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!

 

RIP SaB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

take a virtual ridgetop tour on the desktop toyota

Stop one: Mount Gee.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Stop two: Mount Painter.

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



Stop three: the Split Rock lookout.

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

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



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

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

In fact, if we zoom in...



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

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



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

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

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

Moving along...



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



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

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

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

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

Moving on we finally reach...



Stop three: Siller's Lookout

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

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

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



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

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

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

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




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

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

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





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



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



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

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

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

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

 



 

it's the pits!

this is the arkaroola wilderness sanctuary...


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


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

Extraordinary, for a start, for what it contains.

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

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

Perhaps because -

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

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

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


it's the pits!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

one-sided article stirs community indignation

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

('Strict conditions' are nowhere defined.)


worthy of comment


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

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


My letter is as follows -

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bill Doyle

it's the minimum!

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

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

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

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

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

punching the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

 

seeking is unbalanced!

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

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

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

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

485 submissions in total

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

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

On Seeking a Balance itself -

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

The figures given for this are -

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



 
for and against

On mining in Arkaroola -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



 

'a strong collective voice'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


'respondents should not be intimidated'


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

the same old line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Tiger in the Atheneum

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

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

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

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

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


the mammalian extinction capital of the world


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

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

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

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

This might even be alluring were it not utter nonsense!


tigers in pall mall


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

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

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

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

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

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


no wallabies in the air-conditioning ducts


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Pirie believes this flaw is distinctively British.

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

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

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

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

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

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


don't drink the Kool-Aid!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOTES

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


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

(3)Pirie: ibid.

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

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


 

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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




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

It only remains to add the Petroleum industry component -




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

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



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

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

What can we conclude from all this?


i heart the mining industry?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


on a technical note

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

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




 

seeking a balance - the missing maps! the whole state

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

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

Take, for instance, Map 1 below -



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

don't submit - make a submission!

Submissions on 'Seeking a Balance - conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges' plan are rolling in.

As we've noted previously, submissions don't have to involve a complex examination of the issues and intricacies of the proposed zoning system. They can be short and punchy should you only wish to make clear your own opposition to the concept of mining being allowed in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. I have chosen something from this genre as the first example piece I've posted below.

Of course, if you are able to find the time to assemble a more complex argument it's also good to tackle any of the broad range of specific issues the document raises - or the questions it leaves begging! Accordingly, I've attached a couple more examples that pursue different lines of argument in more detail.

You don't have to buy into the bizarre idea that some kind of reasonable 'balance' can be achieved by allowing mining in a wilderness area! As a correspondent asks below 'Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau?' Isn't the whole point of conservation areas is that they are excluded from precisely this kind of economic activity? In Arkaroola and the wild northern Flinders Ranges the state government simply cannot have its environmental cake and eat yellowcake, too!

So; don't submit - make a submission! And when it comes to submissions, the main thing is that they arrive on Mr Tyne's and/or Mr Irving's desks - or in their in-boxes - by December 19! Their contact details are posted again below.

There's also an excellent collection of example submissions available at the Save Arkaroola website - see the links at the bottom of the 'how can I help?' page


example one

Gentlemen,

Would NSW allow mining on the Kosciuszcko plateau? Would NT allow mining on Uluru? Would WA allow mining in the Stirling Ranges? Would Tasmania allow mining at Cradle Mountain? Would Victoria allow mining on the summit of Mt Bogong? Would Queensland allow mining on the Great Barrier Reef?

Rhetorical questions but germane ones. Unless one has been to Siller's Lookout on a cool winter's morning its impossible to describe the effect this area has on people. Arkaroola should be our 'secular scared site', to be FULLY and unequivocally preserved as an ecologically contiguous whole forever, not subject to an internecine cartographic 'death of a thousand cuts' and subsequent glossy greenwash campaign ('Seeking a Balance' being a typical example of the latter). Even when I cant get to Arkaroola, I feel better just knowing it is there, and I know I am not alone. I wonder how long I will be able to feel that way.

