Archive for the ‘National’ Category

Australia’s Liberal-National Coalitions’s Nuclear Cowboys

June 6, 2019
Crackpot stuff’: Coalition MPs’ call for nuclear power inquiry rejected by Greens,  Guardian, Sarah Martin, 5 June 19, Sarah Hanson-Young says the Nationals who have raised nuclear energy are ‘lunatic cowboys’   The Greens have labelled Coalition MPs pushing for an inquiry into nuclear power as “lunatic cowboys”, pledging to block any move to overturn Australia’s nuclear ban in the Senate.

As conservative MPs move to establish a Senate inquiry into nuclear power when parliament returns next month, the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has invited the former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce to debate her in the “town he thinks it should be built”.

“Talk of overturning the ban on nuclear power in Australia is crackpot stuff,” Hanson-Young, who is the party’s environment spokesperson, said.

“Aside from being a dangerous technology, nuclear power is wildly expensive and would take a decade or more to build.

“It would be a funny joke if it wasn’t so embarrassing to have the Nationals, who are in government and who sit around the cabinet table, pushing for this.

“These people are meant to be in charge, and they’re running around like a bunch of lunatic cowboys.”

The comments from the Greens come after Queenslanders Keith Pitt and James McGrath indicated they would push for a select committee into nuclear power in the first week of parliamentary sittings in July, saying technology has changed since the country last reviewed its prospects in 2006………

The New South Wales deputy premier, John Barilaro, has also thrown his support behind the nuclear push, saying despite the debate over emissions reduction the nuclear “solution” was seen as too “politically risky”.

“Now is the right time for Australia to begin a mature and fact-filled conversation on the benefits of nuclear energy,” Barilaro said.

The Australian Nuclear Association has supported the new inquiry, saying deep cuts to emissions would be best achieved with nuclear power, with thetechnology cost competitive with coal and gas if carbon pollution is priced.

The association’s Robert Parker said removing the ban on nuclear power that currently exists in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act would enable industry to start negotiations with suppliers about building a nuclear power plant at the lowest possible cost.

But Hanson-Young said the Greens would be pushing to strengthen the EPBC Act and would fight any moves to water down the ban on nuclear.

“We need stronger environment laws that continue the ban on nuclear energy,” Hanson-Young said.

“Nuclear energy is an old technology that Australia doesn’t need and has outgrown. We are moving toward a renewable energy future. It’s happening, it’s here and the government should be enabling it, not trying to revisit a dangerous and outdated technology.”


In promoting nuclear power, Australia’s nuclear shills are also promoting coal

May 27, 2019

Coal and the nuclear lobby (updated), John Quiggin  AUGUST 13, 2018It’s reasonable to ask why I would bother arguing about nuclear power, given my frequently expressed view that it’s DEAD AS A DOORNAIL. The problem is that nuclear fans like Ben Heard are, in effect, advocates for coal. Their line of argument runs as follows

(1) A power source with the characteristics of coal-fired electricity (always on) is essential if we are to decarbonise the electricity suppy
(2) Renewables can’t meet this need
(3) Nuclear power can
Hence, we must find a way to support nuclear

The problem is that, on any realistic analysis, there’s no chance of getting a nuclear plant going in Australia before about 2040 (see over the fold). So, the nuclear fans end up supporting the Abbott crew saying that we will have to rely on coal until then. And to make this case, it is necessary to ignore or denounce the many options for an all-renewable electricity supply, including concentrated solar power, large-scale battery storage and vehicle-to-grid options. As a result, would-be green advocates of nuclear power end up reinforcing the arguments of the coal lobby.

Looking at the argument set out above, point (1) is generally taken as self-evident, even though the idea of baseload demand is basically a nonsense, at least until the renewables share gets much closer to 100 per cent.

Point (3) is based on the claim that since France did this 40 years ago, Australia can do it today. The fact that France has long since lost the special characteristics that made its dash for nuclear power possible isn’t even considered.  When I looked at the issue a few years ago, I concluded that only China had anything like the characteristics needed, but nuclear power has stalled even there.

