On the 10th October, 2011, the Federal and South Australian Governments approved the proposed new uranium mine at Olympic Dam. This will make Olympic Dam the largest uranium mine in the world.
BHP Billiton plans to supplement the existing underground copper and uranium mine near Roxby Downs with a massive open-cut mine.
The open pit will be 4 kilometres long by 3.5 kilometres wide and 1 kilometre deep. Export of uranium is expected to increase from an average of 4,000 tonnes per year to 19,000 tonnes per year, and the production of copper, gold and silver is also expected to increase.
The Olympic Dam uranium deposit is by far the largest on earth. Although the uranium is low-grade, the volume is staggering, amounting to about 2.4 million tonnes (and counting) − 30% of the world's known conventional uranium reserves. That's enough uranium to fuel the world's fleet of 430 power reactors for 40 years.
The mine has been operating since the late 1980s using underground mining. BHP Billiton plans to supplement underground mining with open-cut mining − it plans to make Olympic Dam the largest open-cut mine in the world by digging a pit of about 14.4 cubic kms (4.1x3.5x1 kms). Export of uranium is expected to increase from an average of 4,500 tonnes per year to 19,000 tonnes per year. Copper production is expected to increase from 180,000 tonnes per year to 750,000 tonnes per year, and production of gold and silver is also expected to increase.
SUMMARY STATISTICS
Waste from mining - 68 million tonnes per year. The tailings contain a toxic acidic soup of radionuclides and heavy metals. It is estimated that by the mines closure, these tailings will total nearly nine billion tonnes, equivalent to nine times the volume of Sydney Harbour, which BHP intends to leave on the surface of the land, forever.
Nuclear power - Sufficient to power 95 reactors producing 28.5 tonnes of high level nuclear waste.
Waste - Spent fuel from reactors will contain approximately 28.5 tonnes of plutonium per annum.
Weapons - 28.5 tonnes of plutonium per annum sufficient for 2850 nuclear weapons.
Water consumption - The new mine will require an additional 200 million litres of water per day. Water intake from the Great Artesian Basin will increase from 35 million litres per day to around 42 million litres per day, with the remainder to come from a proposed coastal desalination plant at Point Lowly. That’s over 100,000 litres every minute.
Cost of water to BHP - Nil.
BHP profits - Net profit $US23.95 billion in 2011.
Greenhouse Gas emissions- will increase SA's GHG emissions by 12%.
Energy use:By 2020, when the mine could reach full operation, it would use about 20 per cent of the state’s electricity supply. Diesel use will rise from 26 million litres a year to 372 million litres a year for the five year construction period, peaking at a total of 516 million litres a year at full production (including transport).
Cultural impacts/racism - The existing mine operates under the Roxby Downs Indenture Act, which provides exemptions from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. The company decides the level of protection that Aboriginal Heritage sites receive and which sites are recognised.
“Many of our food sources, traditional plants and trees are gone because of this mine. We worry for our water: it’s our main source of life. The mine causes many safety risks to our roads – transporting the uranium from the mine. It has stopped us from accessing our sacred sites and destroyed others. These can never be replaced. BHP never consulted me or my families, they select who they consult with. Many of our people have not had a voice. We want the mine stopped now, because it’s not good for anything.” Eileen Wingfield, Kokatha elder
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Radioactive Waste
Under the mine expansion plan, the production of radioactive tailings, stored above ground, will increase from the current 10 million tonnes per year, to 68 million tonnes per year. The tailings contain a toxic acidic soup of radionuclides and heavy metals. It is estimated that by the mines closure, these tailings will total nearly nine billion tonnes, equivalent to nine times the volume of Sydney Harbour, which BHP intends to leave on the surface of the land, forever.
Leakage into the ground: As with the current tailings dams, the proposed new dams are designed to leak radioactive waste into the underlying rock. BHP estimates that 8 million litres of liquid radioactive waste will seep from the tailings dams every day for the first decade of the new mine, then 3 million litres per day for the next 30 years. In the Draft and Supplementary Environmental Impact Statements, BHP acknowledges that seepage from the tailings dams could result in elevated concentrations of contaminants, including uranium, in the groundwater.
The tailings contain a toxic, acidic soup of radionuclides and heavy metals. There have been numerous spills and leaks – most significantly in 1994, when WMC announced that up to 5 billion litres of liquid waste had escaped from its tailings system. Tailings retain 80% of the radioactivity of the original uranium ore and liquid tailings are 100,000 times more acidic than the ground water.
According to WMC, the leakage had been occurring for two years but only became known in January 1994. A 1995 parliamentary inquiry found that the design, monitoring and supervision of the tailings system were deficient. It found that only when the leak was too big to ignore was action taken. Despite these findings, the inquiry concluded that it was highly unlikely that the leak would have harmful effects.
