Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should Australia increase its number of uranium mines?
Shortly after his government's election, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, announced that he would dismantle Labor's long-standing three-mine uranium policy and clear the way for further mines to be approved.
This move met with immediate support from the mining industry, with proposals being mooted for a further four mines to be established within the next three years and a possible five beyond that.
Two of the initial four additional mines being discussed would be within Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory.
These developments met with immediate opposition from environmental groups, the Federal Opposition and the Australian Democrats.
On Thursday, March 14, eleven environmental groups wrote to the Prime Minister and two other Federal Government ministers warning that the removal of the three-mine policy would provoke an enormous campaign and was likely to alienate the environmental movement from the government.
Background
Under the former federal government's three-mine policy, Australia exported about 4000 tonnes of uranium oxide annually.
This came from two mines - Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine within Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory, and Western Mining Corporation's Olympic Dam, in South Australia.
Each site produced about 2000 tonnes of uranium oxide annually.
(The third mine allowed under the three-mines policy ceased operating when it ran out of ore some years ago.)
The ALP was opposed to the establishment of any further mines and the only possibility of expanding Australia's uranium exports was through increased production at the existing mines.
Australia has about 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and, under the three-mines policy, supplied about 10 per cent of total world production.
Now that the ALP's three-mines policy is about to be formally overturned, interested companies have begun making applications for mine approvals.
Energy Resources of Australia has announced that it wants to develop an underground mine at Jabiluka, currently known as Ranger North, within Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory.
It is estimated that this project would add between 2500 and 3000 tonnes to Australia's annual exports of uranium oxide.
(It has also been suggested that another mine might be developed at Koongarra, also within Kakadu National Park. This lease is held by Cogema, which is owned by the French Government and would be operated by CEA.)
Western Mining Corporation is reported to be undertaking a $5 million feasibility study to double Olympic Dam output to 4000 tonnes a year.
CRA Ltd is said to be planning a $120 million development of its Kintyre deposit in the north-west of Western Australia. It is anticipated that this project will produce some 1200 tonnes of uranium oxide a year from estimated reserves of 36,000 tonnes.
In all there are at least nine prospective uranium mines which could be developed.
Australia currently exports uranium to many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and France.
Sales are made only to countries which implement the safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Additionally, sales are made only to countries which meet extra safeguard requirements proposed by the Australian government.
France is currently on a banned list for additional sales of Australian uranium in response to its nuclear testing in the south Pacific last year.
At least one of the companies applying to have a new mine approved, Energy Resources of Australia, has suggested that the process needs to be completed quickly.
ERA wants its Jabiluka project approved within twelve months and preferably within six.
ERA wants its new mine fully operational by 1999, as it is claimed that this would give ERA the opportunity to establish export contracts before new Canadian mines began to operate.
Arguments against Australia increasing its number of uranium mines
One of the primary concerns expressed regarding Australia increasing its number of uranium mines is environmental.
This concern is on two levels.
Firstly, those with environmental concerns are worried by the threat they believe uranium mining poses to the areas where it is conducted.
According to this line of argument, of particular concern are current proposals to increase the number of uranium mines in Kakadu National Park.
Environmentalists have argued that Ranger, the existing mine in Kakadu, has already put the area at risk.
The Northern Territory Environment Centre has been reported as listing more than 30 nuclear incidents at Ranger since 1977, mostly releases of contaminated water into Magela Creek, a tributary of the East Alligator River, within the national park boundaries.
The Centre has advised the Government to reject any new application by Energy Resources Australia because, it claims, Ranger faces long-term problems.
It has been argued that if Energy Resources Australia is able to proceed with a second, underground mine at Jabiluka, then the environmental risk to the park will be increased further.
The new mine would involve a possible 80ha expansion of Energy Resources Australia's operations within Kakadu National Park. The proposal would also involve the building of a 22km road through the park to link the proposed Jabiluka mine with a milling plant at Ranger. Concern has been expressed that the road will be built close to a sandstone escarpment, subject to erosion, and near Aboriginal art sites. In addition, it is also anticipated that a dam would have to be built.
The proposal that a second high grade mine be established at Koongarra, also within Kakadu National Park, has caused additional concern.
Critics of the proposal have noted that Koongarra was named in the 1977 Ranger uranium royal commission as a mine that should not go ahead.
Critics also note that Koongarra is only a few kilometres from Nourlangie Rock, a highly significant Aboriginal heritage place.