Coming back to the Australian debate, it’s striking that it’s still going on, given the negative findings of the SA Royal Commission, established at the behest of the nuclear lobby. But I’ll spell out the problem one more time. Let’s look at the most optimistic possible timetable. The hardest evidence relates to the time between the issuing of a contract to build a nuclear power plant and the connection to the grid. The best-case scenario is that of the KEPCO contract in the UAE, one of the rare cases where the construction phase was completed on time and on budget. There have, however, been unexplained delays in startup.  The contract was signed in December 2009 and, on current projections, the first plant (of four) will be connected to the grid ten years after that, at the end of 2019.

So, to get nuclear power going in Australia before 2040, we’d need signed contracts by 2030 at the latest. What needs to happen before that goal can be achieved.

* First, obviously, both major parties need to be convinced of the case for nuclear power. That’s highly unlikely but let’s suppose it can somehow be done by 2020

* Next, the current ban on nuclear power needs to be repealed. This ban looms large in the  minds of nuclear fans, but actually it’s such a minor problem we can ignore it

* Next, we need to set up, from scratch a legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear power, and establish and staff a regulator similar to the US NRC. Bear in mind that there is essentially no one in Australia with any relevant expertise. I’d be surprised if this could be done in five years, but let’s suppose three

* Next we need to license designs that can be built here and, at the same time, completely remodel the National Electricity Market in a way that makes nuclear cost-competitive with both gas and renewables, while not opening the door for new coal (again, three years would be incredibly optimistic)

* Next we need to identify greenfield sites for multiple nuclear power plants, almost certainly on the east coast, and go through the processes of EIS, Environment Court and so on. In any realistic view, this would never succeed, but let’s suppose another three years.

After all that, we have to find companies willing to build the plants, and organize the necessary contracts. Given the absurdly opimsitic schedule set out above, this would have to be done inside a year. In summary, even on magical assumptions it would be impossible to get nuclear power going in Australia before 2040, by which time we would already have had to close most of the coal-fired generation fleet. It follows that the only effect of nuclear advocacy is to prolong the life of coal-fired power to the limits of technological feasibility.

In practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. Tony Abbott understands this. It’s a pity that Ben Heard and others don’t.

Australia can be a global leader on combating climate change, and rejecting nuclear

May 25, 2019

Australia is now a divided society.  The Adani coal mine dispute is symbolic of this division. The majority see climate change as an urgent issue.  But others see coal mining as a lifeline for rural communities.

It is now the job of the environmental movement to explain to those communities, how clean energy is economic – provides jobs, can revitalise rural areas, can play  a role in conserving  water, and bring this society together, in positive action.

We also need to revive Australia’s role as a good global citizen.  It takes a comedian to work this out. Charlie Pickering of the ABC’s “The Weekly” pointed out that Australia emits less than 2% of global greenhouse gases.  The big emitters, like China and USA emit far more. (graph – not perfectly accurate, adjusted from Charlie Pickering’s Facebook.  )

However, the countries like Australia, that emit 2% or less of the total, together make up 41% of the global total, the largest contributor.  If these countries together took action on climate change, they  would make a major difference. But if each decides that they’re too small to matter, – the world is in trouble,

Australia used to be a leader in so many humanitarian and environmental areas.  What Australia does IS WATCHED by the world. Australia has the opportunity to act on global warming, and show itself once again to be a good global citizen. Australia needs also to retrieve its former international respectability , also by giving REAL help to Pacific Islanders, as sea levels rise.  (We also might want help from other countries when we have an environmental crisis, e.g bushfires.)

The Greens get it. Labor might get it.  The COALition have shown that their loyalty is to the fossil fuel industries, not to the Australian public.

In working to deal with the climate crisis, we must not fall prey to the blandishments of the nuclear industry. Their shills will be coming out from under their rocks, touting nuclear power as the cure.  It’s like how the tobacco lobby might recommend smoking as a cure for obesity, (a thought first expressed by Dr Helen Caldicott.)

Josh Frydenberg, driving force in Australian government, determined against further action on climate change

May 20, 2019

Don’t be fooled by folksy, blokey Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The suave and slick Josh Frydenberg is the brains of the outfit. And he knows whom he is working for –  the fossil fuel industries, not the public.

