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.

mark parnell calls for complete exploration ban at arkaroola

Greens member of the State Legislative Council (upper house) Mark Parnell has just issued a press release calling on the state government to halt any return by Marathon Resources to exploration activities of any type in the Arkaroola sanctuary.

Mark has also introduced a bill into parliament designed specifically to ban mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary (with minor excisions on the eastern margin allowing for Alliance's Beverley 4-mile project).

The company is still suspended from drilling, and any other 'invasive' activities, pending its approved clean-up program - which has not actually begun as yet! (You will probably remember the controversy surrounding finding a dump willing to accept the waste.) Yet the company has announced a gravity survey in Arkaroola commencing today -

Work at Marathon continues on all non-drilling parts of our exploration activities and we are pleased to announce that the Company will tomorrow commence a gravity survey program at our Mt Gee uranium deposit in South Australia.

As mentioned in our resource upgrade announcement released in September, we believe there is potential for further mineralisation in the region of the Mt Gee deposit in EL3258 and this gravity survey will add to the evidence base of the uranium resource.

As announced in August, our Rectification Plan for the clean up at Mt Gee has been approved and we are awaiting instructions from PIRSA on a commencement date.

MARATHON RESOURCES Update to Shareholders 22-10-08

The company issued this statement in the light of a recent collapse in their share price which has seen the stock fall to a low of 21.5c - down from a historic high of $6.98 and a high of $3.28 in the last 12 months. The company puts this down to 'external market volatility'.

So, we're to understand that this year's persistently negative publicity surrounding the unauthorised waste dumping and still-pending clean-up has nothing to do with it, then?

Mark's press release -

Greens MLC Mark Parnell says Marathon must not be allowed to resume exploration of any kind in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The call comes as Marathon has announced it will start more non-drilling exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary from today, despite not even commencing rehabilitation of their old dump sites.

“How can Marathon be let back in to do more damage when they haven’t even started cleaning up their old mess?” asked Greens MLC Mark Parnell.

“As any parent knows: allowing more mess to be created before old mess is cleaned up is a recipe for disaster.

“The whole mining industry is watching the Government’s response to Marathon extremely closely. So far, all they are seeing is minor consequences for major breaches of environmental standards. To blithely continue exploration before completing any sort of basic clean up of past mistakes shows this company has still not realised how wrong their previous actions were,” he said.

Mark Parnell has introduced a Bill into State Parliament to ban all mining activity in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Cross-party support for such a ban is growing with prominent Liberals including Senator Nick Minchin and Iain Evans vocal in their opposition to mining in Arkaroola.

“Marathon behaved appallingly, were caught out and now the Government must show them the door for good. They must not be allowed to re-commence exploration of any kind.

“It’s time, once and for all, for the majestic and magnificent Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to be preserved for future generations without risk of future damage from mining cowboys,” he said.

would one of mike's minders please buy him a map?!

Mr Rann denied that uranium exploration was happening in the Arkaroola sanctuary, saying it was in "an area nearby".

Questioned whether he would rule out mining in the sanctuary, he replied: "There's an exploration licence going on right now and it's in an area outside the area that people are talking about in terms of a national park, so the answer is no."

The Australian 21-01-08

So, Premier Rann, Marathon Resources' uranium exploration program at Mount Gee isn't in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, it's 'nearby'?!

Actually, Mike, it's bang in the centre of the sanctuary, and directly adjacent to - and visible from - the route of the famous Ridgetop Tour.

And the only person who appears to be confused about any claims of 'National Park' is you - though that's the level of protection this area clearly deserves, and the sanctuary's owners thought they had afforded it!

( Though in South Australia even National Park status is no guarantee of safety - the Gawler Ranges National Park, for instance, is literally covered with exploration leases! )

It does look a little foolish defending a controversial exploration operation while not actually knowing where it is, don't you think?

The people of SA do not want a mine in the Arkaroola Sanctuary, Mr. Rann, and you must deal with that. With your facts straight.

Remember: Those wishing to clarify things for Mike can write and tell him what they think: it doesn't have to be hyper-detailed or long-winded, it just has to be polite, to the point, and on his desk! -

The Premier The Hon. Mike Rann

e-mail: premier@saugov.sa.gov.au
Phone: 8463 3166
Fax: 8463 3168