congratulations to Tim Baier on his 'Unmineable Minds' taking second place in the Australian Ethical Investment's mini-documentary competition. Tim's film addresses the issue of the mining industry's targeting of Arkaroola.

Secondly, Tim's 3D movie of the northern flinders Ranges and Arkaroola is screening this week here in Adelaide. Session details are available in the previous blog or from from the Fringe's Standing in Amazement page.

To give you an idea of what to expect, the video above shows Tim's time-lapse photography set to music, though in nothing like the quality you'll get to see at one of his screenings! And not in 3D!

Thirdly, if you put in a submission on 'Seeking a Balance' you've probably received an e-mail requesting that you allow the publication of your submission.

Publication of submissions is generally desirable, in that it will let the public actually assess both their 'quality' - the actual content - and the quantity - how many were in favour of mining, how many against - for themselves. And also allow us all to identify any vested interests and assess the merits of any arguments accordingly.

The Seeking a Balance submission assessment process should not be reduced to a black box, with the state government later assuring us that in evaluating them and crafting their response they 'did the right thing, don't you worry about that!'

In the words of the latest 'From the Ark' Arkaroola update 'We need a strong collective voice in the public domain if we are to protect Arkaroola’s uplands.'

'respondents should not be intimidated'

But this e-mail also contains two scaryish, 'on your own head be it' style disclaimers, the second of which is the gloriously ungrammatical -

# I understand that I/organisation am/are responsible for the content of the submission.

('I understand that organisation are responsible for the content of the submission.' Sheesh!)

The first has already noted that that the criteria for which you'd need to assess that content might include 'breach of confidence or defamation.'

You probably aren't, but in the golden words of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - 'Don't Panic'! You're almost certainly right not to be!

I've included the full text from the latest Arkaroola update below that sums up the situation nicely. But in short, I cannot say it better than 'Respondents should not be intimidated by the language in the email. Criticism of policy, of instruments used to inform the development of policy, and of company behaviour is justified. However, any content that cannot be defended, has no place in submissions.'

I have read many submissions, and like the ones I have placed on this site in various postings below they overwhelmingly deal with government policy and the undesirabilty of its facilitating mining access. This is entirely unproblematic.

And it's also worth noting from the outset that a corporation cannot sue for defamation. Individuals in a company may, but only if they've been specifically identified and grossly defamed.

So, if I was to make a public submission on some hypothetical issue - let's say An Administrative Inquiry into Corporate Rectitude - and was to say, for (absurd) example, 'the Managing Director of Company X is the founder of the local chapter of the Church of Satan and enjoys bathing in the Blood of Virgins' I'd probably be liable to a lawsuit.

(Though if the local newspaper had recently published a front-page exposé of the diabolic cult and a photo featuring the MD in all his blood-soaked Satanic regalia I'd still be on pretty solid ground! Even so I'd have been well advised to have said 'according to the Local Argus of such and such a date' before making the claim!)

But I'll let the Arkaroola update handle the issue in detail -

Because of the high level of interest in SaB, the Government has decided to make submissions public. As this was not intended nor planned for, submissions cannot be publicly released without respondents’ permission. We have been advised that: “It is your obligation to assess its content for any possible legal ramifications, for example a breach of confidence or defamation.” Should respondents elect not to make their submissions publicly available, only their name and organisation will be released on the website where submissions will be posted.
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/minerals/public_notices/northern_flinders_ranges_project

Whatever the motivation for this late development, Arkaroola encourages all respondents to make their submissions publicly available. We have no other way of judging whether the public consultation process will have any bearing on the final recommendations made by the architects of the policy, to their Ministers. This is not a set of issues where a simple show of hands should determine the outcome: 251 for, 250 against, I think the “Ayes” have it.

Predictably, shareholders and mining companies are likely to have argued strongly for greater access to iconic northern Flinders Ranges landscapes for mining, motivated by profits and personal wealth. However, those arguing for stronger protection, unpredictably, include geologists and geo-academics, as well as protected area managers, local government, tourism bodies including Australia’s peak ecotourism association, conservationists, and traditional owners. For all of these groups, the issues are not about personal gains but rather, about a greater public good. Their submissions reflect our responsibility for the protection of natural systems that are already under stress, that they may be enjoyed by those who come after us.

Respondents should not be intimidated by the language in the email. Criticism of policy, of instruments used to inform the development of policy, and of company behaviour is justified.

However, any content that cannot be defended, has no place in submissions.

We need a strong collective voice in the public domain if we are to protect Arkaroola’s uplands

arkaroola at the fringe

2010-02-21T17:01:00.003+10:30

Australian film-maker Tim Baier's Unmineable Minds has been selected as a finalist in a mini-documentary competition funded by Australian Ethical Investments in association with the Documentary Australia Foundation.

This competition is set around the theme of 'corporate responsibility and the environment.' The aims include expanding the public's awareness of corporations' impact on the environment, and how they influence government policy.

As you're doubtlessly aware as we await the state government's response to it's 'Seeking a Balance' mining access blueprint, both of these issues are highly relevant to the proposal to mine Mt Gee and the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and this is the subject of Tim's entry.

The award ceremony to be held this Thursday night will reveal if Tim's video will go on to win first prize, and I wish him further good luck for his excellent entry!

standing in amazement - fringe tickets are now available

Adelaide audiences can soon enjoy Tim's 3D feature highlighting the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and the Flinders Ranges - 'Standing in Amazement' - from March 1st-7th as part of the Adelaide Fringe Festival.

I have posted the 'making of' YouTube video at the top of this post to give readers an idea of what to expect. But most of the movie was shot using a pair of Nikon D2 digital SLR cameras synchronised in a complex array developed by Tim - the result is well beyond anything you can imagine staring at a small YouTube video! And it's 3-dimensional!

He has secured a most appropriate venue for this tour of the natural wonders of the Flinders Ranges... The South Australian Museum! He has brought along the most sophisticated stereoscopic digital projection rig he's ever used specifically for this screening, so the quality should be truly outstanding.

Tim has taken leave from the $100 million dollar Warner Brothers feature film he is currently stereoscopic supervisor on, but, as he sees it, "time spent on this feature film project is leave taken from Arkaroola."

Tim aspires to return to Arkaroola and make a feature documentary about Mawson and Sprigg's passionate quest to comprehend this amazing world we've found ourselves in.

He is very concerned of returning to find a hole in the ground that destroys the amazing legacy of Mawson and Sprigg's passion and prevents the Sanctuary from being an eternal outdoor museum.

Arkaroola and the Flinders Ranges - Standing in Amazement - Digital 3D Cinema Event at Adelaide Fringe Festival:

State-of-the-art digital technology transforms the silver screen into a breathtaking window. As live narration guides you through a tapestry of stereoscopic 3D satellite, aerial, landscape, and macro photography, learn how South Australia's beautifully sculpted Flinders Ranges depict hundreds of millions of years of our Earth's fascinating history.

The introduction above quite aptly describes Tim Baier's planned 3D Cinema Event to be held during the Adelaide Fringe Festival.

Tim's 3D film is a must see for anyone who loves the Flinders Ranges - it will leave you spellbound as you watch his amazing movie and listen to his impassioned narration.

I call on all South Australian politicians to make the effort to get along to see the show - particularly those ( sadly a large number ) who are seemingly happy to condemn Arkaroola and the far-northern Flinders to becoming an industrial site sight-unseen!

Arkaroola has come to you - there really is no excuse; you owe it to all present and future South Australians to take the time to get along to it.

a night at the museum - the venue

The Armory Gallery of the South Australian Museum on North Terrace, Adelaide.

Session Times:

Monday 1st March -
6.00pm and 8.00pm

Tuesday 2nd March through to Friday 5th -
3.00pm, 6.00pm and 8.00pm

Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th March -
10.30am, 12.00 noon, 3.00pm, 6.00pm, 8.00pm

60 tickets available for any one show:

Large School Groups and Pensioner Groups - Free of Charge. Tim will be adding additional entirely free sessions for large groups of people from schools, retirement villages, hiking groups etc. Please contact Tim at timbaier@vfxgang.com if you can coordinate such a group.

Media most welcome

Fringe Tickets are available from the Fringe's Standing in Amazement page, or by fringetix.com.au and searching for Arkaroola, or clicking on the "FILM" category.

A minimal fee of $5 is charged - a $15 donation suggested if people find they love the show and wish to help Tim cover his costs.

parking and public transport access:

The Wilson Car Park at David Jones is the closest. $8 for half day if the parking ticket is validated at the Museum's Information Desk.

For the carbon-conscious the Museum is a five minute walk from the Rundle Mall tram stop and Adelaide Railway Station and is close to (or on) various bus routes. Adelaide is also an easy cycling city!

the same old line

2010-01-30T09:24:00.009+10:30

Submissions of 'Seeking a Balance', the state government's mining access blueprint for the far-northern Flinder Ranges, closed yesterday.

Sadly, the state's Environment Minister, Jay Weatherill, continues to roll out the Labor party line, defending their fait accompli position of accepting without debate mining industry access to one of the state's premier wild areas - famous across the world, perhaps, but unfortunate enough to be sited on a small portion of this state's veritable ocean of Uranium -

"We are providing a greater level of protection for this beautiful part of South Australia but also having regarded the fact that, for decades, it's been the subject of exploration and there are mining interests that want to continue to consider those options, so that's the balance we're seeking to strike." (ABC online 29/01/10)

I'll translate: 'Miners want to "consider their options", so despite this being the most pristine wild area remaining unprotected in the Flinders Ranges we're going to see to it that they can continue to have access and ignore their having the run of the rest of the state!'

This from the man who is supposed to be the ultimate defender of the state's environment! (As to the notion that protections are being increased, see a Class A confusion.)

I've observed in the past that minerals minister Paul Holloway was effectively acting as the de facto environment minister for the 90+% of the state the mining industry has access to; now, it seems, the portfolio-swap is occurring in reverse!

As to the central absurdity of claiming that it's somehow reasonable to 'balance' access in this small section of the northern Flinders without regard to the dramatic imbalance between mining access and conservation that prevails across the state, I think state Greens MLC Mark Parnell's submission summed up the situation elegantly;

Seeking a Balance is surprisingly low on detail, poorly argued and artificially limited in its scope. It also starts off from an entirely wrong premise.

So little of South Australia is protected from mining and mineral exploration. Yet this document purports to suggest we should be ‘balancing’ the needs of mining and conservation in one of the few remaining and most highly prized wilderness sanctuaries left.

Instead, I argue that if we are truly ‘seeking a balance’ between mining and conservation in South Australia, all of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary should be off-limits to mining activity. This would ‘balance’ the virtually ubiquitous open access for mining in every other part of the State.

Even if we lower our gaze to just the Northern Flinders Ranges, this document has deliberately carved out a very small part of a much, much larger region. The focus falls entirely on the North-Eastern corner of the Ranges, yet there are other areas of significant biological and cultural value south of Nepabunna and north of Parachilna that contradict this artificial limitation.

Is it because these areas, like the areas afforded lower protection in Seeking a Balance, coincide with areas of higher mineral prospectivity?

Another deeply concerning aspect is the (apparent) complete ignorance of the previous protections over the area, in particular the Class A zones.

Throughout, I am left with the strong impression that this document has been deliberately designed to facilitate mining activity within the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

Even the language of ‘access’ zones rather than ‘protection’ zones implies a mind set that is focused on facilitating mining access.

I strongly urge you to scrap any pretence of ‘balance’ and instead protect the whole of the Arkaroola Wilderness sanctuary from mining activity.

By the way, while Primary Industries had announced the closing date for submissions on Seeking a Balance was the 'end of the month', the department for the environment had it as COB on Friday the 29th of January. So, I understand, straggler submissions will still be accepted over the weekend! Could this be yours?

The Tiger in the Atheneum

2010-01-22T09:33:00.008+10:30

Once upon a time students were taught rhetoric, not just as a means of developing proficiency in oratory, but in order to help them to learn to examine the structure of arguments - and to detect illegitimate ones!

However, it's hard to believe our society could function if the young were to be trained in any form of intellectual self-defence. Who would believe that some new 'essential' gizmo might make them sexy and happy, or that it makes sense to mount a TV that uses as much electricity as a refrigerator on their wall in order to be submerged in anodyne pap and still more gaudy imprecations to spend? Our economy might grind to a halt!

The Advertising and PR industries intrinsically necessary to creating a hyper-consumer culture have, in turn, brought about the final triumph of relativism; your argument is only as a good as your marketing department's budget; and a thing is now generally accepted as functionally 'true' if a sufficient number of people can be brought to believe that it is.

Actual truth is virtually irrelevant - and a belief in its centrality is almost 'quaint', if not 'elitist'! Proof is not the issue: polling is what counts.

The consequences of hyper-consumption and the belief that it raises no intractable problems if most people can be persuaded to think it doesn't are already far-reaching and may well ultimately prove disastrous. But already we can scan the globe in our minds' eye and see localised disasters - or disasters in the making - a-plenty.

the mammalian extinction capital of the world

This virtual review inevitably brings us to South Australia - 'the mammalian extinction capital of the world'(1) - and considering the future of this state brings us in turn to the northern Flinders, to Arkaroola, and to the concept of 'Seeking a Balance'.

'Balance' is a word that, like 'essential', has undergone a radical transformation at the hands of what I'll call PR Revisionism.

Australians are routinely told we can 'balance' the 'needs' of, say, Coorong pelicans and massive cotton consortiums thousands of miles upstream. Of giant timber corporations and some unfortunate small mammal nesting in a tree-hollow in a logging coupe. And we can consider this without once pausing to note the grotesque imbalance, the utter lopsidedness that created the problems in the first place!

The trick works because in this magical world everything and everybody alike - the rich and the poor, the media-savvy and the mute - is now a potential 'stakeholder', and all conflicts are now fair contests between equals on neutral ground, don't'cha know?

This might even be alluring were it not utter nonsense!

tigers in pall mall

The legacy of British colonialism makes our culture particularly susceptible to this kind of argument.

Consider the colonial archetype - the 'pukka sahib', trusty Winchester in hand, hunting tigers for 'sport' (with only his wits, several native bearers, and the income from the family estate in Berkshire to support him.) Here, our hypothetical Roger of the Raj would tell us, is 'balance' in the raw - the very stuff of nature; a noble clash between equals! Mano a tigro!