Our plan is very clear’: No climate revamp for re-elected Coalition,  Australians should not expect any change to the Liberal-National government’s climate change policies after their federal election win.   SBS, 20 May19

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has hosed down any suggestion that the Coalition will be going back to the drawing board on climate change after the government’s come-from-behind election win.

“Our plan is very clear and it’s the plan that we took to the Australian people,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has hosed down any suggestion that the Coalition will be going back to the drawing board on climate change after the government’s come-from-behind election win.

“Our plan is very clear and it’s the plan that we took to the Australian people,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.

Mr Frydenberg was among Coalition members who faced a swing against them on Saturday, in the face of challenges from independent or Green candidates campaigning largely on climate change.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott lost his seat to Independent Zali Steggallfor whom climate change was pivotal.

As the results rolled in, outgoing MP Julie Bishop said the Coalition must reassess its position on climate change and possibly revisit former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s signature energy policy.

“It will have to end the uncertainty and the National Energy Guarantee was the closest thing we had to a bipartisan position.” …..

Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek hopes the government finally grapples with climate and energy with a policy aimed at bringing down pollution, reducing power prices and boosting investment in renewables.

“How is this government going to manage that when they are still so broken inside with climate change deniers on one side and people who at least accept the science on the other side, but 14 different energy policies?”

Australia’s grim election result – anti-climate action, pro nuclear, Liberal Coalition returned to power

May 19, 2019


The election result was not what was expected. Progressive Australians are still reeling from the shock – of another 3 years of a government whose loyalty is to the fossil fuel industry and to the nuclear lobby.

The Scott Morrison government has no plans, no idea at all, about how Australia might genuinely aim to meet its Paris climate change commitments.

It seems that most Australians were taken in by Scott Morrison’s simplistic message   “I alone can manage the economy, cutting taxes (for the wealthy) is all that is needed” . The message of  Labor and The Greens comprehensive policies did not come across.

A Trump -like victory, a Brexit like victory – grim years ahead for Australia.

The goal of a clean, positive programme for energy, climate, water, and the environment must not be abandoned. Progressive Australians, whether in Parliament, in the Senate, in the media, or in the environmental movement will not give up.

Australian government conning South Australia about “Temporary” nuclear waste dump. (more like Permanent)

May 12, 2019

Susan Craig Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 10 May 19, 

I spoke directly with the Department of Industry and Science recently who advised that once the National Waste Management Facility site was selected, they would advance the process of selecting a location for deep geological permanent solution, as the Intermediate Level waste was “temporary.” However, the report attached does not support this, stating that the ILW is “indefinite” and there are no plans for a permanent safe solution, because it can’t be justified and both ILW and LLW will be co-located.
The only safe and ethical ultimate solution is disposal in a deep geological repository. To store the ILW temporarily and indefinitely, in the hope that future generations will come up with a safe solution and furthermore assume they will have the financial resources to implement them is an unethical neglect of responsibility and a deliberate, conscious act to burden us who are alive today and future generations.
Intermediate level waste is 100% lethal. You’ll die in 4 – 5 weeks after exposure and it is radioactive for tens of thousands of years. We have been told that the ILW store was “temporary”. However, we now know it is “indefinite.” See page 65 titled Deep geological disposal.
Susan Craig LINK TO THE REPORT HERE ALSO:…/report_on_public… Roslyn Allen More government lack of responsibilities/pass the buck mentality, also cover up hoping no one will notice.
I wonder how they will feel if one of their children/grandchildren become contaminated in the future due to lack of duty of care to their constituents that voted them in. This reads a lack of care, lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation and a lack of understanding of the time frame.


Kazzi Jai Oh, they will continue to promise “the world” if they can manage to SHAFT the NUCLEAR WASTE ONTO SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SO IT BECOMES SOLELY SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S PROBLEM!!


Lucas Heights is the First to say Not in My Backyard…and they generate over 90% of the non-mining nuclear waste!

They generate it – their problem – particularly after THEY decided to build OPAL – which we did not really need as we had already shown we could access imported isotopes when the reactor was down for months at a time, and our usage has not increased since that time, but in fact decreased!

According to Adi Paterson at Budget Estimates 2017, Australian hospitals use 28% medical isotopes and rest – 72% – are exported overseas (2017 figures).

And they now intend ramping up production from 550,000 doses per annum to 10 million doses per annum – to become one of the leaders in export of medical isotopes!!

