It is disappointing to see our new Premier joining the chorus of voices condemning the state Greens for seeking to amend the indenture legislation for the Olympic Dam mine expansion.
Conservation Council SA Chief Executive Tim Kelly said: "The Premier's responses in today's Advertiser do not adequately address the legitimate concerns Mr Parnell has raised."
"For example, saying that there are long lead times between initial investment and revenues from the expansion does not explain why the government has elected to charge royalties only on production, rather than on profits.
"Previously the capping of royalty rates (that are not indexed to inflation) for 45 years has been justified on the basis that the expansion does not qualify for the lower royalty rate for new mines. This is a nonsense: if the mine is not a new one, it has no reason to expect the treatment that new mines receive, and the government has no reason to find an alternative route to subsidise BHP Billiton.
"On the subject of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), what evidence can the government provide that BHP's massive water extraction for many decades to come will have "no foreseeable impact"? A report by the Arid Lands NRM Board on the GAB indicated that:
- it is in decline
- mining is one of the key threats to water security in the arid lands region, and
- management models have been based on incorrect assumptions: new research has revealed that recharge rates are actually 10 times lower than previously thought.
"Regarding the longterm fate of the kilometre-deep mine pit, the Premier's word 'management' is somewhat euphemistic, when what this means in practice is allowing the pit to fill with toxic water and leaving it there as a permanent sore on the landscape. South Australians will bear the burden of managing the health and environmental risks of this toxic lake for generations to come and it's pretty hard to dress this up as stringent environmental management.
"The Premier's statement regarding greenhouse matters is particularly disappointing, echoing BHP's doublespeak. A plan to reduce emissions is not the same as a commitment to reduce emissions. There is no commitment to reduce the mine's greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050, just an aspirational goal.
"When our state government decided to commit to reduce SA's emissions, it legislated those targets. If BHP had the same level of commitment those targets could also be legislated - in the indenture legislation currently before the Parliament. It has not done so, our government has not required it to do so, and therefore it is inaccurate and misleading to describe these aspirational targets as real commitments.
"What we do know is that the mine expansion will increase SA emissions by up to 14% this decade. If the mine expands further as the indenture legislation anticipates, these increases are likely to be higher still - unless BHP makes very substantial commitments to use renewable energy, which it has not to date.
"The thousands of pages of EIS documents, reports, approval conditions and legislation surrounding this massive expansion preclude comprehension of it by most. Public statements and media reporting are therefore the key mechanism for the community to know what the expansion will entail. It is critical that these be accurate.
"The shortcomings of the indenture bill should be properly considered by the Legislative Council and amended where necessary," Mr Kelly concluded.Release Ends
Release ends
For further information on the Blueprint for a Sustainable Future go to:
http://www.conservationsa.org.au/blueprint.html
For additional media information or to arrange an interview please contact
Noriko Wynn, Policy and Communications Officer on 0411 028 930
