hoo-bloody-ray!

At last! Nearly 5 years after we began this campaign against a potential mining operation in the heart of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, we have won!

But we didn't just stop one misguided mining project - we've stopped them all!

As of yesterday virtually all [map] of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary - barring the northern-most tip and some small sections out on the plains near the 4-Mile Uranium mine - and a bit more besides (including the overwhelming bulk of the Mawson Plateau both inside Arkaroola itself and those sections on the adjacent Mount Freeling station) resides safely in the Arkaroola Protection Area, a 62 600 hectare fully-protected area from which the mining industry is completely excluded.

Forever.

If you were also involved in the campaign to get the mining industry out of the Weetootla Gorge in the adjacent Vulkathunha / Gammon Ranges National Park at the Turn of the Century(!) - which also succeeded completely, removing the industry from the entire area of the park in the process - you are now a contributor to a full protection area covering more than 185 000 hectares of some of the most spectacular country in the northern Flinders Ranges.

So well done you!

Here's how Arkaroola's own From the Ark newsletter describes the news on Wednesday, the day before the legislation formally cleared both houses of state parliament:

Chocolate-coloured bubbles are bursting all over Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in a triple celebration this Leap Day. It’s been ONE BIG WEEK and Arkaroola can finally leap headlong into an exciting new future!

Just before 6 pm yesterday, February 28th, the Arkaroola Protection Bill 2011 passed through the Upper House of the South Australian Parliament. The Bill provides permanent protection for Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. All but Arkaroola’s north-eastern panhandle and a narrow strip of plains country will be protected, in perpetuity, from mineral exploration and mining. This historic moment marks the culmination of a five-year campaign to protect Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, following the discovery, in 2007, of illegally buried mineral and general waste by mineral exploration company Marathon Resources. Two Amendments moved by Greens MLC, Mark Parnell, were also passed. The Amendments ensure that the Bill will protect the cultural and spiritual values of the traditional owners, the Adnyamathanha people. Traditional owners will be consulted as a management plan is developed for the Arkaroola Protection Area. The Bill will now return to the Lower House for rubber stamping. This is expected to be finalised in the next couple of days.

Last week, a nomination for National Heritage Listing, developed jointly by Arkaroola and the South Australian Government, was sent to the Australian Government. Dr Graeme Worboys, an internationally respected protected areas expert, worked very closely with Arkaroola and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to distil and articulate Arkaroola’s national geoheritage values. The nomination will now be considered by the Department of Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, and if supported will be passed to the Australian Heritage Council for assessment. There are several steps involved in NHL listing and the process is expected to take twelve to eighteen months.

More than 180mm of rain has fallen across the sanctuary over the past forty-eight hours. There are bubbles everywhere! With more than 900mm of rain recorded for the past two years, and three back-to-back wet summers, a spectacular recovery is now guaranteed. BOOM is the resounding word of the moment, as floodwaters crash over rocks and Arkaroola rides the crest of a bust/boom cycle.

It’s time to take that bottle of bubbly off the ice and celebrate what we have all achieved together. As bubbles burst all over Arkaroola it’s time to leap into the future.

For more information go to: www.arkaroola.com.au/breakingnews.php

Here's how Greens MLC- and tireless campaigner for the protection of Arkaroola - Mark Parnell greeted the news of the passage of the legislation through the Upper House the day before:

The Upper House of State Parliament has just passed a Bill to permanently protect from mining the iconic mountains of Arkaroola in the State’s far North.

The legal protection is the culmination of a long-running community and Greens campaign to ensure this magnificent part of our State is no longer threatened by damaging mining activity.

“This is a wonderful, historic day,” said Greens Parliamentary leader Mark Parnell.

“It’s taken a long time, but finally a law has been passed that ensures the permanent protection of the world famous mountains of Arkaroola.

“If a future Government wants to let the miners back in they will have to over-turn this Act of Parliament. I am totally confident that this will never happen.

“It is wonderful that all sides of politics have finally accepted what the Greens have been arguing all along: that some places are simply too precious to mine,” he said.

In passing the Bill, the Greens moved 2 successful amendments to ensure appropriate consultation with the traditional owners from the Adnyamathanha people over the management of the land.

“As this is such an important piece of legislation, it is vital we get it right and ensure that all traditional owners have a say in how Arkaroola will be managed,” said Mr Parnell.

“The Greens have been very proud to stand alongside the Sprigg Family, Adnyamathanha Elders and the many passionate environmental and heritage campaigners from across the state and across the world who have fought to protect this precious place.

“They can all be very proud of what they have achieved,” he said.

And here's how state Environment Minister Paul Caica described his government's decision:

Mr Caica said the final passage of the unprecedented legislation will ensure the cultural, natural and landscape values of Arkaroola are protected for all time.

“The Arkaroola area is a significant place for the Adnyamathanha People and their connections with this place remain strong and vibrant,’’ he said.

“Arkaroola is among the most magnificent places in the world, defined by towering granite peaks, razor back ridges, and deep gorges, encompassing ancient sea beds with fossils that are up to 650 million years old. It features unique biodiversity and is a haven for national and state conservation rated species, including 160 species of birds and the rare yellow footed rock wallaby.

“The final passage of the legislation will give a defined 62,600 ha area, known as the Arkaroola Protection Area, the highest form of protection and put in place a management planning framework to guide the future conservation of its natural and cultural values and its ongoing accessibility for visitors and scientific research.

“The Arkaroola Protection Area will meet international and national standards for what is defined as a ‘protected area’ and ensure all forms of mining, mineral exploration and grazing are banned.

“The State Government will work with the Adnyamathanha people, the Spriggs family and parties with adjacent interest to prepare the management plan.”

Mr Caica said the final passage of the Bill will mark the completion of the three-stage process to protect Arkaroola that was initiated by the State Government last year.

“The State Government immediately removed the area from operation under the Mining Act, delivered on the special purpose legislation and I am pleased to announce that we also submitted the nomination for national heritage listing on February 22,” he said.

“The South Australian Heritage Council provisionally listed Arkaroola on the State Heritage Register in October last year and they are expected to make a decision on permanent listing in March.”

the mysterious matter of the minister's mail-out

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

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

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!

 

TWS : Tell Mike Rann to protect it!

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...


 

seeking a balance - not a great lookout for sillers!

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?

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!

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!



 

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.

arkaroola cyberaction takes off

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?

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

 

save arkaroola forum a success!

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