The fact that it has not been formally declared a national park is a historical anomaly ameliorated only by the excellent stewardship the Spriggs have demonstrated for decades. Why aren't they celebrated even more than they are for being the real pioneers of sustainable eco-tourism in this state?

I will leave the broader political, environmental, indigenous, spiritual and yes, even the economic arguments (see above) for the TOTAL PRESERVATION of this trifling percentage of the state, compelling as they are, to the many others who will surely submit their despairing and bewildered responses to this new government plan. Suffice to say that no government that pursues these policies will ever get my vote.

Save Arkaroola. Save our National Parks system.

example two

I want have to my opinion registered that exploration and mining, and in particular uranium mining, has the potential to seriously damage Arkaroola’s acclaimed tourism operation.

Arkaroola is an area of high conservation value in South Australia. Arkaroola is now known as Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, with official sanctuary status under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

I am very concerned about the water use of a mine. The hydrology of the Flinders Ranges is highly complex. The relationship between aquifers, the surface springs and recharge rates requires investigation so they are not put at risk.

In a submission to the Australian Government in 2007, Marathon Resources advised that it would require 5·5 million litres a day for processing activities should a mining application be approved in the future.

The company would seek water from a variety of sources on the plains and in the ranges. Any approval to extract this measure of water from the region would contravene the government’s own targets and prescriptions around the sustainable use of water resources. It is vital that ecosystems like that in Arkaroola, enduring periods of drought as it did through the 10 years to summer 2008/9, not have their water resources compromised.

I believe that Arkaroola’s water needs to be given the highest level of protection.

Through Seeking a Balance, the government plans to introduce a new regulatory framework that will likely see parts of the Arkaroola landscape, currently protected under Environmental Class A provisions, re-zoned for standard exploration and mining activities. This is totally unacceptable.

The iconic features of Mount Painter and Mt Gee must be protected from invasive activity such as mining.

Arkaroola remains relatively weed-free, with weeds mostly restricted to day visitor areas and watercourses in the southern and south-eastern sections of the property. This situation would change dramatically with the incursion of mining activity in the region as exploration and mining increases the risk of weed introduction.

Even after a decade of drought, the integrity of Arkaroola’s native vegetation, particularly in the Mount Painter zone is highly rated. A fragmented zoning arrangement for sections of this highland area provides little assurance that this will continue.

Arkaroola had the shortest grazing history of any pastoral property in the Northern Flinders Ranges. Much of the sanctuary’s heartland has never carried livestock and plant communities are intact. Great topographic variation provides a wealth of micro-climates and environmental niches. There is great potential for remnant populations of small mammals to have survived on Arkaroola.

Some of the wildest, most elevated, least modified and most biodiverse landscapes in the Flinders Ranges occur in north- eastern districts. Five properties with contiguous landholding provide refuge for remnant, endemic, rare and threatened species, some of which are found nowhere else in the world. They also provide a corridor of connectivity for the movement of dispersing rock-wallabies. With its unique geology and landforms, lack of weediness, intact plant communities, and position as the northernmost protected area in the Flinders Ranges, Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a critical part of a greater Northern Flinders corridor. Despite this, in developing the Seeking a Balance framework, the South Australian Government has failed to deliver appropriate levels of protection for individual species and ignores its own policies that advocate landscape scale conservation The new framework, it is claimed, will balance resource use and conservation, and provide more certainty for mining and exploration companies, landholders, traditional owners and the community.

I believe that Seeking a Balance is inconsistent with other natural resource management policies, is flawed in its methodology, and is skewed toward exploration and mining at the expense of the environment. It is appalling that people like me have to respond in this way to something that should be so far from reality as to be a poor joke. Unfortunately the proposals are real and scary.

example three

To whom it may concern:

I have been informed that the government wishes to "re-evaluate" its zoning on mining activities in the Northern Flinders Ranges. I have deduced from the publication 'Seeking a Balance' that the general aim is for the government to protect certain places of higher environmental/cultural/wildlife/geological/heritage/tourism value within the region, but then open the remaining areas in the region to mining exploration an activities.

