By Tom Flanagan
Public comment on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed uranium mine at Jabiluka closed on January 9. Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney observed, "The Jabiluka EIS is not a disinterested or objective analysis of the merits of the project. Rather, it is a project advocacy document fully paid for and partly prepared by the proponent, Energy Resources Australia."
Sweeney argued that the document "fails to address such fundamental issues as comprehensive water and tailings management, and the continuing opposition of the traditional owners. It fails to look at the end use of uranium and the full range of impacts in the Kakadu region."
More than 100 people turned up to a Darwin public meeting to discuss the EIS in December. The plan was attacked strongly on all fronts, and there was anger at ERA's obvious intention to go ahead regardless.
The Jabiluka site, like the Ranger uranium mine 20 kilometres away, lies within the borders of Kakadu National Park. The mining lease area is excised from the park, an excision not based on ecologically significant boundaries, but which allows the pro-mining forces to assert that they are not mining in Kakadu.
The deposit is located in a spectacular landscape beneath an escarpment outlier, adjacent to the Magela Creek flood plain. It is near the tourist route to the Ubirr rock art sites and on the land of the Mirrar clan, who are implacably opposed to the mine. Thus the mine and its associated activities would have inevitable impact on the cultural and environmental values that have given Kakadu its world heritage status.
Poor record
ERA has been under constant attack for its poor record at its Ranger mine, particularly problems with water management. Dave Sweeney commented, "The mine is located in the tropics. However, each wet season seems like a new event for ERA.
"In the wake of tropical cyclone Rachael, ERA have again been caught woefully short. They are currently [January 14] dumping low grade water directly into the Magela Creek and are desperately shunting other more toxic material from one temporary storage site to another."
The development of Jabiluka, with ore to be trucked to Ranger for processing, would greatly increase the pressures on the Ranger plant along with the existing tailings and water management systems.
"It is clear that these are not adequate to deal with the current situation", Sweeney observed. "To increase the amount of uranium mining and subsequent wastes is simply irresponsible."
While the government and the mining company appear prepared to ride roughshod over environmental objections, the region's traditional owners are in a strong position to attempt to block the mine, and to rally all opponents of the mine to support their stand.
In a joint letter, the leaders of the Mirrar Gundjehmi, Mirrar Erre, Bunitj and Manilikarr clans stated, "We oppose any further mining in our country. We have no desire to see any more country ripped up and further negative intrusions on our lives."
Blackmail
The Financial Review reported on January 14 that the Jabiluka draft EIS has been rejected by the Northern Land Council (NLC), the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (on behalf of the traditional owners of the mine site) and the Aboriginal Project Committee (created by the federal government to assess the social impacts of the proposed mine).
Yet the chief executive of ERA, Phillip Shirvington, said he did not believe the traditional owners would ultimately stop the mine.
ERA has publicly threatened that if the traditional owners do not agree to its plans for Jabiluka, then the company will revert to a legally questionable and environmentally inferior proposal dating back to 1982. This stance has been described by traditional owners as blatant blackmail.
Now ERA is trying a slightly different approach. According to the Financial Review, Shirvington claims that the 1982 Jabiluka agreement between the NLC and Pancontinental (the original owner of the mine) allowed for a scenario in which the traditional owners blocked a modified proposal. The mine owners could proceed if they gained the agreement of a broader group composed of the federal and Northern Territory governments, the NLC and traditional owners. Shirvington was quoted as saying, "I think the question is how it will go ahead rather than whether it will go ahead at all".
The NLC takes a different view, according to a report in the Australian on January 15. The NLC argues that both the options canvassed in the EIS — trucking the ore to Ranger, or a small mill at Jabiluka — "differ dramatically" from the original agreement and so would require renewed consent of the traditional owners.