Under the mine expansion plan, the production of radioactive tailings, stored above ground, will increase six-fold to 58 million tonnes annually. The current tailings stockpile amounts to 100 million tonnes. BHP Billiton plans up to nine tailings dams in addition to the four that currently receive approximately 10 million tonnes of tailings annually, with their height increasing from the current 30m to 65m. The existing operation consists of 400 ha of tailings dams and 133 ha of evaporation ponds.
Mining consultants Advanced Geomechanics noted in a 2004 report that radioactive slurry was deposited "partially off" a lined area of a storage pond at Olympic Dam, contributing to greater seepage and rising ground water levels; that there is no agreed, accurate formula to determine the rate of evaporation of tailings and how much leaks into the ground; and that cells within a tailings pond covered an area more than three times greater than recommended, requiring "urgent remedial measures".
The problems have not been resolved. Photos taken by an Olympic Dam mine worker in December 2008 show radioactive tailings liquid leaking from the rock 'armoury' of the tailings 'retention' system. The leaks were ongoing for at least eight months and probably amounted to several million litres, but were not publicly reported by BHP Billiton or the SA government. BHP Billiton said that mine workers taking and releasing photos of the mine would be subject to "disciplinary action".
Managing the current tailings stockpile is challenging enough and there is every reason to be concerned about BHP Billiton's capacity to manage a six-fold increase.
Large numbers of bird deaths have been recorded in the vicinity of the evaporation ponds − over 100 deaths in one four-day period in 2004. BHP Billiton says "several measures used to deter fauna from visiting the Tailings Storage Facility over the past decade have met with varying degrees of success, but none have resolved the issue."
Nuclear power advocates like to compare the relatively small volume of waste produced by nuclear plants to the huge volume of waste produced by coal plants. However, to produce enough uranium to operate just one power reactor for just one year, Olympic Dam will produce 611,000 tonnes of radioactive tailings waste.
The Draft EIS states: "An estimated 12 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste is produced at Olympic Dam annually in the form of personal protective equipment, laboratory equipment, and geological and processing sample wastes generated following analysis for radionuclides, but is not returned to the processing circuit. This would increase to 48 cubic metres annually on completion of the expanded project. After a review of disposal options and government approval in 2006, low-level radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of within the TSF [Tailings Storage Facility]. Inventories of the waste and its disposal locations are recorded so that it can be managed in the event of future disturbance if the tailings were to be reprocessed. This disposal practice would continue for the expanded project."
See Olympic Dam Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2009, and Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement 2011, Chapter 12: Groundwater (in both documents).
http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/regulatory/Pages/default.aspx
2. Marine Impacts
BHP will source a part of its water supply from a new desalination plant. The proposed desalination plant has been inappropriately sited in the ecologically sensitive Upper Spencer Gulf. The highly saline brine output of the plant has the potential to damage the marine ecosystem, threatening the prawn and scale fish fisheries.
The Upper Spencer Gulf is a low flushing fragile marine environment unsuited to siting a desalination plant and BHP Billiton’s preferred site at Point Lowly is the breeding ground of the Charismatic Giant Australian Cuttle Fish.
The reef habitat near the proposed site hosts the only known breeding aggregation of the Giant Australian Cuttlefish in the world. There is potential for the brine to impact the hatching rates of cuttlefish eggs, where it disperses into the breeding ground. Certain characteristics of the Upper Spencer Gulf marine environment, such as dodge tides, which are distinguished by limited tidal movement, mean that BHP cannot guarantee that such dispersal will not occur. Cuttlefish lay their eggs and die shortly after. If their eggs do not hatch they do not return to breed again.
David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation said: "This is the worst possible place to build an internationally-sized desalination plant. The Gulf is shallow, low-flushing. It’s the breeding ground of the giant cuttlefish which is extremely sensitive to changes in salinity. The plant should be built on the ocean, not the gulf. We could build a reverse osmosis plant at Elliston on Eyre Peninsula’s west coast. Elliston has the ocean flushing that Pt Lowly lacks and enormous potential for year-round wind energy. Taxpayers are paying 20 per cent of the desalination plant’s capital cost and we should also have a big say on where it goes. It’s not good enough to leave it up to BHP.”
Adelaide University marine biologist Assoc. Prof. Bronwyn Gilanders says the sea around Whyalla is actually the world’s largest cuttlefish breeding zone, and that the plant could wipe them out: "Squids and Cuttlefish are generally short-lived. So they live a year; they breed only once. So if you damage the eggs or affect their reproductive ability then potentially that will have devastating consequences on the population.”
