more mysterious moments; mark's motion makes it!

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

That this council—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

It's a matter of record!

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

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

]

 

what a croc!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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








 

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




 

crocodile tears!

The croc has temporarily returned to its enclosure!

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

 

seeking a balance - the missing maps! the whole state

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

 

first response; environment minister not responsible...

Arrived 14/09/2007

"Dear Mr. Doyle,

On behalf of Gail Gago MLC, Minister for Environment and Conservation, thank you for your email concerning mining in Arkaroola Sanctuary.

While the Minister appreciates receiving your letter, I advise that this matter falls within the portfolio responsibility of Hon Paul Holloway MLC, Minister for Mineral Resources Development and your correspondence has been forwarded to that office for consideration.

Denise Kean
A/Office Manager to the Minister for Environment and Conservation
27/08/2007"

In response to correspondence available below: now is the write time! - run marathon off

one month of deafening silence - and a tale of two premiers!

It's been a month since I put out the call asking people to write to the Premier and the Environment Minister requesting that they clearly state that their government will not support a Uranium mine in the heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary.

Some people have been asking me if I have received a reply. No, I haven't. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has. If you have, please tell me, and forward a copy to me if you can.

Let me remind you, Mike Rann was very quick to jump in when the same company was looking to prospect for Uranium of the Fleurieu Peninsula last year. Not while he was Premier, he announced. And rightly so.

He has consistently portrayed his as an environmentally enlightened and progressive government. I suggest that any such claim would swiftly evaporate in the face of backing such a project, and Cabinet is well aware of this. So, Mike, when will you assure us that such environmental recklessness, targetting Mount Gee, Mount Painter, and Uranium Ridge will not be possible on your watch?

Or will we return, yet again, to the point where there is little of substance to distinguish Labor policy from Liberal policy?

Speaking of which, shortly I intend to attend a briefing on the Mount Gee project from one of its proponents - former South Australian Liberal Premier Dean Brown. He hopes to convince the environmental movement that we can have the mine, and the sanctuary will be little affected.

Frankly, this is extraordinarily hard to believe.

If you share my skepticism, write and ask the Premier why he doesn't simply intervene and proclaim the notion of a mine an impossibility. Just as he did last year when it was the Myponga region that was threatened.

Because, while Myponga is a charming part of the world, no government worth its environmental salt could hope to argue that it was more ecologically valuable than the stunning wilderness sanctuary of Arkaroola.

Contact details and sample letters are available via this link -

now is the time - run Marathon off

Further info is available via the links at right.

Mike Rann: will u save us from the serial U miners?

In October last year, Marathon Resources - the same company that currently proposes to open a Uranium mine in the heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary - delivered notices requiring exploration access to about 20 properties on the Fleurieu Peninsula near the Myponga Reservoir, in order to prospect for Uranium.

The company's Dr. John Santich explained; "Down there at Myponga we've known since we put in the application that it was highly unlikely that we'd ever get a permit to mine, even if we found what you call a viable deposit which would have to be massive and very rich," he said.

"Nevertheless it's worth exploring, it's worth getting that knowledge."

The locals were understandably unhappy at the prospect, 'unlikely' or not, and Mike Rann swiftly intervened, announcing that his Cabinet "would never approve a uranium mine anywhere near the Myponga Reservoir". As it shouldn't.

In November of that same year Fleurieu residents were calling for a complete ban on uranium mining on the peninsula. An ABC article of the period notes that while Marathon would not be doing any exploration on the Fleurieu, the Mineral Resource Development branch of the Dept. of Primary Industries would! They too apparently believe "it's worth getting that knowledge". Just out of interest. After all, it might be "massive and very rich"!

The Advertiser (18/08/07) has just reported the departing head of the Environmental Protection Agency's advice to the state government. Dr. Paul Vogel stated that the mining boom would confront "difficult" environmental, social, economic, and equity issues;

We will need a really good policy framework so we don't trade off the extinction of a species for the export of uranium, for example.

Hear hear.


While Mr. Rann clearly acknowledges that a good policy framework does not allow uranium miners in the Myponga catchment, surely he cannot believe that allowing a Uranium mine in the heart of the Arkaroola sanctuary constitutes good governance?