I'd concede this might be strangely 'true' if tigers had any capacity to turn up in Pall Mall clubs and Knightsbridge drawing rooms to inflict grievous damage on these 'sportsmen' in their natural domains!

But clearly - and, dare I say? sadly - this is impossible. The tiger is part of the living natural world; his domain is always what is invaded, what is contested. This is so obvious it's become 'natural', invisible; we're so immersed we cannot even notice it anymore.

But that's hardly where the imbalance and absurdity ends! The tiger is not consulted as to whether, for him, the 'game' - as in 'big game' - is worth the risk. The tiger cannot give consent. Does anyone imagine for a moment that if a tiger had an opportunity to appreciate what was truly happening it would choose to take part in such a 'sporting' contest?

Perhaps for a man-eater there might be some real incentive in the form of a meal - but consider; other prey does not spit bullets - but apart from that our hypothetical big cat would surely think something along the lines of 'My life is put at considerable risk with no gain accruing to me whatsoever. You may kill or maim me at a considerable distance; I cannot hope to do the same to you. You don't even wish to eat me, which, while I might not like it, I could at least respect. Be off with you, bizarre, violent and inedible creature!'

no wallabies in the air-conditioning ducts

So, let's return our focus elsewhere in what was once the Empire on which the sun hadn't the temerity to set.

There sits the nature of Arkaroola 'waiting' - which, of course, it never does, but we can anticipate on its behalf - for culture, in the form of diamond drills, 'dozers and giant declines, to invade it. Oh, there's been a few scouting parties in the past - and some persistent trouble with browsing exotic ungulates - but this is the 'real deal', the 'big one'.

This is a strictly one-way transaction, the reverse - as in our absurd tiger in Pall Mall - simply cannot occur. No mining company or state bureaucracy need fear; Yellow-footed Rock Wallabies will not lay retaliatory claim to their city offices or attempt to seek shelter in their air-conditioning ducts!

No, as is only proper, the dozers will burst in on a nature minding its own business, and because we are 'civilised' a few concessions will properly be wrung out on its behalf. Invading and not invading are now equivalent acts - the invasion may well do enduring harm to the landscape, but we must consider an 'equal' harm that might befall shareholders should it not take place!

'Balance' has been achieved! The aggressor has vanished! History has vanished! Context has vanished! Even Nature's intrinsic title to its own territory has gone; what was once a self-sustaining landscape is now magically transformed into a 'level playing field', populated by 'stakeholders'. Conflicts have been replaced by negotiations leading to 'compromises'.

Compromise - Balance's best friend: this is where we return to the realm of rhetoric. (And thanks must go here to the learned Mike B for his contributions!)

2+2=5, and we have the numbers to prove it!

In his (now out-of-print) 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' British logician RH Thouless describes, as one of the '38 dishonest tricks' he identifies as being frequently used in order to win arguments, the logical fallacy of "the recommendation of a position because it is the mean between two extremes."

And one of the relatively few things that Neoliberal academic Dr. Madsen Pirie and I would agree on is that "Where one view is correct, there is no rule that it will be found by taking the average or mean of all views expressed."(2)

To take an absurd, but easily-grasped example: 'I believe 2+2=4 while my neighbour believes the sum to be 6. We have achieved a reasonable compromise and now concur that the result is 5.'

Pirie believes this flaw is distinctively British.

"[It] appeals to that upper class English feeling that any kind of enthusiasm is a mark of bad manners or bad breeding. One shouldn't be too keen. It helps to explain why none of them are particularly good at anything, and accounts for their steady, but moderate, decline."(3)

Sadly, I think Pirie has underestimated the extent to which the continual praising of a 'middle ground' that lies between the 'extremes' has become a mainstay of the 'reasonable' mass-media - and even talkback's more egregious ratbaggeries!

This notion has, in turn, colonised the minds of much of the population who see themselves as 'middle class' - a great many people, including much of what is actually the working class - throughout the domains of the old Empire.

'Everyone' - that is, the amorphous 'everyone' that everyone 'respectable' alludes to - now thinks the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Everything outside of the centre is extreme, and proponents of views that stray far from the centre are 'extremists'.

(In fact, much of Public Relations now consists of identifying the client as occupying precisely this 'neutral territory', whether they be an oil-spilling Petroleum MegaCorporation or a Billionaire Corporate-raider cum would-be President!)

But, as Pirie notes regarding the 'the sum is 4' and 'the sum is 6' camps described above, some 'reasonable' consensus-seeker might be "correct to describe them as extremists, but incorrect to suppose this proves them wrong."(4)

don't drink the Kool-Aid!

The Americans have a wonderful expression of personal independence of thought from contemporary groupthink - evolving from an unassuming beverage's supposed role in that spectacular modern tragedy of cultism; Jonestown's mass 'Revolutionary suicide'(5) -

"I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid on that one."

A commentator might proudly note that he or she, for one, was not 'drinking the Kool-Aid' on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, for example, or the inherent virtue of the unregulated 'free trade' in financial derivatives we're all currently paying the price for.

In our own small world of troubles I suggest we don't swallow it either.

A balance does not have to be sought. Mining's claim on the Wilderness Sanctuary is not rendered legitimate merely because it is not illegal, some say they stand to make a lot of money out of it, and/or because to date no-one has gotten around to putting land that clearly merits it into a National Park (not that even this would mean the industry couldn't lay claim to it - see the posts immediately below this one!).

We don't have to consent to allowing the mining industry into Arkaroola, and limit ourselves to a set-piece debate on the precise form its intrusion might take, because we're herded into some notion that to do otherwise would be 'unreasonable'; 'unbalanced'.

The most important balance in Arkaroola is what exists there now - the natural balance. This is already sufficiently under seige - historic grazing impacts, feral animals, drought, climate-change - without anyone bringing in the really heavy equipment!

The previous posts have identified the extent to which the mining industry already largely has the run of the state - if it's serious about being 'green' let it retire from this field gracefully!

NOTES

(1)Dr Rob Morrison http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2004/1032252.htm - many other citations

(2)Madsen Pirie: How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic. P 158. http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Every-Argument-Abuse/dp/0826498949

(3)Pirie: ibid.

(4)Pirie: ibid. Note that even if I believe the answer to be 3 and my neighbour 5 the consensus position is only correct by chance - the result is most certainly not proved by the process, and to believe it is proved is to abandon rationality entirely!

(5)The 'Jonestown Massacre' of the members of the 'People's Temple Argricultural Project' took place in Guyana in 1978 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

seeking a balance - the missing maps! 2 - the flinders

2010-01-15T13:59:00.015+10:30

This is collection number 2 in series of maps that I'd argue should have been included in the South Australian Government's 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the northern Flinders Ranges.

Part one covered the whole state, and provided the overall context - now let's look specifically at the Flinders Ranges -

As with the previous set we're doing this in stages, the fully-protected, no mining access 'single proclamation' reserves are marked in dark green - that's, from the top, the Vulkathunha / Gammon Ranges and Flinders Ranges National Parks, the Dutchman's Stern and (on the coast) Winniowie Conservation Parks, a bit over half of the Mount Remarkable National Park, and the Telowie Gorge Conservation Park.

(Click the image to go to the Flickr site for larger versions of each image and considerably more detail)

And, in the red corner, the 'Areas Excluded from the Mining Act' - firstly up top the Leigh Creek Coalfield - which is, you may have noted a mine, a coal mine, and a very big one at that! If you're a South Aussie and you've not switched to renewable power yet this is what largely does the magic for you when you flick the light switch! And it's status as an 'Area Excluded' from mining is, um, debateable.

Not debateable - and a living testament to a Ministerial power not often used - is the Warren Gorge above the Dutchman's Stern CP and Quorn, excluded 'to prevent further mining in a scenic area'. Hoorah! Now, Warren is very pretty and I'm glad it's preserved, but it's not a patch on Arkaroola either aesthetically or in biodiversity importance terms.

Again, as with the previous maps, otherwise the remainder of the area of the region is available to the mining and petroleum industry.

Deep breath - here come the 'joint-proclamation', mining industry accessible parks -

A splash of light green. Again, consistent with the state as a whole, it's a considerably greater area than the dark green, fully-protected reserves. Lake Frome Conservation Park lies to the east, Lake Torrens National Park to the west. Track down the map to all of Mount Brown CP south of Quorn, the rest of Mount Remarkable NP - does anyone really imagine the public would tolerate a significant mining program in Mount Remarkable, by the way? - and that funny little widely-separated extension of Mount Remarkable below The Bluff east of Port Pirie.

Yes, I missed one. That's because I think it's worth noting that the Ediacara Conservation Park - east of Lake Torrens and west of Beltana - set aside specifically to preserve a unique set of fossils of global heritage significance, is a joint-proclamation - and so accessible by the mining industry! It also has a separate 'restricted access' status as a 'fossil reserve'. But what does this actually mean - is it theoretically mineable, or not? At any rate, it's currently covered in leases - see below.

I'll also note some absences in passing - no protection for spectacular Mount Chambers Gorge between the Flinders Ranges NP and Lake Frome, nor for the Parachilna Gorge west of Blinman, nor Patawarta Hill, nor the Devil's Peak, nor the Bendleby Ranges. Etcetera; I'll leave you to name your own favourite other, 'non-Parky' bits of the Flinders. Then keep an eye on them as we turn on the lease mapping layers -

Do I really need to make further comment? The cross-hatched red bits that just appeared are 'production tenements' i.e places where mining is approved to or can actually occur- notably Heathgate's Beverley Uranium deposits adjacent to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, which lies north of the Vulkathunha / Gammons Park, but you can't see it for reasons I'll explain below.

It only remains to add the Petroleum industry component -

Wow, now we have the Petroleum Exploration encroaching on the Mawson Plateau too! Can anyone really defend this kind of thing? And if you're going to say 'it's only an arbitrary lease boundary, they wouldn't actually do it' why not embrace the opportunity to formalise that 'excluded' status and have me pipe down for a while?

Lastly, let's have a look at the actual area that Seeking a Balance focuses on, now that we've actually provided the context that SaB very clearly lacks -

The overall area is roughly the same as that shown in the context mapping in the SaB document, and the red inset rectangle represents the area that is targetted for its specific proposed Access Zones; these are focussed mainly on the Arkaroola region.

The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - like the other Flinders Ranges features I've 'pointed out' (or can't!) above - is not visible here because that's the way successive state governments have chosen to render it in mining industry terms!

What can we conclude from all this?

i heart the mining industry?

Did you see the movie 'I Heart Huckabees'? Despite its being an obvious satire, I thought it made one serious point rather well. (And no, I can't find the clip on YouTube! Sing out if you know better...)

The fictional environmental organisation that its protagonist was the head of presented a fictional television advertisement I thought summed up the problem with 'balancing' transactions between natural and human demands nicely.

Start with the main character centre-screen announcing a conflict between commercial/industrial 'development' and natural values in a remnant natural region, announce 'Well, let's make a compromise - we'll [meaning development proponents] just take half!'; half the TV screen blacks out.

The figure sidesteps to be visible in that half, announces a new development/conservation conflict over the remaining area, and another 'balanced' 50/50 compromise; now the top half of the half of the screen that was still visible blacks out. Overall 3/4 of the screen is now black.

The main character stoops to get his head into remaining visible quarter, indicates yet another conflict over this area, proposes the same 'balanced' solution; 7/8ths now black... You get the idea!

Now, we've already reached a state where most of the natural communities in the southern section of the state have been driven into tiny pockets by the 'Europeanising' process inherent in settlement. High-quality natural communities now occupy a tiny fraction of their original extent, and an even tinier fraction of the area of the state. To then frame these pockets as the venue for some sort of 'reasonable compromise' between conservation and yet more disturbance, as satirised by the movie's commercial, is not only inherently absurd, it's 'globally' absurd before the process has even begun! That is what publishing these maps is intended to demonstrate.

The very concept of 'seeking a balance' in the northern Flinders implies that some sort of an 'all else being equal' state might prevail between conservation and mining access elsewhere in the state - and this very, very far from being the case.

Now, best practice mining and exploration is very important, and it's great that this has had government and industry support. But the thriving mining industry in this state, if it wishes to fully lay claim to the mantle of environmental responsibility, should accept with good grace that there are areas that are too precious to mine. I call on it to make a start right here in Arkaroola.

In fact, I'd argue that both the industry, and the state government, stand to benefit overall by embracing the concept as part of their own commitment to best-practice, and by beginning a good faith process of relinquishing claims to our unique, high-value remnant natural legacy.

on a technical note

All these maps were taken from Primary Industries and Resources SA's excellent South Australian Resource Information Geoserver. (Ironically, I may be SARIG's biggest fan!)

Images © PIRSA SARIG geoserver 2010 - https://egate.pir.sa.gov.au/geoserver/sarig/frameSet.jsp

crocodile tears!

2010-01-13T12:04:00.004+10:30

The croc has temporarily returned to its enclosure!

It's a bit like the pandas, isn't it? Please feel free peruse the rest of the blog while you're waiting...

seeking a balance - the missing maps! the whole state

2010-01-10T15:48:00.002+10:30

These are the maps that should have been included in the South Australian Government's 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the northern Flinders Ranges'!

The very concept of 'seeking a balance' in the northern Flinders implies that some sort of an 'all else being equal' state might prevail between conservation and mining elsewhere in the state - and this is so far from being the case that the notion is rendered absurd! In South Australia, conservation is on a hiding to nothing where it confronts the mining industry!

Take, for instance, Map 1 below -

Here's the whole of the state, showing those areas that are actually excluded from mining industry access. The fully-protected, no mining access 'single proclamation' reserves - that's the Wilderness Protection Areas and some National and Conservation Parks - are marked in 2 shades of dark green, and the 'Areas excluded from the Mining Act' - such as the Leigh Creek Coalfield and the City of Adelaide - are marked in red. (Click the image to go to the Flickr site for larger versions of each image and considerably more detail)

Otherwise the remainder of the area of the state is available to the mining and petroleum industry.

