Olympic Dam expansion 'environmental genocide'

Comment: Uranium mining and milling used lots of water, water is becoming rarer because of droughts! Uranium mining and milling does cause cancer, ruins the air, water and land! No to Uranium Mining and Milling!

Posted Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:01pm AEST
Updated Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:00pm AEST

A traditional owner of the land in and around Roxby Downs, in South Australia's far north, says an expansion of BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine would be environmental genocide.

Rebecca Wingfield is a Kokatha custodian and an international human rights campaigner for Aboriginal people.

Speaking at a protest in Melbourne yesterday against the proposed mine expansion, Ms Wingfield says BHP has the exclusive right to use 35 million litres of water daily from the Great Artesian Basin.

"It's no longer going to happen, we're going to do everything we can to stop the water being used," she said.

Ms Wingfield says the company and the State Government say her people do not have any scientific research to prove the environmental harm of uranium mining.

She has given BHP Billiton a copy of the Manila Declaration which summarises Indigenous people's concerns about mining and corporate responsibility, raised at a recent UN forum.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621336.htm

Roanoke River Basin Bi-State

Comment: Great Letter Anne! It is rumor the uranium mill may be placed on Rt. 863, Danville may not have water left for people to drink!!

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Comm. Mtg. (6-12-09)

Madam Chairman, N.C. Representative Lucy Allen:

Thank you for allowing Deborah Dix and me to speak Friday at the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission meeting. We, like so many others, had traveled some distance and really wanted to address the bi-state commission members.

I quoted some numbers regarding the amount of water usage in uranium mining and milling that some of the members requested to see for themselves. I am sending two online links for source information. (One is a link with a video that addresses, in general, the amount of water used in both exploratory drilling and the mining and milling of uranium. The second link is the source I cited for the numbers I gave.)

I hope that you and the other bi-state committee members will take a few minutes and watch the video and review the cited sources.

1) Down The Yellowcake Road http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/
Considering the past "water wars" between Va and NC, will there be enough water for both while sharing it with a water-hungry industry that mines and mills uranium? Millions of gallons of water will be needed per day by the industry!

Using this online converter: http://www.onlineconversion.com/auto_convert.pl

33 million liters = 8,717,677.7 gallons (See #2 for volume used in calculations.)

If using 33 million liters per day, then 8,717,677.7 gallons of water is used per day. If the mine & mill is operating 365 days a year (8,717,677.7 x 365), then 3,181,952,360.5 gallons of water will be used each year.

Please keep in mind that the proposed time table for mining and milling uranium at Coles Hill, near Chatham, Virginia (Pittsylvania County) will be for 30 to 40 years, by Virginia Uranium Inc.'s own estimation. Water sources close to Coles Hill include the Banister and Roanoke Rivers.*

A question was asked by Mr. Gene Adesso if VUI would be using this much water** and, of course, my response was that the amount was unknown because VUI, to my knowledge, has not given out that information.

Generalizing, should Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium be lifted, other uranium-rich areas in Virginia could be mined. Most likely, there will only be one milling facility where all the mined uranium will be trucked/railed in for processing, but with multiple mines will come multiple demands for water usage. Further, speculation has it, the Banister and/or the Roanoke Rivers would not be able to meet the water needs of a uranium milling facility. Perhaps, the Dan River would be a potential water source, too.

Whatever the water source(s), using the numbers above, the needed water volume for multiple mines and one milling facility, over a 30 to 40 year-period, would total to an astronomical number. I respectfully request the issue of water usage in uranium mining and milling be critically addressed now, should Virginia's moratorium be lifted in the future.
2) Uranium in Queensland, Briefing Paper (section 2.1.1) http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au/media/120506qldubriefing-foeb.pdf

Per Section 2.1.1 Water: Uranium mining uses huge quantities of water. Water is needed for separating the uranium from the ore, for dust control and for covering the radioactive sludge. Olympic Dam in South Australia pumps 33 million litres a day from the Great Artesian Basin and is licensed to use 42 m litres a day...

Because I was born a Tarheel and have lived most of my adult life in Virginia, I am asking the members of this bi-state commission to be proactive in protecting the quality and quantity of water in the waterways of both states. I truly love North Carolina and Virginia and feel blessed to have called both states "home."

Again, thank you, Madam Chairman Allen, for kindly allowing us the opportunity to briefly address the bi-state commission.