The second area of environmental concern relates to the use which is to be made of the uranium once it has been mined, milled and exported from Australia.
Under Australia's current restrictions, no Australian uranium is to be used for weapons purposes.
However, there is concern that even where the material is being used for peaceful purposes such as power-generation, then Australia can have no real guarantees that the uranium it produces and exports will not have a damaging impact on the environment.
This concern has been underlined in the response to suggestions that Australia might export uranium to Indonesia.
Critics are concerned that the Indonesians will be building nuclear power generation plants in the midst of a volcano and earthquake belt.
It is argued that the region's geological instability makes it inappropriate to export uranium to Indonesia.
The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Jim Downey, has claimed that Java, the site of Indonesia's first proposed reactor, is one of the most seismically active areas in the world.
Overall, it has been claimed, Indonesia, which straddles three tectonic plates, is highly susceptible to volcanic and earthquake activity.
Senator Cheryl Kernot, head of the Australian Democrats, has suggested that locating nuclear reactors in earthquake-prone areas was creating the possibility of another nuclear accident, such as the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred in the former Soviet Union in 1986.
According to this line of argument, it demonstrates international irresponsibility to export uranium in the face of such a risk.
`What is the cost of creating another Chernobyl? We, as citizens of the world, have responsibility for that,' Senator Kernot has claimed.
It has further been suggested that it is particularly inappropriate for Australia to supply Indonesia wit uranium as were Indonesia to suffer a major reactor accident Australia is likely to be affected by nuclear contamination.
Also of concern to those worried about the larger environmental threats posed by nuclear development is the question of how safely to store nuclear waste.
In their letter to the federal government, the eleven environmental groups stressed their concern that current technology did not allow for nuclear by-products to be safely stored for the period of up to one million years that was required.
Australia's supposed responsibility regarding the use that is made of the uranium we export is claimed to extend to the possible threat to world peace posed by uranium exports.
Critics of any expansion of our uranium exports claim that Australia has no guarantees that the material it exports will only ever be used for peaceful purposes.
The Australian Democrat's environment spokesperson, Senator Meg Lees, has stated, `There is absolutely no guarantee that Australian uranium won't be enriched and used in the nuclear weapons cycle.'
Similarly, it has also been noted that it is not possible to neatly separate uranium exported for peaceful purposes from uranium used for military purposes.
This concern has been voiced particularly regarding the proposed development of the Koongarra mining lease. This lease is held by Cogema, which is owned by the French Government and operated by CEA, which conducted the Pacific nuclear tests.
Critics argue that if we wish to demonstrate our opposition to nuclear arms development then we cannot allow a mining lease to a corporation which conducts underground testing of atomic bombs.
According to those who oppose further uranium production and export, Australia has a moral responsibility toward those countries to which it is proposed we might export uranium and toward the world at large.
The Democrat's environment spokesperson, Senator Meg Lees, has stated, `We don't accept the spurious argument that Australia should sell uranium because if we do not someone else will.'
Senator Lees argues that every nation in the world has a responsibility to protect international peace and to safeguard the global environment.
According to this line of argument, the fact that another nation may be prepared to produce and export a potentially dangerous substance, does not make it appropriate for Australia to do so.
Finally, it has been argued that by increasing its share of the uranium export market Australia would lose its international standing as an opponent of the nuclear arms build-up and would also lose credibility as an environmentally responsible nation.
Mr Jim Downey, the Australian Conservation Foundation's executive director, has claimed that, `Australia is in a position to show some real leadership on the issue of uranium mining and the protection of our World Heritage areas, but Mr Howard appears to have lost sight of these very important issues.'
There has also been the suggestion that if Australia proceeded with developing further uranium mines within Kakadu National Park then that area might lose its World Heritage listing.
According to this argument, while mining can go ahead in a World Heritage area, damage to the environment or to Aboriginal heritage could cause the site to be delisted.
Arguments in favour of Australia increasing its number of uranium mines
The primary reason offered for expanding Australia's production of uranium is economic.
Those who favour an extension of Australia's capacity to produce and export uranium have noted that the spot market price of uranium has risen by about 50 per cent in the last 12 months and by 60 per cent since January.
The uranium industry is reported to have told the new Federal Government that on the basis of the present international market for uranium, exports could be expected to be expanded by more than 5000 tonnes a year within three years, bringing a further $225 million a year in export earnings.
It has also been claimed that there is a growing market for uranium and that Australia would be economically unwise not to take advantage of it.