You might be about to be surprised, if not shocked. What follows is a map which contains the same details shown in the first map, with the addition of the mining-industry accessible. 'joint proclamation' Reserves - that's the remainder of the National and Conservation Parks, and the Regional Reserves -

That's right, more than 3/4 of the land area of the reserve system of South Australia is open to the mining industry! All Reserves constitute a little over 20% of the state by area, so if 3/4 of these are mineable, and the remaining 'Areas excluded from the Mining Act' are not large - as can clearly be seen - what follows is that the mining industry has access to more than 90% of the state!

Now, in the 'joint-proclamation' parks access is 'restricted', and there are other restrictions placed on the mining and petroleum industries when dealing with, say, Aboriginal Land and the Woomera Prohibited Area. The industry may well attempt to point to this - in fact, some wring their hands and claim to be tragically inhibited in showering us with the benefits they are doubtlessly only-too-keen to bestow upon us; but let's just have a look at the extent to which their style is actually being cramped, shall we?

Whoah! - bright, isn't it? We've now added the Mineral Leases - that's the Mineral Exploration Leases in blue, and the Mineral Exploration Lease Applications in pink. There are production tenements as well, but they're hard to see at this scale. (A reminder, click each image to see a lot more detail on Flickr)

What you can pick out at this scale is that the Gawler Ranges National Park and the northern section of the adjacent Pinkawillinie Conservation Park, Tallaringa Conservation Park, Lakes Gairdner, Torrens, and Frome, and the Yellabinna, Strzelecki and Innamincka Regional Reserves have now largely been subsumed. Oh, and the Witjira National Park on the northern border is entirely covered.

Did you know Mount Remarkable National Park is largely open to the mining industry, by the way? I thought not.

But that's not the whole story - we haven't looked at the petroleum industry yet! -

Well, isn't that enough to warm a shareholder's heart? Goodbye Simpson Desert Regional Reserve and the remainder of the Innamincka RR. Petroleum Exploration Leases, Exploration Lease Applications, Production Tenements... it certainly makes for a colourful show! If you want the complete details I've included a copy of the Legend as part of this set of images on Flickr.

(You can also go there to scroll through any of these images at a larger scale - Seeking a Balance - the Missing Maps [I recommend the slideshow option - button upper right] - and also to get a foretaste of my next posting, which will deal specifically with the Flinders Ranges and the area surrounding the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - the target of Seeking a Balance.

However, my point is simple. There is no balance between the mining industry and conservation is South Australia. The industry is winning hands-down.

The state government cannot selectively pick a section of the northern Flinders Ranges - one of the few remaining semi-arid mountain ecosystems in Australia in good (and up to excellent) condition at that! - and claim to play an 'even handed' game, as though the industry didn't already have the run of the state. As though such fragile and complex mountain ecosystems weren't the exception rather than the rule in the broad, flat inlands of South Australia. And as if they were well preserved elsewhere and weren't embattled enough already (goats, climate change etc.) This is not just absurd, it's offensive!

NEXT POST - Applying the same focus to the Flinders Ranges.

All these maps were taken from Primary Industries and Resources SA's excellent South Australian Resource information Geoserver. (Ironically, I may be SARIG's biggest fan!)

Images © PIRSA SARIG geoserver 2010 - https://egate.pir.sa.gov.au/geoserver/sarig/frameSet.jsp

SaB submission period extended

2009-12-14T18:03:00.009+10:30

The public submission deadline for comment on 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' has been deferred until January 29th, 2009

See the most recent posts below for more information about Seeking a Balance.

Over the weekend the Save Arkaroola campaign placed an advertisement in the Weekend Australian (see at left), while the Wilderness Society ran its own on page 3 of today's Advertiser (below)

Today the Arkaroola Sanctuary released its own 'From the Ark update' announcing the postponement of the submission deadline. Notably, this included the following -

Arkaroola has received advice that the consultation process requires submissions to specifically address the management policies and zoning framework proposed in Seeking a Balance. So please when you Have Your Say, be sure to evaluate the document and make recommendations that can be considered in any revisionary process. We need to balance passion with purpose — to achieve a much better level of protection for Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and by inference, the Northern Flinders Ranges.

Now, it would be nothing short of outrageous should the State Government attempt to ignore submissions on Seeking a Balance that simply say 'we do not want to see any mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and to the extent that Seeking a Balance allows this I/we oppose it' - or even 'Please, just don't mine Arkaroola' - rather than addressing in detail a complicated mish-mash of zones that contradict existing legislation and don't even provide continuous 'whole of landscape' corridors for the local biota. I trust they will not attempt to do so.

In fact, given the clear conflict with the existing Class A Environmental Zone and no explanation of what the mining 'infrastructure' the new plan is prepared to see installed across the northern Flinders (in all but the limited areas assigned to Zone 1 in their plan) it's hard to work out what SaB actually means! (Click here for details)

So, I would argue that the Seeking a Balance process is flawed enough without any hypothetical figure in the state government attempting to say 'well, we're opening up the area to mining, and you must limit your comments to discussing the framework we've set up for this - but in choosing to comment you might perhaps hope to tweak our boundaries a little!'

the albert namatjira approach

But as no-one will want to see a submission wasted, and as I've advised before in this journal (see below) that submissions don't have to be long-winded or overly-detailed, I will also advise that they should at least contain wording to the effect that "I write with reference to your 'Seeking a Balance' document - and this is what I think of your proposed mining Access Zones..." and then propose what you'd wish to see for the area.

If we have to see the world through their framework let's take the Albert Namatjira approach - and paint the ranges purple!

(In SaB's mapping purple indicates Access Zone 1 - where the mining industry is most restricted - more zoning details )

don't submit - make a submission!

2009-12-12T08:58:00.002+10:30

Submissions on 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' plan are rolling in.

As we've noted previously, submissions don't have to involve a complex examination of the issues and intricacies of the proposed zoning system. They can be short and punchy should you only wish to make clear your own opposition to the concept of mining being allowed in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. I have chosen something from this genre as the first example piece I've posted below.

Of course, if you are able to find the time to assemble a more complex argument it's also good to tackle any of the broad range of specific issues the document raises - or the questions it leaves begging! Accordingly, I've attached a couple more examples that pursue different lines of argument in more detail.

You don't have to buy into the bizarre idea that some kind of reasonable 'balance' can be achieved by allowing mining in a wilderness area! As a correspondent asks below 'Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau?' Isn't the whole point of conservation areas is that they are excluded from precisely this kind of economic activity? In Arkaroola and the wild northern Flinders Ranges the state government simply cannot have its environmental cake and eat yellowcake, too!

So; don't submit - make a submission! And when it comes to submissions, the main thing is that they arrive on Mr Tyne's and/or Mr Irving's desks - or in their in-boxes - by December 19! Their contact details are posted again below.

There's also an excellent collection of example submissions available at the Save Arkaroola website - see the links at the bottom of the 'how can I help?' page

example one

Gentlemen,

Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau? Would NT allow mining on Uluru? Would WA allow mining in the Stirling Ranges? Would Tasmania allow mining at Cradle Mountain? Would Victoria allow mining on the summit of Mt Bogong? Would Queensland allow mining on the Great Barrier Reef?

Rhetorical questions but germane ones. Unless one has been to Siller's Lookout on a cool winter's morning its impossible to describe the effect this area has on people. Arkaroola should be our 'secular scared site', to be FULLY and unequivocally preserved as an ecologically contiguous whole forever, not subject to an internecine cartographic 'death of a thousand cuts' and subsequent glossy greenwash campaign ('Seeking a Balance' being a typical example of the latter). Even when I cant get to Arkaroola, I feel better just knowing it is there, and I know I am not alone. I wonder how long I will be able to feel that way.

The fact that it has not been formally declared a national park is a historical anomaly ameliorated only by the excellent stewardship the Spriggs have demonstrated for decades. Why aren't they celebrated even more than they are for being the real pioneers of sustainable eco-tourism in this state?

I will leave the broader political, environmental, indigenous, spiritual and yes, even the economic arguments (see above) for the TOTAL PRESERVATION of this trifling percentage of the state, compelling as they are, to the many others who will surely submit their despairing and bewildered responses to this new government plan. Suffice to say that no government that pursues these policies will ever get my vote.

Save Arkaroola. Save our National Parks system.

example two

I want have to my opinion registered that exploration and mining, and in particular uranium mining, has the potential to seriously damage Arkaroola’s acclaimed tourism operation.

Arkaroola is an area of high conservation value in South Australia. Arkaroola is now known as Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, with official sanctuary status under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

I am very concerned about the water use of a mine. The hydrology of the Flinders Ranges is highly complex. The relationship between aquifers, the surface springs and recharge rates requires investigation so they are not put at risk.

In a submission to the Australian Government in 2007, Marathon Resources advised that it would require 5·5 million litres a day for processing activities should a mining application be approved in the future.

The company would seek water from a variety of sources on the plains and in the ranges. Any approval to extract this measure of water from the region would contravene the government’s own targets and prescriptions around the sustainable use of water resources. It is vital that ecosystems like that in Arkaroola, enduring periods of drought as it did through the 10 years to summer 2008/9, not have their water resources compromised.

I believe that Arkaroola’s water needs to be given the highest level of protection.

Through Seeking a Balance, the government plans to introduce a new regulatory framework that will likely see parts of the Arkaroola landscape, currently protected under Environmental Class A provisions, re-zoned for standard exploration and mining activities. This is totally unacceptable.

The iconic features of Mount Painter and Mt Gee must be protected from invasive activity such as mining.

Arkaroola remains relatively weed-free, with weeds mostly restricted to day visitor areas and watercourses in the southern and south-eastern sections of the property. This situation would change dramatically with the incursion of mining activity in the region as exploration and mining increases the risk of weed introduction.

Even after a decade of drought, the integrity of Arkaroola’s native vegetation, particularly in the Mount Painter zone is highly rated. A fragmented zoning arrangement for sections of this highland area provides little assurance that this will continue.

Arkaroola had the shortest grazing history of any pastoral property in the Northern Flinders Ranges. Much of the sanctuary’s heartland has never carried livestock and plant communities are intact. Great topographic variation provides a wealth of micro-climates and environmental niches. There is great potential for remnant populations of small mammals to have survived on Arkaroola.

Some of the wildest, most elevated, least modified and most biodiverse landscapes in the Flinders Ranges occur in north- eastern districts. Five properties with contiguous landholding provide refuge for remnant, endemic, rare and threatened species, some of which are found nowhere else in the world. They also provide a corridor of connectivity for the movement of dispersing rock-wallabies. With its unique geology and landforms, lack of weediness, intact plant communities, and position as the northernmost protected area in the Flinders Ranges, Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a critical part of a greater Northern Flinders corridor. Despite this, in developing the Seeking a Balance framework, the South Australian Government has failed to deliver appropriate levels of protection for individual species and ignores its own policies that advocate landscape scale conservation The new framework, it is claimed, will balance resource use and conservation, and provide more certainty for mining and exploration companies, landholders, traditional owners and the community.

I believe that Seeking a Balance is inconsistent with other natural resource management policies, is flawed in its methodology, and is skewed toward exploration and mining at the expense of the environment. It is appalling that people like me have to respond in this way to something that should be so far from reality as to be a poor joke. Unfortunately the proposals are real and scary.

example three

To whom it may concern:

I have been informed that the government wishes to "re-evaluate" its zoning on mining activities in the Northern Flinders Ranges. I have deduced from the publication 'Seeking a Balance' that the general aim is for the government to protect certain places of higher environmental/cultural/wildlife/geological/heritage/tourism value within the region, but then open the remaining areas in the region to mining exploration an activities.

I am opposed to this proposal, as there are a number of reasons that this act could be devastating to the area. Firstly, there are a number of endemic species to the area, and if disturbed by mining activities, or if invasive species are introduced through an increase of traffic into previously untouched areas, we could lose plants and animals not found anywhere else in the world.

There are also species that have been endangered that thrive in the area, such as the Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby. The species has a high concentration of colonies along the Arkaroola Creek, however in the proposed re-zoning, there are no bio-corridors linking the colonies in the north with those in the central regions or the north eastern region. Bio-corridors are essential to species survival as they allow the species to move to adjacent areas and to adapt to environmental change.

There are also important issues for Indigenous people, namely the Adnyamathanha People, which are barely even skimmed across in the proposal. Are the traditional owners being consulted on this matter? If so, are their opinions and concerns taken into account, or is this process simply a formality? Please inform me on this matter, as I am very unclear about the process undertaken in this circumstance.

There are also implications for tourism. As Arkaroola is an outstanding example of eco-tourism, the affects of mining exploration and activities going on within the sanctuary are not appealing to potential eco-tourists. The general characteristics of mining, such as water over-use, waste (see Marathon Exploration's inappropriate methods and waste dumping at Mt Gee and Yudnamutana Gorge), as well as pollution (both noise and air etc) will have a negative impact on the landscape, and therefore reduce the appeal to tourists, not to mention all other species that live there.

Geologically, the entire area is significant. There are important features within the area that have scientific importance, including holding information about past climates, which is becoming more and more important in the face of accelerated climate change.

Astronomically, Arkaroola has a spectacular outlook, with very little light pollution and usually fine weather, the star gazing is an attraction for tourists and astronomers. If mining activities are permitted nearby, what sort of affect will the amazing clear skies encounter?

The Euro-entric heritage of the area dates back to the 1840s, with the area being used for a number of different fields. Agriculture did not suit the landscape, and mining was tried and abandoned, and the most appropriate use was found - a wilderness sanctuary. Going back to mining in the area would be a step backwards - does the government want to move forward or backward? We don't need any more reasons for the other states to call SA a "little backwater".

I am also concerned that the mine at Beverly is perhaps not being fully utilised if concentration has turned towards the areas around Arkaroola. Are there issues regarding the Beverly mine that the public should be aware of?

It appears to me that the government are placing mining above environment and conservation in this instance, which is absolutely appalling. That is not what I elected the government to do. I am deeply disappointed that the policy makers have not learned a thing when it comes to over exploitation of resources, environmental degradation, climate change, and environmental irresponsibility. If economy is the states only concern and priority, then we will ruin our precious environment.