As Dr. Vogel says, lines will have to be drawn. And if a landscape of the calibre of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary isn't firmly placed in a 'safe' zone, what can we hope would be protected?

Mr. Rann, the company is not up there merely sating its curiosity. It intends to mine, if you let it. A responsible government must not sacrifice the jewels of our unique natural heritage in a headlong rush to be "the Saudi Arabia of Uranium" (Mike Rann, 17/04/07)

ACT NOW

Write to the Premier and Environment minister asking them to halt the Arkaroola project now. See the 'Now is the Write time' article in this journal for details.

now is the write time - run Marathon off!

The heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary is not an appropriate place for a Uranium mine. Despite claims that are being made about the environmental benefits of nuclear power and the recasting of Uranium as a 'clean, green' fuel, this central fact remains.

In fact, the sanctuary is not an appropriate place for a windfarm, solar tower, or geothermal plant (developments whose environmental benefits are much less open to question than the nuclear industry's).

It is a perfectly appropriate place for what it is - a wilderness sanctuary, managed for conservation and sensitive tourism - and we need to be active in insisting that this is the role it continues to play.

act now to preserve the sanctuary

Marathon, the would-be wilderness miners, are claiming state government support for their project (see Marathon to run in Arkaroola Sanctuary in this journal) We need to tell the state government that we do not support this kind of development. Please take the time to write to the Premier and the Environment Minister (contact details below) telling them so.

I have put a copy of my own letter to the Premier below by way of inspiration. A letter does not have to be long, but the more personalised it is, the more weight it carries. So please feel free to extend, abridge, or modify my letter, or write your own from scratch. Naturally there is more information available in the 'marathon to run' posting referred to above, and available at right in the July archive.

Please do structure the letter formally, with full addresses for parliamentarians and yourself. Letters can be sent by e-mail, either in the body of the text, or, more formally - and probably more effectively - as a separate Word document or PDF attachment.

And remember the golden rule - always be polite (and reasonable in tone)!

let's see your letter, too!

For the sake of getting together several examples of letters for people to get ideas from please feel free to either e-mail them to me to post on this blog, or post the body of the text (we don't really need to repeat addresses and salutations, nor do we need to publish your address!) into the comments section below this posting.

And yes, this is an effective lobbying technique - I know from previous discussions with (not always delighted) Environment Ministers! The UnknownSA mailing list has previously been integral to some of the largest and most successful mass-mailing campaigns in the state's history, and we have a fully-protected, mine-free Gammon Ranges / Vulkathunha National Park and the half-million hectare Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area to show for it!

Dear Premier Rann,

I am writing to you as I am concerned that the mining company Marathon Resources claims that it intends to mine Uranium at Mount Gee, in the heart of the Arkaroola Sanctuary - a beautiful region of immense biological significance that I consider to be a completely inappropriate venue for such a project.

I am genuinely alarmed that this group claims to have state government backing for it. According to the company's Dr. John Santich on their website 'we have essentially the approval of the state government'.

I sincerely hope that this is not the case. The company may not 'see any particular stumbling blocks to its development', but I certainly can - this project is being proposed for the heart of South Australia's premier private wilderness sanctuary! This is an internationally famous eco-tourism destination of immense importance, and Mt. Gee itself is only 2km away from Mt. Painter, the most well-known peak in the northern Flinders Ranges.

I urge you, if the company's claim is true, to retract any support you may be giving this project, and, if not, to publicly disassociate your government from it. I am confident that for the majority of South Australians this proposed assault on an icon will not be acceptable, despite any of the contentious 'benefits' being claimed for the Uranium it may produce.

Yours Sincerely,

Bill Doyle

Thanks in anticipation of your efforts on behalf of the environment. Here's those addresses -

CONTACTS:

The Premier The Hon. Mike Rann

Write: PO BOX 2343 Adelaide SA 5001
Phone: 8463 3166
Fax: 8463 3163

e-mail: premier@saugov.sa.gov.au

The Minister for Environment and Conservation
The Hon. Gail Gago MLC

Write: GPO Box 1047 ADELAIDE SA 5001

Phone: 8463 5680
Fax: 8463 5681

e-mail: minister.gago@saugov.sa.gov.au