Forecasts from the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics have been cited, suggesting that there is likely to be an increasing number of new buyers, especially in Western Europe.
It has also been predicted that Taiwan, which already has three nuclear power stations, and is considering constructing a fourth, is likely to increase its demand for yellow cake by 40 per cent over the next 10 years.
Energy Resources of Australia has stressed that mines need to be operational within three years to gain an increased market share ahead of Canada which plans to have new mines ready to operate by 1999.
Apart from increased export earnings, it has been claimed that increasing Australia's number of uranium mines would have other economic advantages. One of these is said to be job generation. This point has been stressed by a number of government spokespeople.
The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, has claimed that the expansion of uranium mining would mean the creation of thousands of jobs.
The same point has been made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, who has claimed that the Government has a mandate to `get on with the job of seeing more jobs in the minerals area, including with uranium mining.'
While the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has stated, `We're determined that where a project can go ahead and there's no significant damage to the environment and particularly when jobs are going to be created - and in this case you're looking at two or three thousand jobs - then things ought to be given the green light.'
With regard to the question of damage to the environment, the Government has assured conservation groups that the former guidelines will be followed and that proper preliminary investigations will be made and environmental impact statements prepared.
The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, has promised that the Government will be particular aware of environmental considerations when it comes to applications to mine within Kakadu National Park.
Senator Hill has stated, `Kakadu is probably the most emotive example of potential further mines and I think there are special considerations related to it. It is a critically important environmental asset, it is fragile and it is precious to many Australians and the consideration of the expansion of the uranium industry in or about Kakadu would have to be to that background.'
Energy Resources of Australia has also claimed that accusations made about the extent of environmental damage supposedly caused by its Ranger mine in Kakadu have been exaggerated.
Mr Phillip Shirvington, chief executive of Energy Resources of Australia, has claimed that last year, 1995, ERA was granted permission to release water from Retention Pond 2 and in response to the concern expressed by Aboriginal groups who lived downstream did not do so.
On the question of Australia's responsibility regarding the subsequent use that is made of uranium it exports a number of points have been made.
The Federal Government has stated that current guidelines which prohibit the sale of Australian uranium for military purposes will be adhered to.
At least one uranium mining company, ERA, has stated that it opposes the use of uranium for military purposes.
Mr Phillip Shirvington, the chief executive of ERA has stated, `ERA is a leading supporter of current legislation and practice ensuring that Australian uranium is used only to generate electricity. The Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) monitors every pound of uranium sold from this country to ensure that uranium does not end up in weapons.'
Further to this, Age columnist, Padraic McGuinness, has claimed, `The more important we are as a uranium supplier, the louder is our voice in the councils of nuclear safety control.'
A similar position was put in the Herald Sun editorial of March 16, `Australia has the clout to insist on proper safeguards for [uranium] use. Economically struggling countries such as Kazakhstan are unlikely to jeopardise their uranium sales by insisting on stringent controls.'
According to this line of argument, as a major supplier Australia would be in a better position to oversee that proper guidelines were being adhered to regarding the use of uranium and would, it appears, be able to threaten to withhold supplies if these safeguards were not being followed.
It has also been claimed that concerns expressed about the technological capabilities of some of the countries to which we might export uranium have been inappropriate, as have been concerns that some nuclear reactors using Australian uranium might be located on inappropriate sites.
With regard to fears that countries such as Indonesia may not be technologically capable of constructing and maintaining safe nuclear reactors, Age columnist Padraic McGuinness has responded, `Indonesia is a large country and has many highly trained engineers - the Minister for Energy has a German engineering doctorate. And there is nothing to prevent the hiring in of highly-qualified technical staff from other countries.'
Mr McGuinness has also responded to suggestions that it would be unsafe to supply uranium to Indonesia as that country is located on an earthquake and volcano belt and thus any reactors built there might well suffer damage.
Mr McGuinness has stated, `Japan is also like this [prone to volcanic and seismic activity] and has seen no design problems in taking necessary precautions.'
Further to this, Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, has claimed that it is `patronising' of Australian critics to suggest that Indonesia would not be able to construct an nuclear reactor in an area and in a manner that would ensure the safety of its people.
`It's up to Indonesia to decide how it is going to generate its electricity and it would be remiss if it didn't do it in a way that was safe,' Senator Parer has observed.