Please do not open up areas in the Northern Flinders Ranges to mining and resource exploration and activities that are currently protected. I would prefer to see a higher level of protection to the entire area. As biodiversity does not limit itself to pockets of landscape in the region - neither should the protective zoning.

Please reconsider your proposal to provide better environmental protection of these important areas

Submissions on Seeking a Balance are due in on December 19th (There are rumours of a postponement of this deadline until the end of January next year, but neither PIRSA's nor the Dept for Environment's 'Seeking a Balance' websites currently confirm this. I'll update this information when and if it changes.) They can be e-mailed or posted to;

Email: jason.irving@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8124 4707
Post: Mr Jason Irving
Manager Policy and Planning
Department for Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

Email: ted.tyne@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8463 3033
Post: Dr Ted Tyne
Director, Mineral Resources
Primary Industries and Resources SA
GPO Box 1671
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

seeking a balance - not a great lookout for sillers!

2009-12-07T10:54:00.003+10:30

There's no more famous image of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary than the one at left. This view of Siller's Lookout, terminus of the outward-bound leg of the Ridgetop Tour (a party of which can be seen here on the summit) is known across Australia and the world. It's one of the iconic images of South Australian tourism, and Australian eco-tourism, full stop!

In fact, this version of the image is taken from the state government's own 'Seeking a Balance - Conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' (SaB) document.

But the image is used very widely - the most well-known variant being Arkaroola's own take, as used, in the example at right, in The Wilderness Society's advertisement highlighting the risk mining poses to the area.

Referring to his then newly-released 'Seeking a Balance' plan, South Australia's Environment Minister Jay Weatherill told the ABC News on the 28th of October this year -

"I think what people need to rest assured about is that when they think about Arkaroola and they think about the iconic spots, the things that they have in their minds will be now [be] protected"

As I've said, there's no more iconic image of the Sanctuary than this view of Siller's - with the lookout massif in the foreground, and the ranges on the southern flank of lower Yudnamutana Gorge rolling off to the plains and Lake Frome behind.

But in 'Seeking a Balance' the Minister has not seen fit to grant any extra protection to Siller's Lookout, nor the bulk of the country you can see in the background in these iconic images!

That's right - in his plan this area is consigned (along with the bulk of the region) to Access Zone 3 (the 'yellow zone': see the detail of SaB's own map at left) - open to standard mineral exploration and mining access, with no approval required for either activity from the Department for the Environment!

A discussion of the inadequacies of the proposed zoning system, with particular regard to the apparent conflict with the Planning Act's existing 'Class A Environmental Zone' for the Flinders Ranges - inadequacies that remain even when it comes to those areas supposedly afforded a 'higher' level of protection - can be found in the previous post - a Class A confusion.

But to choose not to assign a higher level of protection to the icon area of Arkaroola, and then to tell the public you've 'protected' all 'the things they have in their minds... when they think about Arkaroola' - well, it's breathtaking, isn't it? But not as in 'what a breathtaking view!'

don't submit - make submissions!

No, you don't have to subscribe to the logic of planning for mining access to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and simultaneously proclaiming that it's been protected! Nor play-along with tweaking the boundaries of access and planning zones that overlap and contradict each other.

Make a submission on Seeking a Balance. They don't have to be long and complicated. You are completely entitled to express an opinion that mining is not a suitable option for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary without having to enter into detailed discussion of the intricacies of Class A Zoning versus SaB access zoning, or discussion of why there are no linking biological corridors running north to south in the Government's plan, or any other of the broad range of issues the plan raises. Not if you don't wish to.

In fact, I'd argue that because SaB and the existing Class A Zone provisions are in such obvious conflict, and because we have no definition provided for any of the allowable mining 'infrastructure' associated with SaB (but explicitly excluded by class A), it's actually difficult to assess the implications of Seeking a Balance, full stop!

But it's clear that the mining industry cannot expect to have the run of the whole state - and since they tell us 'certainty' is what they crave, let them be certain that these wild ranges are off-limits!

Submissions on Seeking a Balance are due in on December 19th. They can be e-mailed or posted to -

Email: jason.irving@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8124 4707
Post: Mr Jason Irving
Manager Policy and Planning
Department for Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

Email: ted.tyne@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8463 3033
Post: Dr Ted Tyne
Director, Mineral Resources
Primary Industries and Resources SA
GPO Box 1671
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

for example

I've attached the first example submission on SaB below. It's written from the perspective of someone who is pro-mining, but, as they say, not at any cost! I am hoping that a series of such submissions will shortly be appearing on the Save Arkaroola website.

Dear Dr Tyne & Mr Irving

I am writing to you to strongly urge you to reconsider the Proposed Management Zones for the northeastern region of the Northern Flinders Ranges as indicated in the document Seeking a Balance.

I consider myself pro-mining and am All for economic benefit for the State of South Australia – BUT NOT AT ANY COST !

I enjoy bushwalking, camping and nature and I have visited the beautiful, stunning and quite magnificent Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary many times. I have also taken the exciting four wheel drive Ridgetop Tour through this iconic area, much of which, under the proposed zoning would become Access Zone 3: for Standard exploration and mining access.

It is my belief that this environmentally fragile region, which is currently suffering under more than a decade of drought, at least in the foreseeable future, would be irreparably damaged by current mining and exploration techniques. Many species are under considerable threat to their survival, and additional pressure could be catastrophic for them particularly given global warming.

To quote 'Seeking a Balance' itself - 'much of the Northern Flinders Ranges lies within the Development Plan’s Environmental Class A Zone. The prime objectives of the Environmental Class A Zone seek to conserve the natural character and environment of the area and to protect the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources.'

I believe it would be better to strengthen the existing Class A Environmental standards rather than bringing in a whole new raft of legislation.

The Development Act says ‘Mining operations should not take place here unless the deposits are of such paramount significance that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden’ and that ‘exploitation of the deposits is in the National or State interest’ and that ‘investigations have show that alternative deposits are not available on other land in the locality..’

I believe it is pointless and dangerous to risk the introduction of new legislation when the current simply needs tweeking. Present techniques are too risky and likely to cause environmental, cultural, tourism and/or other damage and will be a blight on the landscape for decades to come.

Please follow the advice of moderation and withdraw the Management Zoning proposals mooted in Seeking a Balance.

a Class A confusion?

2009-12-04T18:33:00.006+10:30

The map at left, courtesy of The Wilderness Society, superimposes the Class A Environmental Zone created by the 2003 Development Plan for the Flinders Ranges (or Class A for short) over the recently released 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' (SaB) document's proposed mineral access zoning.

(Click the image to go to the flickr page where it's possible to access large - and very large - versions of this map.)

To quote 'Seeking a Balance' itself 'much of the Northern Flinders Ranges lies within the Development Plan’s Environmental Class A Zone. The prime objectives of the Environmental Class A Zone seek to conserve the natural character and environment of the area and to protect the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources.

In the map the Class A Zone is indicated by the large red hatched area. Under the existing Class A provisions mining is currently possible within it only if the deposit is of 'paramount importance' and in 'the national interest' and if no similar resource is available outside the zone. Any proposed 'infrastructure' is limited to walkers huts and associated rainwater tanks and the like.

'Seeking a Balance' excludes mining and associated infrastructure only in the Purple Zones (Zone 1 in SaB). While this is an excellent result in the case of the Mawson Plateau, the largest such area, the story for the rest of the northern Flinders is rather different, and particularly for the disputed area of Exploration Lease 4355, which is shown outlined in black (see detail map below).

Roughly, Blue Zones (SaB Access Zone 2a) allow for restricted, 'non-disturbing' exploration activity and potential mining access only from 'outside' those zones (i.e from underground.) Any activity must be jointly-approved by both the Dept for Mineral Resources and the Dept for Environment.

But please bear in mind, within controversial uranium exploration lease EL 4355 - the black outline - the exploration drilling around Mount Gee and Mount Painter has largely been done already in or adjacent to these sectors. Since these zones are confined to ridge-tops they would not in any case be likely targets for direct mining access since the uranium resource lies hundreds of metres below them! (Although currently effectively ruled out by the terms of the Class A Zone optimal efficiency and economy would be achieved by accessing any resource from a low-lying gorge/valley area adjacent to it - and as we see by glancing at the map and in the discussion of the other access zones below, SaB apparently might provide such opportunities!)

it's more by way of being guidelines

Still on the blue zones (2a), while exploration may be restricted - even if that's actually moot - undefined mining 'infrastructure' is allowable. I can't tell you what 'infrastructure' might be because nowhere is that made clear! There is no specific reference to Class A but reference is made to proposals being 'assessed in light of planning guidelines and identified values'.

Now, 'guidelines' is a scary word, particularly when it's being used to describe something that is actually the mainstay of protection for the area!

Green Zones (SaB Access Zone 2b) allow for both exploration drilling and the creation of undefined 'infrastructure' and mining with the approval of both the Mineral Resources Dept. and the Dept. for the Environment on a case-by-case basis. Again, Class A is not specifically cited, but a clearer reference (better than 'planning guidelines', anyway!) is made to 'Development Plan guidelines'; but note again, this key existing legislation is still - disturbingly - referred to as 'guidelines'!

Yellow Zones (SaB Access Zone 3) - by far the largest area - allow for mining to occur as it might anywhere else in the state where only the standard provisions of the Mining Act apply. No Dept. for Environment approval is required to grant either exploration or mining permits. Might they also serve as potential departure points for shafts and declines accessing resources under the higher conservation value areas?

a very uneasy 'balance'

Do you see something of a tension here? We are apparently to believe that the Class A Zoning still exists across its marked area - legislation that was set up specifically to 'preserve the character of the ranges' and dramatically limit mining activity - and simultaneously that the new 'Seeking a Balance' plan 'increases the level of protection for the area' while apparently allowing for both infrastructure and access that Class A specifically does not permit!

Meanwhile it simultaneously reduces the bulk of the area to the same 'standard mining regulations only' status as the adjacent plains and the bulk of the rest of the state! If this supersedes Class A it's a disaster; if the two are supposed to simultaneously co-exist the tensions between them are absurd; and how are we to judge which will prevail?...

the corridors of power?

The astute among you will also notice that there are no continuous 'corridors' linking the higher value conservation areas (Zones 1 and 2a and 2b) from north to south. Such continuous corridors are standard practice elsewhere in the state where the Govt's 'Naturelinks' program is operational.

But take another look; there are apparent corridors! Consider the continuous Zone 3 'standard regs only' zones surrounding the uranium resource, which is centred on Mount Gee in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and EL 4355 (see the detail map above).

And look at the potential link this 'standard mining access' zoning provides to the proposed processing facilities on the eastern plains!

Consider the long peninsula of green (SaB Access Zone 2B) that snakes away from Mount Gee and Mount Painter to the south east towards the proposed processing zone. Why on earth would this, the northern side of the valley of the East Painter Creek warrant a higher protection status while the southern side, which is virtually identical as a landscape, is cast into the 'access all areas' zone? Why indeed, if not to provide for a potential haulage or pipeline route on the southern side?

make submissions - but don't submit!

Submissions on seeking a balance are due in a fortnight (December 19th). Details for where they can be sent are available via the Seeking a Balance PDF (or booklet itself), or at the Save Arkaroola website (+ see link in image below)

Don't let the above phase you! Submissions don't have to be long and complicated. You are completely entitled to express an opinion that mining is not a suitable option for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary without having to enter into detailed discussion of the intricacies of Class A Zoning versus SaB access zoning if you don't wish to. I provide these details for information, and because I want to make clear my concerns with notions that the 'balance' SaB seeks is only a 'reasonable' weighing of options.

It's an intellectual fallacy that there's always a 'middle ground' that needs to be sought in any argument and is the most 'reasonable' position. Could we really believe that a half-scale Franklin Dam would have been a rational compromise? Or that we could safely drill for oil on half the Barrier Reef?

No! Absurdity must be named. There's no place for miners in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and the kind of convoluted logic that gives us a mish-mash of zoning and a mesh of contradictions like that found in SaB only serves to reinforce this argument. If 'certainty' is what's required then let the industry be 'certain' that it has no place here.

And I'll happily post any copies of submissions people care to send me that might serve as a good inspiration and example to other friends of the wild ranges! Feel free to either post them as a comment below or e-mail them directly to me.

savearkaroola launched!

2009-11-29T16:48:00.003+10:30

With less than 3 weeks to go before formal public comment on the fate of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary closes, the Sprigg family have launched savearkaroola.com.au, a site set up specifically to put their case in defending the Sanctuary from the combined encroachments of the mining industry and state government departments apparently unwilling to defend it from them.

The Spriggs raise similar concerns to those voiced on this site regarding 'Seeking a Balance,'the state government's proposed blueprint for mineral exploration access in the the northern Flinders Ranges.

They are also unable to understand why it did not at least reinforce (or, in the circumstances, decisively exceed!) existing legislative protections covering the region - the Environmental Class A Zone - which was designed specifically to protect the character of the ranges.

Seeking a Balance - or $eeking a Billion?!

Instead, this document sets up a series of potential access zones that, although they afford some welcome - and long overdue - high-level protections in the north of the Sanctuary, would appear to be not much better than a blueprint for mining access routes into the heart of the Sanctuary itself; the Mount Gee and Mount Painter region!

Subsequent claims from the Department for Environment that the Class A Zone provisions still underlie 'Seeking a Balance' have decidedly not reassured anyone who cares about the ranges.

As I have discussed previously (see link plus the previous post), it is rather hard to reconcile legislation that specifically restricts 'infrastructure' to walkers huts and rainwater tanks and proposes that mining could only be possible in the rarest of circumstances - conditions patently not met in what is now Exploration Lease 4355 - with the SaB's proposed zoning, which includes substantial areas (covering even iconic sites such as Siller's Lookout!) where only the standard access provisions of the Mining Act would apply!

In any case, factor in Minerals Minister Paul Holloway's recent dismissive claim in Parliament that he can choose to treat the Class A Zone provisions as 'guidelines', and you have a situation where all true friends of the ranges can only be on high alert!

from the ark

Further, the Sprigg family have just published a special edition of their 'From the Ark' Newsletter, specifically putting their case for the proper protection of the Sanctuary.