I am opposed to this proposal, as there are a number of reasons that this act could be devastating to the area. Firstly, there are a number of endemic species to the area, and if disturbed by mining activities, or if invasive species are introduced through an increase of traffic into previously untouched areas, we could lose plants and animals not found anywhere else in the world.

There are also species that have been endangered that thrive in the area, such as the Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby. The species has a high concentration of colonies along the Arkaroola Creek, however in the proposed re-zoning, there are no bio-corridors linking the colonies in the north with those in the central regions or the north eastern region. Bio-corridors are essential to species survival as they allow the species to move to adjacent areas and to adapt to environmental change.

There are also important issues for Indigenous people, namely the Adnyamathanha People, which are barely even skimmed across in the proposal. Are the traditional owners being consulted on this matter? If so, are their opinions and concerns taken into account, or is this process simply a formality? Please inform me on this matter, as I am very unclear about the process undertaken in this circumstance.

There are also implications for tourism. As Arkaroola is an outstanding example of eco-tourism, the affects of mining exploration and activities going on within the sanctuary are not appealing to potential eco-tourists. The general characteristics of mining, such as water over-use, waste (see Marathon Exploration's inappropriate methods and waste dumping at Mt Gee and Yudnamutana Gorge), as well as pollution (both noise and air etc) will have a negative impact on the landscape, and therefore reduce the appeal to tourists, not to mention all other species that live there.

Geologically, the entire area is significant. There are important features within the area that have scientific importance, including holding information about past climates, which is becoming more and more important in the face of accelerated climate change.

Astronomically, Arkaroola has a spectacular outlook, with very little light pollution and usually fine weather, the star gazing is an attraction for tourists and astronomers. If mining activities are permitted nearby, what sort of affect will the amazing clear skies encounter?

The Euro-entric heritage of the area dates back to the 1840s, with the area being used for a number of different fields. Agriculture did not suit the landscape, and mining was tried and abandoned, and the most appropriate use was found - a wilderness sanctuary. Going back to mining in the area would be a step backwards - does the government want to move forward or backward? We don't need any more reasons for the other states to call SA a "little backwater".

I am also concerned that the mine at Beverly is perhaps not being fully utilised if concentration has turned towards the areas around Arkaroola. Are there issues regarding the Beverly mine that the public should be aware of?

It appears to me that the government are placing mining above environment and conservation in this instance, which is absolutely appalling. That is not what I elected the government to do. I am deeply disappointed that the policy makers have not learned a thing when it comes to over exploitation of resources, environmental degradation, climate change, and environmental irresponsibility. If economy is the states only concern and priority, then we will ruin our precious environment.

Please do not open up areas in the Northern Flinders Ranges to mining and resource exploration and activities that are currently protected. I would prefer to see a higher level of protection to the entire area. As biodiversity does not limit itself to pockets of landscape in the region - neither should the protective zoning.

Please reconsider your proposal to provide better environmental protection of these important areas

Submissions on Seeking a Balance are due in on December 19th (There are rumours of a postponement of this deadline until the end of January next year, but neither PIRSA's nor the Dept for Environment's 'Seeking a Balance' websites currently confirm this. I'll update this information when and if it changes.) They can be e-mailed or posted to;

Email: jason.irving@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8124 4707
Post: Mr Jason Irving
Manager Policy and Planning
Department for Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia

Email: ted.tyne@sa.gov.au
Phone: (+61 8) 8463 3033
Post: Dr Ted Tyne
Director, Mineral Resources
Primary Industries and Resources SA
GPO Box 1671
Adelaide SA 5001
Australia