3. Water Consumption - The Great Artesian Basin and the Mound Springs
The Olympic Dam/Roxby Downs mine has a voracious appetite for water to process the uranium, copper, gold and silver it extracts from underground. It obtains this water from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) within the Lake Eyre region via two principal borefields, known as Borefield A and Borefield B (sometimes called “Wellfield”). These borefields have been gradually increasing the quantity of water extracted from 1.3 to 15 million litres per day since 1982.
BHP Billiton proposes an increase in water consumption from 37 million litres daily (from the Great Artesian Basin) to over 250 million litres daily (up to 42 million litres from the Great Artesian Basin, plus 200 million litres or more from a proposed desalination plant).
The current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed expansion states that the long term supply would need to be 42 million litres per day. However, based on projected water usage rates per tonne of ore processed, the demand for water would be somewhere between 58 – 75 million litres per day. This is a very significant discrepancy.
That total of 250 million litres equates to over 170,000 litres per minute ... every minute of every day in the driest state in the driest inhabited continent.
The water take from the Great Artesian Basin has had adverse impacts on precious Mound Springs − unique habitats which support rare and delicate micro flora and fauna, some species of which are unique to a particular spring. While there is no current plan to increase the rate of water usage from the Great Artesian Basin, nor is there any intention to reduce it. The existing and potential impacts on the Mound Springs are detailed below.
BHP Billiton pays nothing for its massive water take for the Olympic Dam mine despite recording a $17.7 billion profit in 2007-08. That arrangement is enshrined in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 − as anachronistic a piece of legislation as you're ever likely to see. (BHP Billiton also has its hand out for more corporate welfare asking for around $120 million of public subsidies in the form of diesel fuel rebates over the four year open-pit construction period.)
In February 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard wrote to state Premiers seeking their agreement "to establish proper entitlements, metering, pricing and reporting arrangements for water extracted from the Great Artesian Basin." Asked whether his proposed new arrangements would apply to Olympic Dam, Mr Howard said: "Everybody's got to make a contribution to solving this problem." But within days, he voiced support for BHP Billiton's "right" to free water from the Artesian Basin. In other words, everyone except BHP Billiton has to make a contribution to solving this problem.
Impacts on the Mound Springs: Borefield A consists of a total of 9 production bores in three main locations, and a total of 19 observation bores. Between 1982 and 1987 six of these production bores were flowing under artesian pressure. In 1987 pumps were installed to make up for the loss of artesian pressure, due to drawdown in the GAB aquifer. The final 3 production bores were constructed in 1991 on the southern shores of Lake Eyre South, within the boundaries of Lake Eyre National Park.
Borefield A is located directly within the Lake Eyre and Hermit Hill Mound Spring complexes. Since its opening in 1982, impacts on springs have been evident and have continued to increase in severity as the extraction rate continued its inevitable rise. To date, many springs have declining flows and some springs, such as Venables and Beatrice, have ceased flowing altogether. Venables is now maintained artificially by a pumping station, a unit which is solar powered! Attempts to restore the flow at Beatrice through groundwater re-injection adjacent to the spring have so far been unsuccessful.
There is now a long term decline in artesian pressures in this region which will affect the long term viability of the springs while Borefield A is still operating. One must question the economic and environmental wisdom of a company capable of siting such a borefield right in the midst of such precious springs.
With the long term supply of water still planned to increase further, a new borefield was needed, and the impacts on the springs led to Borefield B being constructed further into the GAB. With the commissioning of Borefield B in November 1996, extraction from Borefield A was reduced to 5 – 6 million litres per day to try and minimise future impacts on the springs. However, the long term impacts on the springs still remain of the utmost significance.
Borefield B is located 100 km north-east of Borefield A between Lake Eyre North and Lake Eyre South. This area of the GAB offers higher yields of groundwater and is distant from many of the mound springs. It consists of 3 primary production bores, each expected to deliver approximately 11 million litres per day under artesian pressure. At present only one bore is connected to the pipeline, having commenced operation in November 1996. It delivers about 9 – 10 million litres per day.
The primary impacts from this borefield were expected to be on pastoral bores located nearby. Computer modelling predicted that impacts would be manageable initially and that it would take a number of years for loss of artesian pressure to become evident. However, reports from people of the region have suggested that loss of artesian pressure is already significantly worse than that predicted.
Clearly, the supply of water from the GAB is not sustainable for the long term life of the mine. Added onto this, the EIS still predicts that with Borefield B at full capacity and Borefield A operating at reduced capacity, many of the most important spring groups will still have reductions of flow, some as high as 100% on current flow rates, not pre-borefield flow rates. Therefore one must seriously question the EIS’s assertion that future impacts on springs will not be significant.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The environmental impact of the expansion will be enormous. In 1996-1997, Roxby generated 422,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The expansion will increase this to 1.5 million tonnes per year. In 1998, Roxby's use of electricity was equivalent to 10% of the SA's usage.
