savearkaroola launched!

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

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!

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!

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.

TWS cyber-action - and where's jay?

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

 

10/10: Paul Holloway's opportunity to earn full marks

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

 

holloway announces a formal end to the clean-up

Perhaps we've all encountered those families where one sibling in the brood routinely bullies the rest, while pusillanimous parents fail to intervene to protect the victims in the name of not 'taking sides'?

I couldn't help but be reminded of this while reading SA mineral resource minister Paul Holloway's statement to parliament announcing the formal completion of Marathon Resources' clean up at Mount Gee in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The whole statement is appended below.

The section that called to mind those unhappy families was this one -

The Northern Flinders Ranges has high scenic, environmental and ecotourism values, but equally high prospectivity for copper, gold, uranium and other metals. The area is also now recognised for having high prospectivity for the development of geothermal energy. The challenge for Marathon Resources—in fact, for all explorers in this region—is to show how the mineral and energy resources can be extracted from this region in a manner that preserves the environmental and scenic values

'Equally high'? As the contemporary shibboleth much loved in managerial and political pronouncements goes 'are we comparing apples with apples here?'.

Answer - No.

Firstly, where the hell is the supposed 'dilemma'? Given that most of the other areas of the state that show similar high mineral or geothermal prospectivity don't have similar high scenic, environmental or ecotourism values then any non-daft person would likely conclude you should do the one set of excavatory things there and leave the really pretty bit for future generations to admire. Wouldn't they?

I am the last person to dismiss arid and semi-arid flatlands as 'featureless' and 'valueless' in themselves. But, surely, where such ecosystems are replicated on a broad scale across the state it makes more sense to target them (well away from key 'niche' areas such as existing reserves, rockholes, foredunes and claypans), rather than assaulting the unique and limited habitats of the northern Flinders Ranges?

I'm also no fan of uranium mining, but that is not the point here.


false equality


Am I the only one who finds all these 'what are we to do, we have two completing claims here that are of equal merit' claims to be irritating, and perhaps just a little dishonest?

For, like the dysfunctional family outlined above, the power distribution here between the sides is scarcely equal! The Arkaroola Sanctuary's owners do not want mineral exploration there, the Sanctuary's friends do not want mineral exploration there - and yet the explorers are there; simply because the mining industry is the domineering larger sibling of the state, while environment, heritage and tourism must take what scraps they can.

Marg and Doug Sprigg had every reason to believe that they had established an international-standard reserve and eco-tourism venture that they could be confident would be preserved for posterity.

Instead they have been subjected to several years of stress and anxiety because of the silly aspirations of the 'right to mine anywhere' lobby. Both the SA Chamber of Mines and Energy and the Department for Mineral Resources Development should hang their heads in shame! What a way to treat a South Australian icon!

And now Holloway is announcing a further prolonging of the agony! Sure, exploration drilling is still suspended pending legislative changes the necessity for which was specifically brought to light at Mount Gee. But will no-one in the industry camp do the decent thing and join Senator Minchin and Ian Plimer in stating unequivocally that there must be limits on where we can mine, and at the Arkaroola Sanctuary they have clearly been reached?

And an apology is the least that they owe the Spriggs.


'the challenge' is to ignore reality!


As for 'the challenge' Paul Holloway outlines - give me a break!

I thought Labor's hard-headed realists were supposed to accept the whole 'you-can't-have-your-cake-AND-eat-it' thing?

Either mining is introduced and systematically degrades the high-conservation value areas of the Flinders Ranges, or we sustain the high-conservation values themselves.

All other claims are mining industry spin that only looks more risible in the light of what has actually happened at Mount Gee. Holloway cannot hold two mutually-contradictory positions to be equally valid by refusing to accept this!

As for other prospectivity, the current geothermal blowout unfolding further north at Innamincka is exactly the kind of thing that should remind us that Arkaroola just ain't the spot for drillrigs, however beneficently they may cast themselves.

I've said before that it wouldn't matter if they were attempting to mine clotted cream or the Milk of Human Kindness in the Arkaroola Sanctuary - it simply isn't the place for it. It's not hard to grasp. No mines, no wind-farms, no free clinics dispensing much-needed anti-retrovirals, no global peace summit conference centre and day-spa for cancer victims, no lost-big-eyed-puppy shelters at Mount Gee!


and hey! - where's jay?


And where is environment minister Jay Weatherill in all this? While Paul Holloway is attempting to persuade us he's pulling off some Solomonic balancing act, where's the man who should be vigorously defending this unique region on behalf of us all? I must write to him and find out...


Paul Holloway's statement follows;

MARATHON RESOURCES

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:27): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement in relation to Mount Gee in the Northern Flinders Ranges.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Primary Industries and Resources SA and the Environmental Protection Authority have recently finalised their assessment of rectification work following breaches of the licence conditions pertaining to Exploration Licence 3258, held by Bonanza Gold and operated by Marathon Resources. I table the Closure Report (Independent Verification of Rectification Works EL3258). This report is now available online from the PIRSA website.

PIRSA, in consultation with the EPA, is now satisfied that rectification works have been completed in accordance with the approved Rectification Plan and Formal Notification. All general waste recovered from Hodgkinson, Mount Gee West and Mount Gee East sites have been removed from the exploration lease, and radiation screening has indicated that all general waste was non-radioactive. Radiation surveys conducted prior to excavation and post-rectification works confirmed that radiation levels have not changed. All mineral samples, including the mildly radioactive samples, were safely removed from bags and drums and reburied under two metres of clean and compacted soil within the same or similar geological and soil formations.

Marathon's activities on this exploration lease brought to light some deficiencies in compliance and enforcement provisions of the Mining Act 1971 that need to be strengthened. In the coming months, I will be giving notice of proposed amendments to the Mining Act. As indicated to this council previously, the government will not contemplate any further ground disturbing activity by Marathon Resources on Exploration Licence 3258, at least until that legislation is in place.

The Northern Flinders Ranges has high scenic, environmental and ecotourism values, but equally high prospectivity for copper, gold, uranium and other metals. The area is also now recognised for having high prospectivity for the development of geothermal energy. The challenge for Marathon Resources-in fact, for all explorers in this region-is to show how the mineral and energy resources can be extracted from this region in a manner that preserves the environmental and scenic values

The Report can be found here:

http://minerals.pir.sa.gov.au/sa_mines/licence_suspension

 

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

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

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

As Marg told Local ABC 639 this morning -

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

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

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

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

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


"it's a bit odd..."


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

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

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

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


notice of entry 2 - the sequel!


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

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

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

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

Marg Sprigg again -

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


we only want to be nice!...


The Marathon release also states -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PIRSA made us do it!

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

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

This point gave rise to an amusing observation from Marg -

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

oblivious to the damage caused...


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

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

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

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

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

 

Has Marathon run its race?

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

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

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

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


a notice of entry


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

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

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

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


'i have no intention whatsoever of approving that'


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Any public benefit' indeed!

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

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

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


it is a big deal


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

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


let's identify all the mining exclusion zones


So now the focus changes.

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

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

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


the full parliamentary transcript thurs. feb 5th

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARATHON RESOURCES

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

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