This document is well worth reading; you might, for instance, be bemused - if not a little shocked - to discover on page 3 what method was used to officially determine the 'landscape quality' of the Sanctuary!

But then, the Spriggs have had to suffer much at the hands of both the 'access all areas' arm of the mining industry and its state government enablers. One can only hope their long fight will shortly yield the decisive, and positive, outcome they - and the Sanctuary - deserve!

It's little wonder, then, that the Newsletter contains a little mischief - I've attached it below - a reliable, thorough, and rigorously scientific test calculated to determine if the viewer is suffering from 'Gottamineopia', a fortunately rare hybrid of single-minded myopia and tunnel-vision!

of cowboys, calisthenics, and crocodile tears

2009-11-22T20:02:00.003+10:30

A posse of Cowboys (and a Cowgirl!) strode into town Thursday morning, and moseyed on down to the Sebel Playford on North Terrace, just in time for Marathon Resources' Annual General Meeting, which was being held inside this mighty fancy saloon.

You may recall that Premier Mike Rann had announced that his government would not tolerate 'cowboy operators' when he suspended Marathon's licence to drill in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary early last year.

These ornery dudes were itchin' to get back to drilling ("it ain't thrillin' if we ain't drillin'!..."), and had brought their own cordless rigs along to demonstrate the 'real responsible' manner in which they'd like to go about it. They acknowledged there'd been mistakes in the past; "we're sorry, and we won't do it again. But they went on to explain "and hell, if we do do it again, well, we'll be sorry then, too!..."

In fact, it'd be hard to imagine a sorrier posse!

But leaving aside the opinions of this Wild Bunch, given the seriousness of Marathon's breaches of their exploration lease many of us were surprised when one of Sheriff Rann's Deputies - Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway - handed Marathon a renewed exploration licence for the same area last month.

And many were also surprised when he went on to announce the publication of 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges.' Because from a simple glance - see at right - at the 'Proposed Management Zones' map on page 15 it's hard not to conclude that one of the main purposes of SaB is to allow for the creation of mining access corridors across the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

For the only explanation I can conceive of for the strange 'exposed midriff' that runs along the centre of this map - a gap where only standard mining regulations would apply and the Department for Environment (DEH) would hold no sway - is that it is designed to let the mining industry extract uranium at Mount Gee in the centre of the Sanctuary and transport it to processing facilities on the adjacent plains.

corridors for wildlife - or whacking-great trucks?

You may ask yourself why, for instance, the northern side of the valley of the Mount Painter Creek is deemed worthy of DEH protection (the green peninsula that runs east from Mount Gee and Mount Painter) while the southern side is left to the industry? Why in a document that is supposedly based on sound ecological principles are there no linking corridors form north to south in this spectacular wild region? Where are the values that inform the state government's NatureLinks program - that recognises the vital nature of biological corridors elsewhere in the state - in this instance?

The period for comment on this document closes on December the 19th.

It has been hard to clarify the meaning of so much of SaB - particularly the question of what constitutes 'infrastructure', and why this would even be being contemplated by the Department for the Environment in an area where under existing legislation - the Class A Environmental Zone for the Flinders Ranges (constituted under the Planning Act) - in order to preserve the character of the ranges any such 'infrastructure' is restricted to walkers huts and rainwater tanks!.

This issue will be dealt with specifically in my next post. And shortly a series of postings on websites - including this one - will go over all these issues in detail and call on lovers of the South Australian environment to have their say on SaB before the closure date.

For we can hardly afford to rest on out laurels...

shareholders on the march?

Because, inside the Marathon AGM, Chairman Peter Williams had an explicit message for Marathon's shareholders: after complaining that his company 'was not consulted' in the creation of the document (if it's any consolation neither was I, The Wilderness Society, or Marg Sprigg!) he asked shareholders to write in and express their views on Seeking a Balance:

The State Government has invited stakeholders to make submissions up to 19 December 2009 on its “Seeking a Balance”paper.

The Marathon Board encourages shareholders and other stakeholders to review the government document and, if thought appropriate, we ask you to make a submission to the Government outlining your own views on what the realistic “balance”should be.

Now, it's not hard to imagine what those views might be! But in case they didn't get it he went further, telling the Adelaide Advertiser;

Marathon chairman Peter Williams said the imposition of the "Seeking the Balance" management plan would set a dangerous precedent, as mining companies would no longer have certainty that the regulations they were working under were consistent and reliable...

"We find now that there could be areas of the state that have been previously subjected to conditions that are strict...and now we find that the government wants to impose some arrangements over the top.

they brought it on themselves

For a start, having been with Marathon since its inception Peter Williams knows only too well that the reason SaB even exists is his company's own track record in the Sanctuary!

Given that so many felt it was it was already outrageous enough that they were ever allowed in in the first place, even viewed purely tactically it is almost impossible to fathom how his company could ever have allowed such a dramatic breach of regulations to occur.

And if the mining industry are so keen on 'certainty' why don't they just accept that there are some places that they should not go, and the heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary is one of them?

It's particularly hard to fathom why Paul Holloway's department sticks to its guns in such a bloody-minded manner on this issue. Perhaps it's their own Cowboy enthusiasms?

Because Seeking a Balance is, to put it bluntly, rather a dog's breakfast!

This is where we must consider the question of calisthenics. Even leaving aside for a moment the question of SaB's debatable environmental bona fides, being prepared to go to such lengths to create a complex overlapping mosaic of regulations and ministerial responsibilities is pretty hard to reconcile with oft-repeated claims that the government want to streamline the mining industry's access across the state and provide 'certainty'.

Why not just face it; if you have to twist yourself into such a bizarre, convoluted shape in order to allow something then surely it's time to accept that there's an inherent problem with that very something?

no false 'balance'

Marathon presumes to claim on behalf of the mining industry that it's being hard done by in SaB, and the environmental movement certainly has little reason to be happy (leaving aside the long-overdue protections for the magnificent Mawson Plateau).

But any attempt by the government to play the 'we're being criticised by both sides, we must be right' game will hardly wash!

Because if SaB is really as, ahem, 'over the top' in regulating the environment of the northern Flinders as Marathon would have us believe, why did Mineral Resources Director Dr. Paul Heithersay tell the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy "it allows the majority of North Flinders Ranges to stay open to mining and exploration" but they "would be more nuanced about how we manage this"?

So much for any industry crocodile tears. There really is just one 'certainty' here: Marathon have demonstrated only too clearly why the mining industry and high-value conservation areas do not mix. Now let's just grow up and accept it.

As Greens MLC Mark Parnell told ABC news while the Wild Bunch capered behind him on Thursday -

"South Australia has a good future and a big future in mining. Over 90 per cent, in fact closer to 95 per cent, of the state is open to mining," he said.

"We need to make sure that our most important natural areas are protected and Arkaroola should be very close to the top of the list."

Sheriff Rann, it's time to run the cowboys out of town for good!

this great leap forward is several steps back!

2009-10-27T21:27:00.004+10:30

Mike Rann has proposed a set of protection areas for the northern Flinders Ranges, including the Arkaroola Sanctuary and Mount Gee. See below for the full transcript of his statement to Parliament of today. And here for the document 'Seeking a Balance'

While it will take a little time to work through the full implications of exactly what's been proposed my first reaction is easy: 'it's not enough, Mike!'

If you consult the map (see image below for link to the larger version) there's a rather remarkable gap - kind of an exposed midriff - between the dense cluster of restricted access sectors in the north and another cluster in the south of the Arkaroola Sanctuary.

Now, you probably won't be astonished to learn that this patchy band just happens to coincide with the putative uranium hot-zone and Marathon's exploration lease.

Some preliminary observations; Mount Gee is clearly shown to be within Zone 2a (the second-highest level of protection afforded - no drilling access is allowed) in the map on page 15 (see at right), and yet is described in the text on page 16 as being in Zone 2b (where drilling is allowed - see below). In the circumstances this really is a remarkable error. So which Zone is it really in, Mike?

do they read their own laws?

Even more amazingly, mining 'infrastructure' may now be permitted to be installed in Zone 2b -

Infrastructure may be permitted within the zone on a case-by-case basis provided it protects identified values

To date Marathon has acknowledged accepting that it will have to tunnel in under the ranges from outside to access the resource, and that it wouldn't be establishing any entrance tunnels for shafts, declines or similar locally, so the Rann Govt. has apparently gone backwards on this point!

In fact, the government is behaving as though laws that are inconvenient for its purposes simply don't exist! Has anyone in this government actually read the Environmental Class A Zone provisions that already apply to the Northern Flinders Ranges under the Planning Act of 1993?

No-one - not Marathon, not Heathgate / Alliance, not even the Government itself - can build any such 'infrastructure' anywhere in the ranges - even in the proposed 'open - slather' zones. It's worth quoting from this legislation;

Objective 1: The conservation of the natural character and environment of the area.

Land in the area is of extremely high landscape, wilderness, environmental and scientific value. These qualities make it an attractive natural environment containing little evidence of human impact. New structures need to be restricted to shelters and rainwater storage for walkers and persons on horseback and to structures ancillary and adjacent to existing buildings....

Conservation of the environment and landscape is the paramount aim and consideration in the Environmental Class A Zone...

No new tracks (as distinct from roads) should be constructed and the use of existing tracks by vehicles also needs to be restricted...

and while we're quoting this 'inconvenient' legislation;

No mining operations should take place in the Environmental Class A Zone except where:
(a) the deposits are of such paramount significance that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden;
(b) the exploitation of the deposits is in the National or State interest;
(c) investigations have shown that alternative deposits are not available on other land in the locality outside the zone...

Alliance's Beverly 4 Mile ISL uranium mining operation lies only a few kilometres from Marathon's lease's eastern boundary. Roxby Downs is the largest uranium mine in the world, and SA has 4 other mines running or approved. So much for 'paramount significance' 'National interest' and 'alternative deposits are not available'!

It's ridiculous - nobody needs the uranium under the Arkaroola Sanctuary for any reason better than their own potential personal enrichment. Existing legislation was developed specifically to protect the character of the ranges. And yet the Rann government has proceeded to divvy up the northern Flinders as though they owned the place!

more steps back!

And speaking of going backwards rather than forwards; Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway's previous Media Release stated categorically that the Department for Environment and Heritage would be signing off on all potential Marathon Exploration activities within their lease -

These conditions include the requirement for both the Director of Mines and Chief Executive of the Department of Evironment and Heritage to jointly approve all exploration activities [emphasis in original]

And yet there are areas within Marathon's lease as depicted on Mike Rann's new map that are not designated as requiring joint management with the DEH!

To be logically consistent all sectors of EL 3258 (or it's successor!) must at a minimum be assigned within Zone 2b, where the DEH's approval is a requirement for exploration activities. Instead large chunks are assigned to 'access all areas' standard-mining-lease zones with only the Minerals Department approving any exploration. This is blatantly contradictory.

Lookout, Sillers!

Incredibly, Sillers Lookout, the iconic area that is the outward terminus for the Ridgetop Tour also sits in this 'open slather' zone.

Yes, despite a dramatic photo of the Lookout adorning the page 2 and 3 frontispiece of the government's own document. And despite this major Tourism drawcard being the very image that most people are likely to call to mind when they think of Arkaroola! Mr. Rann, this is 'asleep at the wheel' stuff!

But, you see, Sillers Lookout has the misfortune to be located in the 'exposed midriff' of the Sanctuary.

No doubt much more discussion will ensue. The public has until December 19th to comment on this proposed legislation, which is described specifically thus; 'the area zoned in this document is the minimum area for protection'.

I suggest we tell mike Rann we want more. Much more.

NORTHERN FLINDERS RANGES

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:11): I seek leave to make another ministerial statement, and I apologise for the length.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The future of the Northern Flinders Ranges, including the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, requires a careful balance between minerals and energy exploration and preservation of the unique environmental beauty of this world-class tourist area. Resource companies need both certainty and clarity when making decisions about their high risk long-life investments. While the Northern Flinders Ranges has been explored for decades, it has long been recognised by the industry and government that iconic areas in the Northern Flinders need clear and appropriate levels of protection. I am announcing today that the South Australian government is moving to ensure this balance is achieved by adopting a Northern Flinders Environmental Management Framework and putting it out for public consultation for the next eight weeks.

Despite the impact of the global financial downturn over the past year, mining continues to be a foundation stone of South Australia's ongoing economic growth and prosperity. A key reason for the huge increase in minerals exploration in our state over recent years is the state government's Plan for Accelerating Exploration (or the PACE program, as it is better known). This $31 million investment that we launched in 2004, in partnership with the resources industry, is a key part of our strategy to diversify the economy of our state in order to increase economic growth. Never has any scheme delivered better bang for buck than the PACE scheme in mining. PACE has resulted in—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Oh, they are still going on about tasers. They spend all their time tasering each other! PACE has resulted in an unprecedented boost in mineral exploration activity, which—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will take his seat. The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is the convention of the house, when a minister obtains leave to make a ministerial statement, that they supply other members with a copy of it.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I have got them here.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No, I want him to read it, because he will see that there was $30 million a year in exploration under the Liberals and there was $355 million a year in 2007-08. So, that is the difference. PACE has resulted in an unprecedented boost in minerals exploration activity, which grew from around $30 million a year at the start of this decade to $355 million in the 2007-08 financial year. From a total of four operating mines when this state government came to office—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —South Australia is now home to 11 mines—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —with that number expected to increase to 16 by the end of next year: a fourfold increase in the number of mines in this state.

In addition, we have more than 20 projects that are currently progressing through the approvals process. That growth reflects the climate of investment certainty that the government has created over the past 7½ years. But the PACE initiative is not solely about attracting exploration and investment. Among the eight themes that underpin our PACE scheme are balancing resource development with conservation and also resource development and sustainable communities.

Of course, balancing the realisation of mineral resources with the needs and sensitivities of our environment is a challenge for governments the world over. That is why the South Australia government continues to work closely with the industry to help ensure that our resources sector grows in concert, not at the expense of our natural environment.

We have shown our preparedness to act when our stringent environmental requirements are not met. The government has responded to inappropriate activities by Marathon Resources in the Flinders Ranges by imposing stringent licensing conditions and an ongoing ban on ground-disturbing activities. The company cannot drill or do anything with their licence beyond flying over the area or picking up rocks exposed on the ground for the next 12 months. In October 2010, the company will have to apply to have their licence renewed and the government will again determine what conditions will be imposed at that time.