Finally it has been claimed that for Australia to artificially limit its uranium exports is only a gesture which does nothing to restrict the development of the uranium industry which simply gets its supplies from other places.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has stated, `People have to understand that if we don't export uranium, other countries will, including countries like Canada, and therefore ... we're robbing Australians of jobs and we're robbing Australians of valuable export income.'
A similar point was made in the Herald Sun editorial of March 16, `The conservationists' view is not based on the real world. The market is expanding. If we don't sell uranium, Canada and other countries will.'
Further implications
It seems highly likely that under its new Federal Government Australia will develop further uranium mines and export increased amounts of uranium.
Although there is the requirement that these mines receive a favourable environmental impact statement, there is the general expectation that at least three of the mines currently being proposed will go ahead.
Senator Lees, the environment spokesperson for the Australian Democrats, has said that the Democrats would introduce a private members bill when parliament resumes that would call for a ban on uranium exports.
However, given the size of the Government's majority in the House of Representatives, such a bill would not be passed.
It also seems unlikely that the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats will be able to use their combined numbers in the Senate to block the approval of applications to establish further uranium mines and increase uranium exports.
It is probable that applications will only need the approval of Cabinet, not the Parliament.
If Australia increases its role in the production and export of uranium, it is not immediately clear the effect this will have.
The government has maintained that being a major exporter will increase Australia's capacity to ensure that international guidelines and treaties are adhered to regarding the use of uranium.
Those opposed to Australia increasing its uranium exports argue that Australia will lose its standing as an opponent of nuclear arms proliferation if it expands its part in supplying uranium ore.
It will be interesting to note if, once the three-mine policy has ceased to operate and Australia increases its uranium production we establish a nuclear industry of our own.
This suggestion was apparently put to the then prime minister, Bob Hawke, by the then foreign minister, Bill Hayden, in 1984.
Mr Hayden has since argued that developing a nuclear power industry for peaceful purposes would put Australia in a position where, within about six months, it could develop a nuclear weapons capability if the need arose.
Mr Hayden has also observed with some scepticism Indonesia's plans to develop a nuclear power industry.
According to Mr Hayden, a country as well placed as Indonesia to generate hydro-electric power has no need to rely on nuclear power to meet its electricity requirements.
Mr Hayden appears to suspect Indonesia of following a line of thought similar to his own and to be developing a nuclear arms potential under the guise of developing its domestic power industry.
Such suggestions are disturbing and indicate a discomforting potential connection between using uranium for peaceful purposes and developing nuclear arms.
It remains to be seen whether the sort of developments Mr Hayden foreshadows will become a reality.
France's recent nuclear tests in the Pacific were met with strong opposition from both major political parties in Australia and general anger and concern from the Australian people.
In the light of this it will be interesting to note if the Australian electorate will reject Australia acting as a major supplier of uranium world-wide or if it will perceive a clear distinction between peaceful uses and military uses.
It will also be interesting to note whether the economic benefits promised from increased uranium production, particularly increased jobs, will outweigh, in the popular mind, the potential dangers associated with uranium.
Eleven major conservation and environment groups have already warned the new government that it risks alienating the conservation movement and thus losing their qualified electoral support if it allows more uranium mines.
In the last election the Liberal-National Party coalition gained the general approval of the conservation movement for its environment policy. It remains to be seen how electorally significant it would be were the coalition to lose this approval.
Within the ALP it seems that the immanent overturning by the new federal government of the three-mines policy has strengthened opposition to uranium mining.
Though the ALP in government had formally been opposed to an expansion of nuclear mining, the three-mines policy was a compromise between those within the Australian Labor Party who wished to see all exports of uranium halted and those who believed such exports should continue and be increased.
Included within the group which had supported increased uranium mining were former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.
Current developments appear to have firmed Labor's opposition to increased uranium mining. In the first shadow cabinet meeting after the recent federal election, the three-mines policy was endorsed. The shadow environment minister, Dr Lawrence, has stated that the ALP wants no new mines, even when the two currently in operation are exhausted.
Finally, the position of interested Aboriginal groups on this issue is not clear.
In their letter of protest to the Prime Minister, the eleven environment bodies included the supposed opposition of many Aboriginal groups to some of the proposed projects as part of their reason for objecting to plans to increase the number of uranium mines in operation.
However, to date, no Aboriginal group's opinion on the projected developments has been reported.
In order to proceed with either of the new developments foreshadowed in Kakadu National Park, it appears that the companies involved will need the approval of local Aboriginal groups.