Leave the waste there on site at Lucas Heights – they have ample space to accomodate it – they are licenced for many decades yet to hold it – it is safe there, monitored professionally there, and it is secure there. That is the way the world is now heading with nuclear waste – storing it close to the site it is generated – until a solution can be found for dealing with it properly once and for all, which does not involve burying it and effectively abandoning it – which means it remains a liability for future generations to deal with!

Noel Wauchope A glaring example of the duplicity which pervades this entire nuclear lobby push . It is surely aimed at making South Australia a “nuclear hub” for the world. This whole crooked enterprise will make a few individuals rich and famous, while ensuring South Australia a prominent place in radioactively poisoning the planet. more

Liberal and L:abor collude in covering up Australia’s nuclear waste dump plan, but rural South Australians are aware

May 5, 2019

Dump opponents meet on ‘country in between’–country-in-between Michele Madigan, 02 May 2019

We are the joy, the sadness, the anger and the peace.’ With these moving words, Adnyamathanha Elders Aunty Enice Marsh and Geraldine Anderson opened a significant gathering in Port Augusta last month. People from the Flinders Ranges and the Kimba farming region, still threatened by the federal government’s plans to deposit the nation’s radioactive waste, met again ‘on the country in between’.

For some months now, no further government decisions have been taken — or at least not conveyed — as to the preferred final site for the nation’s long-lived intermediate and low-level nuclear waste.
On 18 December, following the Barngala people’s similar move in August against the Kimba Council, the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) of the Flinders Ranges took to court the local council’s ruling to exclude non-resident Traditional Owners from a community ballot on the matter. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, representing ATLA pro bono, see the situation as a justice issue. The 30 January decision deadline has come and gone.

Peter Woolford is the chairperson of the aptly named ‘It Goes Against the Grain’ group of farmers and townspeople of the Kimba region who oppose the dump and its threat to their international grain markets. From his long interview for the 7.30 Report on 28 March, only a few brief words survived the final cut, but he was pleased it was his main point: ‘We’re not activists — I’m a third generation farmer.’

His report to the Port Augusta gathering spoke of much activity, notably that the anti-dump farmers’ stand at the Cleve Field Days had attracted 1000 petitions. Meanwhile, farmer colleague Tom Harris, now on the Kimba Council, provides ‘some balance’ to the otherwise pro-dump farmers/townspeople councillors.

Originally bound to the Flinders by the tragic loss of his ten year old brother there in 1959, Greg Bannon, chairperson of FLAG (Flinders Local Action Group), paid tribute to the Adnyamathanha: ‘Support from the TOs in community from the start has been great and inspiring and has given strength to the rest of us who have no home but here.’ FLAG’s many activities include writing letters, making submissions, media appearances, presenting to the local council, and more.
Meanwhile the mental anguish of community conflict and concern — either for country or from the cash benefits promised by government — continues within both communities. The 7.30 Report highlighted this, with people on both (mainly pro) sides of the issue given voice. As Woolford wondered aloud to us in Port Augusta: ‘How is our town to heal, whichever way the decision goes?’

How can serious environmental matters in South Australia become as important in the national consciousness as those in the eastern states?”

Also in April, Friends of the Earth associates, Mara Bonacci and Dr Jim Green, travelled to Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Lincoln to meet with councils, election candidates for the Division of Grey, trade unions and Traditional Owners. Months after independent environmental expert David Noonan’s careful study of government documents revealed the ports named to possibly receive the nuclear waste, local people including council members of proposed port towns, still had no idea of this reality.

Younger members of the areas affected are speaking out. Adnyamathanha Candace Champion is standing for the Greens in the coming election. The Kimba young people are asking why they have been given no voice. As Adnyamathanha law student Dwayne Coulthard declares: ‘South Australia is being smashed right now — UCG [Underground Coal Gasification], the Bight and the Nuclear Waste Dump. How do we make this a reality for people?’

Good question! How can serious environmental matters in South Australia become as important in the national consciousness as those in the eastern states? Australia’s intermediate nuclear waste will be dangerous for 10,000 years. As Mara Bonacci explains, ‘It’s Australia’s waste, it’s a national issue, the burden of responsibility shouldn’t fall on two small regional communities.’