This government has an equally strong record in protecting and enhancing our natural environment. For instance, since coming to office, we have placed about 800,000 hectares of wilderness under wilderness protection, the highest protection level we can provide. And now we get on to Arkaroola and the Northern Flinders which has been the subject of such controversy.

The Northern Flinders is an area of South Australia which has been a focus for mineral exploration since early last century and which has had high mineral prospectivity and a potential source of geothermal energy, but it is also an area of wild beauty, high conservation values and significant tourism potential. It is home to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, a place that South Australians identify as greatly untouched wilderness. Its habitat includes plants and animals unique to the area, including the Flinders Ranges purple spotted gudgeon, the spidery wattle and the endangered yellow-footed rock wallaby. It is also a place of significant cultural value to the Adnyamathanha people who retain a living connection with their country. That is why the future of the Northern Flinders Ranges requires a careful balance between exploration and the preservation of these areas of great environmental and cultural value.

Today, I am announcing that the state government will be adopting an environmental management framework to balance the environmental and prospectivity values of the Northern Flinders Ranges. The new framework provides a sensible set of guidelines that exploration companies can use while working in the Northern Flinders. And here is the rub. Areas with particularly high conservation and tourism significance will be zoned such that no access for exploration or resource development is allowed. At the same time, environmentally and culturally important areas in the Northern Flinders Ranges such as the Mawson Plateau, Freeling Heights, Mount Gee, Mount Painter and Arkaroola Creek will be managed in a way that preserves areas of local heritage and scenic beauty for generations to come.

The framework is based upon a joint project by Primary Industries and the Department for Environment and Heritage to identify the heritage sites of the Northern Flinders Ranges. This project has established a set of management policies and zones to identify the most important environmental and landscape values. Some sites will be zoned to allow lower impact exploration, while other sites will be zoned to allow for standard exploration and mining access, but also, of course, there will be zones where there is a total, absolute prohibition.

The framework clearly provides for ongoing access to areas of high mineral prospectivity. By implementing these zones, the framework will provide the kind of certainty and clarity that resources companies require when making decisions about their high-risk, long-life investments. These management arrangements are in addition to existing protection—in addition to existing protection—under the Aboriginal Heritage Act and other relevant legislation.

The government will be seeking feedback from key stakeholders, such as the state's Chamber of Mines and Energy, traditional owners, the Wilderness Society, the owners of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, as well as mining, exploration and other lease holders. The draft framework will also be available for broader public consultation for eight weeks, and I encourage people to have their say to make sure that we get the balance right. The final policy documents will be released by the government in early 2010. But, in conclusion, and this is the most important thing, areas with particularly high conservation and tourism significance will be zoned that no access for exploration or resource development will be allowed.

confused? join the club!

2009-10-15T18:16:00.008+10:30

Well, Marathon Resources were certainly offered a new exploration lease in the Arkaroola Sanctuary by the Department for Mineral Resources Development on Saturday. And that's about the point where the certainty ends.

Marathon immediately responded that they were thinking about it; they'd have to get the board together to mull it over. An odd response, you might think, given some of the fairly inadequate media reporting suggesting Marathon had won its way back into active exploration at Arkaroola.

Well, they haven't. Or, at least , they're in the same situation they were before: they're suspended from drilling, but they can do other non-intrusive survey work, and this won't change until Paul Holloway's new legislation has passed.

So if all this is the same why does Marathon not simply say 'ta' when offered the new lease?

Because conditions have changed. The Department for Environment and Heritage must now approve any proposed exploration program as well, rather than just the Minerals Department as before. (You might be interested to know that this puts Arkaroola on a par with the bulk of SA's reserve system - the 'jointly-proclaimed' parks and reserves.)

'parts of arkaroola should never be open to mining'

But that's not all: some parts of Arkaroola are now going to be off limits to the mining industry altogether; Paul Holloway now says 'there are some parts of the Arkaroola area that should never be open to mining'. This has been reported as Marathon not being allowed into some areas - completely unsurprisingly since that's the obvious implication. But which ones? Is Mount Gee now off limits? If not Mount Gee, then where? What exactly did the Minister really mean?

Well, Mark Parnell had a go at asking Paul Holloway this question in Parliament on Tuesday - the full transcript follows - and apart from the kind of aggressive and accusatory reaction the defensive are often inclined to give he didn't offer much by way of clarification. (Read below and see!)

There is a joint process in place with the Dept.s for Environment and Minerals developing a framework for identifying those areas in the northern Flinders to be excluded from the reach of miners. Fine. This is long overdue, has been called for by this writer for one, and will please many.

However, no we can't know which parts of Arkaroola are to be among those excluded from the mining industry's reach because the relevant stakeholders have to be negotiated with first and the overall policy developed etc. etc.

Well, 'stakeholder' I thought, so I asked Marg Sprigg about it; no, she didn't know which bits of Arkaroola might be excluded! Then again, she only owns the place...

bloody annoyed

Now, I for one, am going to be bloody annoyed if, in the context of issuing a media release whose subject is the reissuing an exploration lease to Marathon Resources, it transpires that areas inside that lease - i.e those relevant to the subject at hand - are not actually under consideration for exclusion from mining!

Protecting, say, the Arkaroola section of the Mawson Plateau is highly commendable. Great! But it's not the point here! We want to know what your government is doing about Mount Gee, Mount Painter, the Armchair, and the Ridgetop Track, Paul! Thats what your media release is supposed to be about, not something nice you might be doing up the road a bit once you sort a few things out!

In fact, in the circumstances it's deceptive to suggest now that areas of Arkaroola would be off limits to mining if it subsequently transpires there aren't to be any in EL 3258!

So, has Marathon been told they're not to return to some areas? Or they may be excluded from them in the future? If not, what's going to happen if the process Mr. Holloway refers to identifies such areas inside the lease after its been reissued?

Given the repeated emphasis Paul Holloway has been placing on the vital importance of 'Sovereign Risk' in all this, and if he believes - as he apparently does - that he can't simply refuse to reissue an expiring lease to a company that went as far off the rails as Marathon did by their own admission... well, I can't say I feel optimistic about any tough future intervention to defend the environment! The lease is going to expire again in 12 months, Paul, and if Marathon are still around they're going to want another one then, too!...

fear not - front reception is safe!...

The only area that Holloway identified in response to Mark's question was what he calls 'the Arkaroola Lodge.' [The Labor Cabinet's geographic grasp of this issue has been consistently hazy - see Will one of Mike's Minders please buy him a Map? Must we assume that only Greens and Liberals ever go camping in the Flinders?]

Well, it's very reassuring to know that an access shaft won't be able to be driven in from the Arkaroola Resort Front Reception Desk, Paul! But when the heck is the Sanctuary going to get the protection it deserves, and the South Australian people want to give it?

Thousands of people have written to this Government on this issue and public opinion could hardly be clearer. They deserve a clear response. If you're refusing to give the people what they want you need to be brave enough to come out and say it!

The Parliamentary exchange from Tuesday:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On Saturday, the minister [Minerals Minister Paul Holloway] announced that he had offered a brand-new exploration licence over the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to Marathon Resources, the company that had been suspended from drilling following the discovery of illegally dumped waste and other breaches of its licence. Included in the minister's news release was the following statement:

There are some parts of the Arkaroola area that should never be open to mining.

However, last month, on 9 September, in answer to my question, the minister implied that, until his proposed changes to the Mining Act are passed, another mining company could just automatically step in and take over exploration activities if he did not issue a new licence to Marathon. The minister said:

… if for some reason the licence is not renewed immediately, someone else could apply for a licence over that area. The preliminary advice I have is that the Warden's Court would almost certainly issue another licence over that area. There is no power within the act. One of the amendments that the government will be looking at will address that situation. Certainly, the preliminary advice I have is that, if a licence over a particular area is not renewed, anyone else could apply unless, of course, there is some other means of preventing it.

That answer ignores the fact that there is another means of preventing it under the existing act. The minister already has the power to exempt land from the operation of the Mining Act under section 8(1)(c). In fact, Warren Gorge, in the Flinders Ranges north of Quorn, is already an area reserved from the Mining Act. The official reason on the department's website is 'to prevent further mining in a scenic area'. My questions are:

1.Does the minister accept that he does have the power under the current Mining Act to protect parts of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary from mineral exploration?

2.Why does the scenic area of Warren Gorge deserve more protection from mining than the truly breathtaking and iconic areas around Arkaroola?

3.Which parts of the Arkaroola area does the minister think should 'never be open to mining', as stated in his news release on Saturday?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY : The Hon. Mr Parnell put out a press release, totally inaccurate and full of gross dishonesty, and did not refer to the main point I made at the weekend, namely, that the government was developing an environmental management plan for the entire northern Flinders region. We need to understand where the Hon. Mr Parnell is coming from: for a start, he opposes uranium mining, so any excuse that is around he will use. As soon as the Greens have one area closed off, they immediately start campaigning on another, which is fair enough as that is how they work.

The government believes that a much preferable way to proceed is to examine the whole Flinders area and not just Arkaroola, to identify those areas that are of particular iconic value in relation to their geological, environmental or aesthetic significance. The government has been undertaking that exercise in a collaborative effort between the Department for Environment and Heritage and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources. They have been looking at the mineral potential for that region so that in future we can better manage it. As I have indicated in this place on previous occasions, there has been exploration in that region for a century. Uranium was taken out of that region back in 1910 for Madam Curie in her early experiments, and there has been on or off mining and exploration activity since that time.

In future, as has come out of the experience of the past few years, we need to identify those areas of not just Arkaroola but of the whole northern Flinders Ranges which have special value in relation to their geology, tourism value or environmental significance. That exercise has been under way for some months now, and I expect that the Minister for Environment and Heritage will be able to release that information in the fairly near future.

Through continuing the licence Marathon has but keeping on ground and activities under suspension, the government is able to control what happens in that area; in other words, it can restrict any ground disturbing activity at least until two things happen: first, the changes to the Mining Act to which the honourable member referred and which I had indicated in a previous answer; and, secondly, developing this environmental management plan and identifying those areas. The honourable member will have that part of his question answered when that information is released fairly soon. Obviously the government needs to talk to stakeholders involved, which goes beyond just Marathon, as there are a number of other mineral exploration licences over the northern Flinders Ranges and other stakeholders are involved, and the government will discuss it with them before it releases that information for discussion hopefully in the relatively near future.

Given that Marathon's licence expired on Saturday, the government had to make a decision on how it would deal with the situation going forward. Through the extension of a licence but keeping activities suspended, the government has been able to keep control of the situation. Had we not done so—the honourable member read out my previous answer—it would have been possible for any other company to apply for a licence; and, had the government refused and gone to a challenge through the courts, they probably would have been successful.

The difference in relation to Warren Gorge, which the honourable member has raised, is that clearly it is one thing when a licence is not operative to use that part of the act, but I am sure that the courts would take quite a different view if upon renewal the government sought to act on the basis of that implication. I am sure the honourable member as a lawyer would understand that the interpretation would be significantly different had the government sought to set aside some area exempt from mining right at the time that a licence was up for renewal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL : I thank the minister for his answer. When the minister said (on Saturday) that some parts of Arkaroola should never be opened to mining, which parts did he have in mind?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, these have been identified and the report will be out for discussion. The honourable member should wait until he sees it. I have seen it.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink (the Shadow Environment Minister) interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Liberals are always saying that we should consult. They do not understand that it is polite to first talk to the people who are affected. Should they read about it in the newspapers or should we talk to them first and explain it? That is what we will do. We will do it properly. We will consult in the proper way. We will talk to those people who might be affected by this and, obviously, seek their agreement, because there are parts of the Northern Flinders Ranges that are either not within the national park or not within Arkaroola, and there may well be parts that have been identified as of particular environmental significance.

There will be parts that will have a low level of significance and there will be parts that will have a high level of significance, but not quite as essential, if you like, or as significant as others. Clearly, some sort of gradation of that needs to take place, and that is being done by quite extensive surveying of the region, and that is best described through the maps.

What I can say is that the area around the Arkaroola Lodge itself, as I understand it, has been in some sort of geological reserve. They are all matters that will be out for discussion, but we would like to, at least, give the stakeholders concerned some notice first before we make that information public.

arkaroola cyberaction takes off

2009-09-17T10:15:00.003+09:30

The Wilderness Society's cyberaction to defend the Arkaroola Sanctuary has generated an impressive total of correspondence - some 1300 letters at the time of my writing - directed to Premier Rann asking him personally to intervene to save the Arkaroola Sanctuary from the mining lobby.

You can see it - and sign it - online here. You can also see some of the comments people are making in their individual letters, and I've culled a few below to make clear what Australians think of the Sanctuary, and to serve as examples for further correspondence.

liz's message

The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is arguably South Australia's premier ecotourism destination and the very model of the type of business we need to be encouraging to develop in response to the increasing threat of global warming.

donman's message

We really do need to save some wilderness areas for our future generations to enjoy. Mining only lasts a few years - then the wilderness does not return.

earthmother's message

I grew up in Leigh Creek...lucky me. Arkaroola is a sanctuary, many camping trips there are in my childhood memories. People always comment on its beauty in photos. This is a very special place, it needs to be preserved and protected.

Leon's message

Apart from the undesirability of mining uranium in general, there is certainly no justification for desecrating the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to do so. Surely Olympic Dam mine should satisfy any uranium demand?

gillian's message

I have travelled in Arkaroola and fell in love with its remote and untouched grandeur. It has a wild and harsh beauty unlike any other. Please protect its future.

alex's message

In recognition of Marathon Resources record of disregard for the environment in the Arkaroola Sanctuary, and in recognition of the natural value of the sanctuary in the state with the worst record for mammal extinctions in Australia (the country with the worst record of mammal extinctions in the world), I believe it would be a huge mistake, politically and environmentally, to renew the Marathon Mining lease on the sanctuary.