Respectfully yours,
Anne Cockrell
Danville, Virginia

Other Source Information:
*To see waterways/water supplies at risk: Go to Piedmont Environmental Council's website: http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm, click on "Hot Issues" and then "Uranium Mining." Under "Uranium Mining Maps," go to "Water Supplies Potentially Impacted by Uranium Mining." This is an excellent website for understanding how uranium mining and milling could impact waterways in both Virginia and North Carolina.

**Wed Apr 29, 2009, NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Coles Hill Uranium Deposit:
http://www.santoy.ca/s/TechnicalReports.asp?ReportID=337251&_Type=Technical-Reports&am p;_Title=NI-43-101-Technical-Report-for-the-Coles-Hill-Uranium-Deposit or http://www.santoy.ca/i/pdf/43-101ColesHill.pdf
Section 4.3, page 15, does not illuminate the amount of expected water needs/usage (amount needed in millions of gallons/day) to run a uranium mine and mill, and it mentions nothing about the source of that water. For all its history and data verification, use of plentiful and colorful schematics, Santoy & VUI's technical report does not give specifics on water usage. [If neither of the above links open when clicked upon, google: Santoy Resources Ltd, go to its Homepage, click on "Projects" and, then, "Technical Reports" (Revised Wed. Apr 29, 2009).]

Roxby mine EIS fails to impress green groups

Over 11 years, BHP wants to take Australia's biggest underground mine and make it one of the world's biggest open pit mines. (ABC News)

By Nance Haxton

Posted Sat May 2, 2009 12:29am AEST
Updated Sat May 2, 2009 12:39am AEST

BHP Billiton has released the long-awaited draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the mine in South Australia's north.

Over 11 years, the company wants to take Australia's biggest underground mine and make it one of the world's biggest open pit mines.

It says production of copper, gold and uranium will rise six-fold.

But it means building support infrastructure, such as a desalination plant, power lines and possibly a gas-fired power station.

That desalination plant worries many local residents, who are concerned that its location at Point Lowly on the Upper Spencer Gulf could affect fishing and also the world renowned colony of giant cuttlefish that breeds nearby.

But Dean Dalla Valle, chief operating officer of one of BHP's commodities divisions Uranium Australia, says their scientific research shows that the design of the plant will minimise any impact of the brine outflows on the gulf.

"The increase in salinity around the discharge is quite minimal," he said.

"The point where the desalination plant was picked was at a place of maximum velocity."

The Australian Conservation Foundation's Dave Noonan says that does not alleviate his concerns.

"Many of the marine scientists have said that they believe it may well be the worst place, given the susceptibility of the cuttlefish in the breeding cycle to impacts," he said.

"The cuttles only live for a year; if you impact that population you may seriously damage them in the long term. "

The report says 17,000 hectares (72 acres)of vegetation will have to be cleared to make way for the mine.

It also says 18 threatened animal species may be affected.


More power

Mr Dalla Valle also rejected concerns about where the increased uranium production may go.

He says if the expansion goes ahead, the mine is going to need a lot more power.

BHP Billiton is looking at building a 270-kilometre powerline from Port Augusta, or a gas pipeline from Moomba in the state's far north which would supply a new gas-fired power station at Olympic Dam.

It is these increased power needs, as well as the fact two-thirds of the concentrate will be processed off shore that concerns South Australian Greens MP Mark Parnell.

"This proposal does not maximise jobs in South Australia, it sends them to China," he said.

"The company will tell us that it will not harm the giant cuttlefish; there's other scientists who disagree.

"This project, if it comes to fruition, will blow all of our greenhouse targets right out of the water."

South Australian Premier Mike Rann has said a number of times that he hoped BHP would process the ore in Australia.

The state's Mineral Resources Minister, Paul Holloway, says the proposed development is great for the state.

"It'll now be assessed appropriately by government authorities, as well as of course the general public will have their opportunity to have their say," he said.

Expanding the mine will also mean building new port facilities, a 105-kilometre rail spur connected to the national network, a new airport, a village for construction workers and a major expansion of the nearby community of Roxby Downs.

But the company is not releasing estimates of how much the project could cost or when it will begin, until final approval by the BHP Billiton board.

Before then, the EIS is open to public comment for 14 weeks, and then BHP will respond to any concerns raised.

The plans are then submitted to the South Australian and Northern Territory governments for approval, before going to the Federal Government.

It is not expected that Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett will even consider giving final approval to the project until next year.

Despite Mr Garrett's anti-uranium disposition before entering Federal Parliament, Mr Dalla Valle says he is confident that BHP will get a fair hearing.

"I think the minister will act in a completely professional manner and execute his ministerial duties," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/02/2558886.htm