The SA Catholic Church recently suffered a great loss at the sudden passing of a key priest, Denis Edwards. Author of many internationally known books on a Christian response to the ecological crisis, Edwards had no hesitation in becoming a No Dump Alliance member: ‘I believe we are called by God to love and to respect this land as a gift, and to protect its integrity for future generations.’Good question! How can serious environmental matters in South Australia become as important in the national consciousness as those in the eastern states? Australia’s intermediate nuclear waste will be dangerous for 10,000 years. As Mara Bonacci explains, ‘It’s Australia’s waste, it’s a national issue, the burden of responsibility shouldn’t fall on two small regional communities.’

The SA Catholic Church recently suffered a great loss at the sudden passing of a key priest, Denis Edwards. Author of many internationally known books on a Christian response to the ecological crisis, Edwards had no hesitation in becoming a No Dump Alliance member: ‘I believe we are called by God to love and to respect this land as a gift, and to protect its integrity for future generations.’Good question! How can serious environmental matters in South Australia become as important in the national consciousness as those in the eastern states? Australia’s intermediate nuclear waste will be dangerous for 10,000 years. As Mara Bonacci explains, ‘It’s Australia’s waste, it’s a national issue, the burden of responsibility shouldn’t fall on two small regional communities.’

The SA Catholic Church recently suffered a great loss at the sudden passing of a key priest, Denis Edwards. Author of many internationally known books on a Christian response to the ecological crisis, Edwards had no hesitation in becoming a No Dump Alliance member: ‘I believe we are called by God to love and to respect this land as a gift, and to protect its integrity for future generations.’

No Dump Alliance is a broad grouping from the SA community, Aboriginal and agricultural representatives. On 29 April, the third anniversary of the day the federal government named Wallerbina, Flinders Ranges as the preferred site, the Alliance called for the scrapping of the present site selection process and the establishment of an independent inquiry to thoroughly explore all the scientifically safe options for management.

The next day, members presented hundreds of petitions to this end to federal member Rowan Ramsey. As Peter Woolford said, ‘Our homes, our communities, our jobs are at risk from this unpopular and unnecessary plan.’

Concerned Australians can offer solidarity by making an online submission here or by writing their own.

Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 38 years working with Aboriginal people in remote areas of SA, in Adelaide and in country SA. Her work has included advocacy and support for senior Aboriginal women of Coober Pedy in their campaign against the proposed national radioactive dump.

Does the Australian Parliament even know that Dr Adi Paterson signed Australia up with China, in a Nuclear Development Partnership?

March 24, 2019

Australia is back in the nuclear game, Independent Australia,  By Noel Wauchope | 24 March 2019, One of Australia’s chief advocates for nuclear power Dr Adi Paterson, CEO of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, (ANSTO), has done it again.

This time in China, he quietly signed Australia up to spend taxpayers’ money on developing a new nuclear gimmick — the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR).

This new nuclear reactor does not physically exist and there is no market for it. So its development depends on government funding.

Proponents claim that this nuclear reactor would be better and cheaper than the existing (very expensive) pressurised water reactors, but this claim has been refuted. The TMSR has been described by analyst Oliver Tickell as not “green”, not “viable” and not likely. More recently, the plan has been criticised as, among other things, just too expensive — not feasible as a profitable commercial energy source.

Paterson’s trip to China and his signing up to this agreement received no Parliamentary discussion and no public information. The news just appeared in a relatively obscure engineering journal.

The public remains unaware of this.

In 2017, we learned through the Senate Committee process that Dr Paterson had, in June 2016, signed Australia up to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems (also accessible by Parliament Hansard Economics Legislation Committee 30/05/2017).

This was in advance of any Parliamentary discussion and despite Australia’s law prohibiting nuclear power development. Paterson’s decision was later rubber-stamped by a Senate Committee……..

Dr Paterson was then obviously supremely confident in his ability to make pro-nuclear decisions for Australia.

Nothing seems to have changed in Paterson’s confidence levels about making decisions on behalf of Australia.