Mz's message

I personally 100% support this campaign, and believe I am representative of a majority of Australians who would wish to see the power and authority of government acting for an ethical and sustainable shift away from natural resource capitalism.
Our times have changed. Our eyes are opened. Our future matters.

anonymous's message

Arkaroola is a national treasure. I spent many weeks exploring it a few winters ago. This small crumpled semi-arid highland peninsula bounded on two sides by flat hot sandplains and the wilderness of the Mawson Plateau on the third is something I will never forget and yearn to revisit. The startling contours of the landforms, the dryland plants (oh, the beauty of those callitris trees) and secretive animals, the bright desert light and startling blue sky are unmatched anywhere. To scar or excavate let alone road or mine even a small piece of this precious place would be nothing less than desecration. If anything, Arkaroola and the adjoining Mawson Plateau should be permanently protected by law so even the idea of mining will never be considered again.

dick's message

I visited Arkaroola in the mid 1970s when I was living in SA. I was very impressed by the natural beauty and diversity of the area and also by the regeneration efforts of the people managing the sanctuary. Mining exploration would jeopardise all that they have done to restore this area to its pristine condition and would destroy its atttractivenss as an eco-tourism destination.

and, finally, my own message

Mr Rann, your Mineral Resources minister Mr. Holloway has spoken of the current system of protecting wild areas as 'imperfect' and of the need to identify those areas best excluded from mining.

He says he has raised this issue with both the Minister for Environment and Conservation, Jay Weatherill, and the SA Chamber of Mines and Energy, and that he proposed negotiations to this end involving conservation groups and landowners.

As Minister Holloway has said 'By and large, the mining industry as a whole does not want to be involved in mining and issues which create public controversy and which create conditions that are to the detriment of the mining industry as a whole.'

All this is commendable - however, it seems remarkably inconsistent with the notion of re-issuing Marathon Resources exploration licence! Did you not describe their activities yourself as 'cowboy'? What could be more detrimental to the image of both your government and of the mining industry?

Go to https://secure.wilderness.org.au/cyberactivist/cyberactions/09_09_arkaroola-cyberaction.php? to make your own contribution.

TWS cyber-action - and where's jay?

2009-09-15T10:36:00.004+09:30

The Wilderness Society has launched a cyber-action targetting the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, asking him to intervene directly to ensure full protection for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

It's available online here. Now it's a very straightforward matter to get your voice heard - please do it, and feel free to circulate the link widely. The Premier must know that he cannot shirk dealing with this matter.

and where's jay?...

Don't you think it's a little odd that the only Minister you are hearing from in regard to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is Paul Holloway, Minister for Mineral Resources Development?

I certainly do! After all, we're talking about one of the state's premier wild regions, and a sanctuary designated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act!

So, where is the Minister for Environment and Conservation - Jay Weatherill - in all this? I've written to ask him (if you are inclined to contact details follow this letter);

The Hon. Jay Weatherill
Minister for Environment and Conservation
Parliament House, South Australia

Proper protection for the Arkaroola Sanctuary

Dear Jay Weatherill,

Firstly, I must say I was pleased to read of your department's recent acquisitions that have expanded the area of parks on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula. I congratulate you on and your department on taking such important steps to preserve the wild characteristics of this important area.

However it is not, sadly, of good news that I intend to write.

I refer to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and your fellow minister Paul Holloway's recent announcement that Marathon Resources' exploration lease will be renewed.

I admit I find myself dumbfounded by your government's strategy in this matter. Here we have a world-class wild area, run as an equally world-class eco-tourism facility (so successfully it was inducted into the SA Tourism Hall of Fame in 2007) - and yet, here we also have an avowedly 'environmentally-conscious' state government that seems to going out of its way to facilitate an assault on an area that should have been a clear choice for full protection.

Now, apparently, your government wants to go so far as to provide a 'second chance' to a company that has already disgraced itself at a time there was the option to simply be rid of them forever to hand! This has to lead to serious questions regarding your government's commitment to the protection of wild areas.

I believe that it was patently apparent from the off that this magnificent wild area is not an appropriate target for the mining industry. I would hope that in your role as Minister for the Environment - and the Minister responsible for the Act under which this sanctuary was declared - that you would agree with this assertion. What part of the state is wilder, or more unique, than the Arkaroola Sanctuary?

Shortly after this poor decision to allow exploration in the first place the Premier compounded matters, rather making a fool of himself by insisting that this proposed mine was only 'near Arkaroola', rather than in the very heart of the Sanctuary! This is a delusion I trust no-one in Cabinet still suffers from! This is also sufficient to entitle the public to genuinely wonder where what sort of attention your government was paying to this matter.

Since that time we have had the illegally buried waste fiasco (not to mention the vandalistic assault on a geological monument) which I'm sure I have no need to elaborate on, and then the farce of trying to get any other region in the state to voluntarily re-house the waste. I suggest that this has not left a favourable public impression of either the mining industry or your government as a regulator of it.

Which leads us to what I would argue is the main problem. Why on earth is it up to PIRSA and its minister to make these decisions in this kind of situation? Are you really content that your colleague, Paul Holloway, acts as a de facto Environment Minister for a vast proportion of the land area of the state? Even in the bulk of the area of our designated reserve system your power to prevent mining is pitted directly against his to endorse it - and as for any other wild area that hasn't had the good fortune to be afforded even this meagre protection… well, you tell me what you can do!

Given this bizarre and precarious situation the 'protections' provided by the Mining Act - including the recent proposed amendments - are meagre consolation to those who value the state's wild heritage.

I refer to those recent proposed revisions. The discussion document that was circulated to accompany their publication contains much that is of grave concern in itself. For a start, an apparently timely - in fact, I'd argue, long overdue - provision to allow for an 'Early No' to proposed projects on public interest grounds, including environmental concerns, is described as being unlikely to make its way into the final draft, due, it would seem, to 'industry concerns'. It is then asserted that an 'informal' advice to the applicant should be sufficient to dissuade them from proceeding. Would you call this 'process' adequate protection for areas of the calibre of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary? In fact, does it even qualify as a process?

Another seemingly long-overdue provision - allowing the Minister to exclude any 'Special Declared Area' from the provisions of the Mining Act on public interest grounds, thereby halting any exploration or mining - is held in the discussion (again, apparently to allay industry fears) to merely be a provision to allow for the assessment of competing claims in highly-prospective areas! So much for the hope that common-sense protection from outrageous proposals was about to be afforded!

But we must still step back still further here - so it's left up to the Mineral Resource Development Minister to determine from the off whether a proposed project is too potentially threatening to Environment and Heritage to proceed? Would you say that this is satisfactory? You could 'have a word' to him, I suppose, much as he's apparently content to leave himself in a position where he could 'have a word' to a company proposing to, say, sink a shaft into the centre of the Mawson Plateau or dig up some Organ Pipe formations on the Mount Ive station (if you think I'm exaggerating here I suggest you go pay a visit to PIRSA's SARIG geoserver some time!)

Does this strike you as a responsible position for any government that maintains it wishes to do the right thing by the environment to hold? I am gravely concerned that for vast areas of the state any 'presumption of innocence' in conflicting land-use claims effectively rests with the mining industry. Consequently I've had to scramble around for 2 years trying desperately to defend one of the state's most spectacular wild regions from a project that should simply never have been given permission to proceed.

I'll add that Marathon's activities have hardly been a great advertisement for the mining industry in this state, either. No-one gains from bad policy.

This is acknowledged by Minister Holloway, and here I would like to quote him, speaking in Parliament at the time of the defeat of Mark Parnell's bill to ban mining in sanctuaries -

I think what needs to be remembered here is that we have a system of national parks where we try to assess values and set the ground rules where mining, which includes exploration, can and cannot take place. Clearly, that system is imperfect. There are some regions of the state, for tourism and other values, that probably are not in national parks but where we still would want to restrict mining. I have certainly been talking to representatives of the Chamber of Mines and Energy, and I think we also need to involve some of the conservation groups, about identifying them so that we can manage it better…

By and large, the mining industry as a whole does not want to be involved in mining and issues which create public controversy and which create conditions that are to the detriment of the mining industry as a whole. They would rather avoid such issues. So, where there are areas of high conservation value or other aesthetic value that are not within national parks or are not within a classification of park that prohibits mining, we need to assess them. I know that my colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation is aware of that, and we are trying to develop a system where we can ensure that we do not have these issues arise. [emphasis mine in both cases]

Can I ask how the development of this system is proceeding? Might I also suggest that the public is entitled to ask you both; if you won't act to protect the Arkaroola Sanctuary, where will you act?

So, ultimately, my question boils down to this; you, as the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, are the ultimate defender of the state's natural heritage; are you really content to see the magnificent Arkaroola Sanctuary go down to the 'mines and miners must be everywhere' lobby on your watch?

Yours faithfully,

Bill Doyle

contact details for Jay Weatherill

The Hon. Jay Weatherill
Minister for Environment and Conservation

Postal Address
GPO Box 1047
ADELAIDE SA 5001

Phone: 8463 5680
Fax: 8463 5681

e-mail: minister.weatherill@saugov.sa.gov.au

dial M for misinformation?!

2009-09-08T16:33:00.014+09:30

Marathon Resources director - and former federal Labor Senator - Chris Schacht has an 'interesting' take on the Arkaroola dumping scandal, and one that's surprisingly easy to contradict, even by taking a quick glance at the the company's own 'Waste in the Wilderness' document, a mea culpa they issued in response to it!

But, nevertheless, here he is on local ABC Radio 891 on the morning of Monday the 7th of September -

It was true we made a mistake on the disposal of waste material, none of which was radioactive … I just simply say to Nicky [a phone-in caller - BJD] what happened was instead of tipping the waste out of the bags into a trench and covering it over, which was legal, we left it in the bags and that was illegal...

Firstly; not radioactive? What are they looking for, treacle? As Greens MLC Mark Parnell responded (see below) "Well, they're wasting their time drilling there then!"

To quote the Primary Industries and Environmental Protection Authority joint investigation..

The inspection of sample bags uncovered in the test pits confirmed that a number of the bags containing sample drill material exhibit radioactivity levels consistent with that of ore grade material.

The investigation confirmed that Marathon Resources did not undertake to advise or request approval from any SA Government regulatory authorities (EPA and PIRSA) in relation to disposal of potentially radioactively contaminated sample bags/waste.

just a little light littering?

One does wonder how Schacht can have felt confident making these claims in public; but with the ABC's Abraham and Bevan at the helm it seems he hardly need have worried overly much! David Bevan even persisted in trying to tease out the notion that the company was merely 'done' for littering! -

Bevan: Yeah, so your offence is you left some plastic bags there?

Schacht: Absolutely and that is a breach of the regulation of which we admit our mistake and have changed.

Bevan: It was littering.

Schacht: Yes, of course.

Let's take a look at the relevant documentation, shall we?

Firstly, here's how the PIRSA / EPA report described the waste:

Test pits excavated under EPA supervision confirmed the presence of 2 large trenches and the extensive burial of drill samples contained within plastic and calico bags.

The excavation of test pits confirmed the burial of general waste including, cardboard, plastic jars, pvc pipe, paper, packing material, a food container and wrapper within the two trenches.

The full extent of burial of sample bags and general waste was not investigated on 16 January 2008 but has subsequently been confirmed by Marathon. Marathon advises that the number of sample bags is likely to be around 22,800.

and further -

Marathon representatives admitted on-site and in other documents subsequently supplied to PIRSA by Marathon that:

Two trenches were excavated with approximate dimensions of 35m (length) x 4m (width) x 2.7m (depth) by declared equipment and filled with approximately 22800 sample filled bags together with general waste.

Marathons disposal of plastic and calico bags containing sample material does not comply with the following PIRSA approval conditions for the use of Declared Equipment dated 1 November 2006 [this is about using large bulldozers to excavate big holes when you're not supposed to- BJD ]:

Condition 2 - The work is undertaken in accordance with that described in your DEF (received 20 October 2006) and subsequent memorandum of 31 October 2006. Where there is a variation between your proposal and this approval, the conditions of this approval will take precedence.

Condition 6 - Due care is taken to prevent unnecessary environmental damage.

Condition 9 - Exploration contractors and field staff be advised of the environmental objectives of the program, and have a clear understanding of their environmental management responsibilities.

PIRSA also issued the following instructions to Marathon -

PIRSA directs that all unauthorised buried drill sample material [NOTE: NOT just plastic bags - emphasis mine] and general waste at this site must be safely excavated and removed from EL 3258. The site must be rehabilitated back to as close as possible to original conditions [NOTE: because they were never entitled to excavate these trenches in the first place].

leave it out!

In other words, Schacht's claim that it would all have been OK if they'd shaken the rubbish out of the bags is as absurd as it appears.

Marathon was not entitled to excavate 2 very large trenches in the heart of the Sanctuary and conceal all the waste in it, bagged or otherwise. They were supposed to have promptly returned the drilling waste to the original drill holes or associated sumps and mud-pits, and to have taken the PPE and other materials off-site altogether for proper disposal.

The whole idea was to minimise your impact on the local environment, guys! As the PIRSA / EPA report makes clear.

And you don't have to look far to confirm this. Here's the relevant excerpt from the company's own publication,'Learning From Waste in the Wilderness'

Appreciating the risks associated with uranium exploration and mining

Marathon’s DEF specifies how its drilling program is to be managed. The DEF also specifies safety measures for planning and managing work at the Mt Gee drill sites and for managing the disposal of low-level radioactive materials and mining samples. The DEF specifies measures for the bagging and burial of drilling samples, noting that these were ‘developed and approved by the EPA’ and ‘will be implemented’. Under these safety measures Marathon was to:

Have staff dispose of used filter cartridges, and personal protective equipment (PPE) in sealed plastic bags placed in steel drums to be then removed from the site and disposed of through the general waste system away from the Arkaroola site; and

Have excess bulk drill cuttings returned principally to the drilling hole...

The DEF specifies that the bulk of material will be returned to the drill hole. [emphasis mine] It also specifies that all sampling (assay, archive and PIRSA representative samples) and down hole logging would be completed within 2 weeks of drilling, to allow rehabilitation of drilling sites to be concluded preferably within 4 weeks of drilling...

Marathon’s Radiation Safety Plan, Environmental Program and its operational procedures were not focused sufficiently on the need to exercise care with the disposal of uranium-related drilling and assay samples as well as clothing and other materials used when drilling for and handling these materials...