Northern Territory Aboriginal leaders have met to discuss proposals to begin mining at the Jabiluka and Koongarra sites. These groups are being advised by the Northern Land Council.
The Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, has also stated his intention to meet soon with the relevant Aboriginal groups.
It has been reported that the Aboriginal groups involved will have given their decision within a year.
The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Kernot, appears concerned that the judgement of Aboriginal leaders should not be influenced by financial considerations.
Senator Kernot has argued that Aboriginal groups should not have to rely on mining royalties to pay for the adequate housing and health care which, she has claimed, is their right as Australians.
However, whatever position the Aboriginal groups finally adopt may ultimately not affect the outcome.
Opposition to the new uranium policy will continue to come from environment groups, the federal Opposition and the Australian Democrats, no matter what position the Aboriginal groups involved finally adopt.
Also, ERA appears willing to proceed with its Jabiluka project without either a favourable current environment impact statement or the current approval of the relevant Aboriginal groups.
Mr Phillip Shirvington, the chief executive officer of ERA, has suggested that his company would be prepared to proceed with the Jabiluka mine on the strength of the approval the previous owners, Pancontinental, gained from the then Government and Aborigines, in 1979.
While the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hill, has claimed that there is legal debate about whether Aborigines would be able to veto the mine under the Land Rights Act.
If ERA attempt to go ahead with their Jabiluka project without current approval from Aboriginal groups or a favourable environment impact statement, opponents of their actions have said they will mount a challenge in the High Court.
Sources
The Age
11/3/96 page 6 news item by Karen Middleton, `Hill moves to ease uranium concerns'
12/3/96 page 10 editorial, `Uranium switch welcome'
12/3/96 page 10 letter to the editor from Phillip Shirvington, chief executive, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd., `Every pound of uranium traced'
15/3/96 page 6 news item by Paul Chamberlin, `Coalition's uranium plan chided'
16/3/96 page 3 news item by Gareth Boreham, `Brawl looms over uranium sale plan'
19/3/96 page 7 news item by Gareth Boreham, `Government warning on new uranium mines at Kakadu'
20/3/96 page 17 comment by Padraic P. McGuinness, `Uranium exports to Indonesia a safe and sound policy'
23/3/96 page 4 news item by Gareth Boreham and Gay Alcorn, `PM angers greens on uranium mine'
25/3/96 page 6 news item by Michelle Grattan, `Uranium mining will create jobs: Parer'
27/3/96 page 2 news item by Karen Middleton, `Democrats vow to oppose more uranium mines'
1/4/96 page 11 news item by Farah Farouque, `Uranium sale plan criticised'
4/4/96 page 9 news item by Gay Alcorn, `Uranium push intensifies'
The Australian
16/3/96 page 2 news item by Tim Stevens, `Green lobby vows to fight Indonesia uranium sales plan'
16/3/96 page 2 comment by Tim Stevens, `An end to three mines hardly a double take'
18/3/96 page 8 editorial, `A better policy on uranium'
19/3/96 page 2 news item by Nigel Wilson and Lisa McLean, `Uranium mine sites await export approval'
20/3/96 page 2 news item by Don Greenlees and Lisa McLean, `Coalition explores ways to exploit Taiwan's uranium market'
22/3/96 page 2 news item by Lisa McLean and Tim Stevens, `Coalition gives green guarantee on uranium'
23/3/96 page 2 news item by Lisa McLean, `Howard to free uranium mines'
30/3/96 page 1 news item by Mike Steketee, `Hayden urges nuclear catch-up'
3/4/96 page 3 news item by Mike Steketee, `Hayden adds a footnote to nuclear stance'
3/4/96 page 11 analysis by Greg Sheridan, `Hayden: quirky pragmatist'
4/4/96 page 10 editorial, `Revisiting the nuclear debate'
4/4/96 page 1 news item by Maria Ceresa and Lenore Taylor, `Fourth uranium mine within year: ERA'
The Herald Sun
16/3/96 page 16 editorial, `Getting active on uranium'
What they said ...
`We don't accept the spurious argument that Australia should sell uranium because if we do not someone else will. Every country ... has a responsibility for world's peace.'
Senator Meg Lees, Australian Democrats environment spokesperson
`People have to understand that if we don't export uranium other countries will, including countries like Canada, and therefore ... we're robbing Australians of jobs and we're robbing Australians of valuable export income'
Mr John Howard, Australian Prime Minister