Interestingly, Bill Gates has abandoned his nuclear co-operation with China. His company TerraPower was to develop Generation IV nuclear reactors. Gates decided to pull out of this because the Trump Administration, led by the Energy Department, announced in October that it was implementing measures to prevent China’s illegal diversion of U.S. civil nuclear technology for military or other unauthorised purposes.

Apparently, these considerations have not weighed heavily on the Australian Parliament.

Is this because the Parliament doesn’t know anything about Dr Paterson’s trip to China and his agreement for Australia to partner with the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) in developing Thorium Molten Salt Reactors?

Australian pro-nuclear political party, in Animal Justice clothing

March 21, 2019

Well, I gave this party my preferences at the most recent election.  But not any more. Rumour has it that there’s a strong pro nuclear presence in the Animal Justice Party.

This rumour is now confirmed by Michael Dello, Animal Justice Party candidate for Heffron, New South Wales.

I n response to a request about this, Michael Dello writes:

  • Nuclear is one of the safest forms of energy per unit energy produced, safer than even wind and solar (in terms of lives lost per unit energy). Some highly publicised events make this seem untrue, but the st statistics support this. I admit that this isn’t simple, as nuclear causes more property damage per unit energy, but it seems far from clear that nuclear is more dangerous than wind and solar.
  • Nuclear has saved  millions of lives to date by pushing out coal. Granted, renewables have done this too to an extent.
  • The production of renewable energy and batteries  also has waste, in particular the process of mining nickel and lead which are used for batteries produce far more toxic waste (e.g. sulfur dioxide) per unit energy produced than nuclear.
  • I don’t believe we can achieve the emissions reduction targets we need with renewable energy alone. I believe that nuclear power and a reform of our agriculture system (animal agriculture being the leading cause of climate change yet the most ignored in Australia by far) are important and neglected parts of this process.
  • I don’t believe it is possible with current or even near future technology to have sufficient battery storage with renewables alone.
  • Nuclear has a significantly smaller land use requirement than renewable energy. The environmental cost of clearing land to make room for renewable energy is non-trivial (less of an issue in SA than the east coast).


BHP’s OLympic Dam Uranium Mine – open slather on water, Aboriginal rights, environment

March 9, 2019

Initial Scoping – Olympic Dam Expansion Issues 22 Feb 2019 David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St., Independent Environment Campaigner The BHP Roxby ‘Major Project’ Copper & Uranium Mining Proposal: ‘Olympic Dreams: Major step for $3 billion, 1800-job North mine expansion’ (15 Feb, p.1 promo The Advertiser) as SA Gov. grant’s “Major Project” status to assess BHP’s latest expansion plan, to:

  • Increase copper production from 200,000 tonnes per annum to 350 000 tpa, with an increase in ‘associated products’ – uranium oxide: from 4 000 to approx. 6 000 tpa;
  •   Use the outdated 1982 Roxby Downs Indenture Ratification Act to control this EIS assessment under the Mining Minister, with the Indenture over-riding other SA legislation and subjecting Aboriginal Heritage to a constrained version of a 1979 Act across BHP Olympic Dam operations in the Stuart Shelf Area (covering 1 per cent of SA) – rather than the contemporary standards, process and protections in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988;
  • Use a since replaced 1993 Development Act and “Major Project” status Sec. 46 (1) that excludes Appeals regarding the Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process and outcomes;
  • Use a ‘one stop shop’ Bilateral Assessment Agreement leaving the SA Gov. to conduct the assessment, including on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)under the Commonwealth Environment Protection legislation (EPBC Act 1999), on nuclear actions and on the fragile Mound Springs Endangered Ecological Community – reliant on GAB waters;
  • Use the SA Gov. Declaration to “Exclude” existing mining and “enabling activities” up to 200 000 tpa Cu & associated products and resultant impacts from this EIS assessment, “such as: waste treatment, storage and disposal, including but not limited to, Tailings Storage Facility 6, Evaporation Pond 6, additional cells for the contaminated waste disposal facility, and development of a low-level radioactive waste storage facility”;
  • And to increase extraction of Great Artesian Basin fossil water “up to total maximum 50 million litres a day annual average” (above the volumes last assessed in 1997 and set at a max of 42 Ml/day) and give BHP rights to take GAB water – potentially up to 2070, with “any augmented or new water supply pipeline from the GAB along with any other wellfield”;…………. .