There were also operational and technical failures that contributed to bringing about allegations of site contamination, investigation by PIRSA and EPA and the consequent suspension of further drilling, namely:

The bagged materials associated with the drill site were not returned to the main drilling hole and adjacent drill sump at the completion of drilling (as prescribed in the DEF and EPA guidance documents)[my emphasis]. This was because of delays of up to 6 months in receiving samples back from the laboratory. Marathon’s DEF states that ‘…rehabilitation of an individual drill site should be commenced and preferably completed within 4 weeks of drilling, all reasonable effort will be made to keep to this time frame’. Due to increased industry activity, there were lengthy delays in the return of assay results and materials. However, Marathon was obliged to store the materials until each drill hole was signed-off by PIRSA and its error in practice was subsequently to dispose of the materials without PIRSA/EPA approval.[my emphasis]

The used PPE was not bagged and placed in steel cans to be taken away for disposal through the normal refuse system away from the Arkaroola site. They were instead disposed of at the Arkaroola site.

credibility

Now, the company's done a lot of hand-wringing of late, and makes vociferous claims to have turned over a new leaf after they had strayed so far from the righteous path by illegally disposing of the waste.

And yet here's one of their directors and spokespeople making claims that appear to be an attempt to belittle the scale of their own previous transgressions! How will that affect the public perception of their credibility?

Which leads us to, on a lighter note, well, I can only say... wow! Now it's the second biggest uranium deposit in Australia!

I seem to remember the heady days only a few weeks back when it was the 5th! It's amazing what you can discover when you're not actually drilling!

But I'll let Mark Parnell tease out this discussion in the transcript of the 891 discussion, printed in full below.

ABC 891 discussion part II
Tuesday 8th September 2009

David Bevan [ABC Announcer]: The debate over Arkaroola is set to generate more heat than a nuclear power station. We’ve got an unusual alliance of people wanting to preserve the Arkaroola Station forever, no mining there at all. We had Mark Parnell on the program last week along with conservative MP, Nick Minchin and Iain Evans getting together and saying … leave Arkaroola alone, no mining in Arkaroola. Yesterday on this program Chris Schacht … a Director of Marathon Resources, a mining company that’s exploring that region. He was arguing for the case … for allowing Marathon to get in there and explore and provided they meet all of the environmental requirements that the authorities impose on them be allowed to dig the stuff up, that is uranium. Now, Mark Parnell wants to challenge some of the things that Chris Schacht said to our listeners yesterday … let’s just play you a small portion of what Chris Schacht said yesterday...

Chris Schacht, former Labor Senator, Marathon Board member and lobbyist [speaking [07-09-09]:… this is at least a $5 billion deposit.

Bevan: How do you know?

Schacht: Because already what we’ve explored and what we’ve declared to the stock exchange in both inferred and indicative resource and at roughly the present price it’d be around $5 billion...

Bevan: What, uranium?

Schacht: Uranium. It’s the second biggest single deposit of uranium after Roxby Downs …

Phone -in Caller Nicky: … I wanted to ask Chris why on earth we should allow a company anywhere near Arkaroola, that in your exploration was caught red-handed illegally dumping waste? It’s a disgrace and if you think there’s any credibility for this company after that, you can’t even get the exploration part right, what makes you think that we should believe you about a full-scale mine?

Schacht: It was true we made a mistake on the disposal of waste material, none of which was radioactive … I just simply say to Nicky what happened was instead of tipping the waste out of the bags into a trench and covering it over, which was legal, we left it in the bags and that was illegal and we accept that, we made a mistake. We have restructured the company, there’s been changes to the board, we’ve issued a major policy statement on what we’ve done to change the company as a result …

Bevan: Are you saying Marathon was guilty of nothing more than littering with some plastic bags?

Schacht: No, no we broke the regulation.

Bevan: … is that effectively what you did, you left some plastic bags?…

Schacht: No, no, we left the stuff in the plastic bag and buried it.

Bevan: Yeah, but you could have just tipped it out and it would have been fine.

Schacht: But that’s what the rules allow.

Bevan: Yeah, so your offence is you left some plastic bags there?

Schacht: Absolutely and that is a breach of the regulation of which we admit our mistake and have changed.

Bevan: It was littering.

Schacht: Yes, of course. [End excerpt]

Bevan: Okay, that’s Chris Schacht yesterday … Mark Parnell … why do you take issue with what Chris Schacht was saying?

Mark Parnell: There were two main things but I’ll start by saying Chris said none of it was radioactive. They’re wasting their time, they’re looking for uranium, if it wasn’t radioactive what they’ve pulled out of the ground then what on earth are they doing there?

But really the two things that I take issue with, the first of all is it is $5b. Now, people who hang around the stock market and mining companies understand that there are a number of scales of confidence that you can have when you’re looking for minerals. You’ve got things called indicated resources and you’ve got inferred. Inferred is not much more than a guess. Now, Marathon reported to the stock exchange in July this year and then had to put a correction in because they got their figures wrong. Their latest figures are four mega tonnes indicated, 47 inferred. So that 47 is not much more than guess work based on people sitting at computers screens imagining what the resource might be. So it is a long way away from saying this is a $5b resource.

The other thing I take exception to is this idea of waste, that it was just a few plastic bags … the littering. Well, goodness, there were drums, there were bags, there was a backhoe which was taken to part of the national estate. There was plenty of –

Abraham: What, they buried a backhoe or they used a backhoe?

Parnell: … they basically dug their trenches –

Abraham: Well it was 35 tonnes according to ABC News.

Parnell: - 22,000 bags of waste and it’s not just a question of it being the bags that were the pollution, the core samples are supposed to be put back down the core sample poles.

But the backhoe I referred to was referred to in the EPA and the Primary Industries report, basically it was vandalism of a national estate listed geological monument. And this is the so called fluorite deposit. They’ve never found where the material ended up, it’s worth an awful lot of money. [see the Case of the Missing Minerals]

So it wasn’t just a simple matter of littering, there was incident after incident of illegal behaviour and for Chris Schacht to just say … ‘It was just a minor thing and we’ve changed our ways’, I don’t believe him at all.

Phone-in Caller Anne: … I’m very disappointed with the fact that they’re trying to get mining there. It’s worldwide famous for its beauty. There’s plenty of uranium in the Northern Territory … it’s basically glowing with the stuff and I’m very disappointed in Chris Schacht for supporting it.

Phone-in Caller Peter: … the reason why we allow mining in Australia and let these leases is so that the people of Australia can get access to these minerals … in reality the people of Australia can’t get access to these minerals because the plan is to export it. So Australians don’t need the mining to happen.

save arkaroola forum a success!

2009-09-02T18:49:00.008+09:30

The Save Arkaroola forum - held today in the rather grand Balcony Room at parliament house - was a great success, attended by a healthy selection of media representatives and a few dozen interested observers devoting their lunch time to the SA environment.

The forum was jointly hosted by Greens MLC Mark Parnell, and Liberal MP (and former party leader) Iain Evans.

'Surprising!' you might think. In fact, it was a day of 'strange bedfellows', given that Peter Owen from The Wilderness Society and veteran Liberal senator Nick Minchin were also on the bill! It's certainly not often that Greens, TWS, and Liberal politicians agree, but in the case of the prospect of mining the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary the message was clear; 'not here!'

As Iain Evans stated “We should simply tell the mining industry… go look elsewhere!"

Or, to quote Senator Minchin "As a conservative I believe there are things that deserve to be conserved …Arkaroola is one of them."

Attendees were also treated to an enlightening short history of the Sanctuary - and a passionate defence! - from owner Marg Sprigg, an excellent short video presentation featuring some stunning time-lapse video photography, and a collection of beautiful large-format photos depicting the region lining one wall.

If you share the concerns of the panel and could spare a few minutes to send a short e-mail to Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway you'd be doing a lot to help ensure the preservation of the area.

Because - genuinely surprisingly - his department announced last week that it intended to renew Marathon Resources' exploration lease when it falls due on October 10th.

Correspondence doesn't have to be long-winded - believe me, he knows the issues! see the example below - it just has to be on his desk, or his desktop! Because in three weeks the formal notice period ends and the lease renewal is then a certainty.

Please direct it to -

The Hon. Paul Holloway
Minister for Mineral Resources Development
GPO Box 2832
ADELAIDE SA 5001
via e-mail - ministerholloway@saugov.sa.gov.au

Example e-mail to Paul Holloway

SUBJECT: I wish to object to the proposal to renew Marathon Resources' lease in the Arkaroola Sanctuary

The Hon. Paul Holloway,
Minister for Mineral Resources' Development
Parliament House, South Australia

Dear Minister Holloway, I wish to formally object to your intention, as stated in public notices on the PIRSA website as of 27th of August, to renew Marathon Resources' (Bonanza Gold's) exploration lease in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

I call on your government to act decisively to preserve the South Australian environment - just as Mike Rann did last year when he announced that Marathon's illegal dumping was unacceptable and that the company was henceforth suspended from drilling. Please review this decision and permanently remove Marathon's lease, and preserve this unique area from any future depredations by the mining industry.

Yours Faithfully,

Bill Doyle

forum - protection for arkaroola

2009-08-31T09:55:00.005+09:30

The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a spectacular and majestic eco-tourism destination in the SA outback. Established by the legendary Reg Sprigg, the Sanctuary is well loved by tourists, geologists, and conservationists for its breath-taking mountain views, magnificent gorges and waterholes and the geological wonderland of Mt Gee.

Yet, this same Arkaroola Sanctuary is under imminent threat from mineral exploration and uranium mining.

Find out more about this unique and wonderful part of our state from people who have been there and want it protected.

Hosts: Greens MLC Mark Parnell and the Hon. Iain Evans MP

Other Speakers: Senator Nick Minchin

Marg Sprigg (Sanctuary Owner & daughter of Reg Sprigg)

Peter Owen (Wilderness Society)

Wednesday 2nd September 2009

12 - 1pm (please allow 10-15 mins before the forum starts to get through security)

Balcony Room, Parliament House

North Terrace Adelaide

RSVP by Tues 1st September: 8237 9111 / parnell@parliament.sa.gov.au

10/10: Paul Holloway's opportunity to earn full marks

2009-08-10T20:00:00.008+09:30

On the 10th of the 10th this year Paul Holloway, SA's Minister for Mineral Resources Development, has a rare opportunity.

He can earn himself and his government full marks - 10/10 - simply by not doing something!

He can not renew Marathon Resources lease over the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - which expires on that day - and you can ask him to take this golden opportunity, too.

I'm sure you're familiar now with the objections to exploration in such a unique and beautiful area, with the waste dumping scandal that came to light in January last year, the long clean-up that followed, and the company's hand-wringing mea culpas and declarations of having turned over a new leaf.

But the company has consistently claimed it was utilising environmental best-practice, and that its commitment to maintaining a social licence to operate was central to its operations. (See Fox to Henhouse - this time it'll al be different!)

As the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary's owner Marg Sprigg has said 'leopards don't change their spots.' The owners just want the company - and miners generally - gone from the heart of the award-winning Sanctuary they have worked so hard to create.

And who could blame them?

Minister Paul Holloway spoke of the need to identify those areas that are not appropriate for exploration access in Parliament in March last year. As he said, this would benefit both the environment and the mining industry. The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is clearly one of those places; in fact, the ideal place to begin the process of identification and declaration of such mineral no-go zones.

An example letter - mine to the Minister - is attached. As usual, please feel free to attach your own (politely worded) correspondence as a comment below. Other inspiration and information might be found in browsing the site.

Correspondence can be directed to -

The Hon. Paul Holloway
Minister for Mineral Resources Development

GPO Box 2832
ADELAIDE SA 5001

send a letter via e-mail - ministerholloway@saugov.sa.gov.au

Dear Minister Holloway,

In exactly two months time, on 10/10 2009, EL 3258, in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, will expire.

I am writing to ask you, on that day, to earn full marks for yourself and your government – that is, 10/10! I am writing to ask you to neither renew this exploration lease, nor grant it to any other company.

Having written to you before I do not intend to go over old ground in listing my objections to your having authorised this exploration program. After the public exposure of the waste dumping scandal in 2008, and Marathon Resources’ suspension from drilling from that date, I’m sure we’re both only too painfully aware of what an environmental and public-relations farrago has followed.

In fact, I’d argue that if you will not refuse to renew Marathon’s lease, you leave your government open to speculation about both its Environmental bona fides, and precisely how outrageous a company’s actions might have to be before you would be willing to take such a decisive step. I remind you that the Premier himself described Marathon’s actions as ‘cowboy’!

I also remind you that the regulations clearly state that the licensee’s performance in respect of the current program will be taken into consideration when reviewing an application, and that favourable consideration will be given to the granting of a subsequent EL over the same area, or a reduced area, when a licensee has satisfactorily fulfilled all obligations of the previous EL.

The public will quite reasonably expect that these obligations must certainly include any DEF. And, surely, a logical converse; that favourable consideration should not be given where the performance has been so, well, unsatisfactory?

I have recently commented on the proposed changes in legislation your government has put forward, some of them apparently in direct response to the case of Marathon’s activities in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and the deficiencies in existing legislation you yourself have stated had been made apparent by it.

While for the most part I have commended these proposed changes, I want to restate my main objection to them here; the problem is not insufficient Regulation in itself, it is allowing mineral exploration in such a sensitive region in the first place.

I would like to refer you to your own comments made to Parliament in March 2008 –

By and large, the mining industry as a whole does not want to be involved in mining and issues which create public controversy and which create conditions that are to the detriment of the mining industry as a whole. [The emphasis is mine] They would rather avoid such issues. So, where there are areas of high conservation value or other aesthetic value that are not within national parks or are not within a classification of park that prohibits mining, we need to assess them. I know that my colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation is aware of that, and we are trying to develop a system where we can ensure that we do not have these issues arise.

I put it to you that the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is clearly just such an area, and the perfect place to inaugurate the commendable program you refer to.

I will be writing to the Minister for Environment and Conservation asking him to join with you and all the relevant stakeholders in developing just such a system,

Yours Sincerely,

Bill Doyle