Total greenhouse emissions from the mine and associated infrastructure (not just CO2) are projected to increase from 900,000 tonnes annually to 4.7 million tonnes, making it all but impossible for South Australia to reach its legislated target of 13 million tonnes. A technical assessment by Monash University engineering lecturer Dr Gavin Mudd estimates emissions would reach 4.5 to 6.6 million tonnes annually — one-third to one-half of the target of 13 million tonnes. (The technical assessment is posted at: www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/roxby.)
Dr Mudd said: "South Australia has a legislated greenhouse target to reduce emissions by 60%, limiting total emissions to about 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2050. Yet Olympic Dam alone will produce 4.5-6.6 million tonnes annually, making it virtually impossible for South Australia to meet its legislated target.
BHP Billiton likes to take credit for its export of uranium to fuel low-carbon nuclear reactors, but that argument is flawed on two counts. Firstly, the end uses of energy exports are not counted in Australia's greenhouse emissions, and if they were, BHP Billiton would also need to account for its extensive fossil fuel exports. Secondly, the argument rests on the arbitrary and implausible assumption that the only alternative to Olympic Dam uranium exports is to build coal fired power plants."
BHP Billiton likes to promote uranium as a fuel for low-carbon nuclear power - but that argument only holds if the comparison is with fossil fuels. According to the 2006 Switkowski report, nuclear power is three times more greenhouse intensive than wind power. Nor does BHP Billiton take any responsibility for the greenhouse emissions arising from the use of its extensive fossil fuel exports.
5. Uranium and Weapons
The export of uranium from BHP goes to a range of countries with nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons ambitions. Few have adequate safeguards and the international safeguards system itself is irretrievably flawed and completely unable to ensure the separation of civilian and military nuclear supplies in any practical sense.
A BHP Billiton EIS 'infosheet' states that safeguards arrangements "ensure that Australian uranium is used exclusively for peaceful purposes" and is "accounted for in full". In fact, safeguards fall far short of "ensuring" peaceful use of uranium exports and Australia's uranium exports are not fully accounted for - there are routine accounting discrepancies (known as Material Unaccounted For). International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Dr. Mohamed El Baradei has acknowledged that the IAEA's rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the safeguards system is subject to "vulnerabilities" and "clearly needs reinforcement", that efforts to improve the system have been "half-hearted" and it operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to a local police department." (More information on safeguards www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/safeguards).
BHP Billiton sells uranium to nuclear weapons states, states refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, states blocking progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, states with a history of secret nuclear weapons research, and states stockpiling 'civil' plutonium.
A new low was set in 2006 when the federal government, with BHP Billiton's support, negotiated a uranium export agreement with the secretive, repressive, militaristic, undemocratic regime in China. The Olympic Dam expansion is heavily dependent on the export of concentrate to China, leaving over one million tonnes of long-lived radioactive wastes each year for China to manage into the future. BHP Billiton intends to transport this radioactive concentrate by train through central Australia and out through the Port of Darwin. Communities and environments will be placed at risk by these hazardous bulk cargoes from Alice Springs to Darwin and across China − and none of these communities will be given a right to refuse these risks.
http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idINSYD46211820090501?sp=true
However, China is not subject to the same safeguards arrangements as all other customers. As one of the 'declared' nuclear weapons states, China's safeguards are voluntary. Assoc. Prof. Tilman Ruff noted in a 2007 paper that of the 44 proliferation-sensitive nuclear facilities in China, only 10 facilities were eligible for IAEA safeguards, only three had actually been inspected, and only one had a full suite of IAEA safeguards arrangements in place (Briefing Paper #19 at www.energyscience.org.au).
An October 2008 Newspoll found that two-thirds of Australians oppose uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons (73% of women and 51% of men).
6. Electricity Demand
BHP Billiton expects the mine's electricity consumption to increase over six-fold from 125 MW to 775 MW, to be sourced from some combination of supply from:
* the SA electricity grid (and the national electricity market) with a new electricity transmission line from Port Augusta.
* a proposed gas-fired on-site 600 MW plant with a pipe from Moomba.
* a proposed co-generation plant using industrial waste heat generated from the burning of sulphur to produce the sulphuric acid required for the new hydrometallurgical plant. This waste heat could be used to generate up to 250 MW.
The Draft EIS says a study is ongoing into the feasibility of a 150 MW concentrated solar thermal plant. Geothermal power is described as an "opportunity for the future".
The proposed desalination plant would require 35 MW of electricity, which would be supplied by a new 25 km transmission line from the Cultana substation. The Draft EIS says the electricity would be supplied by renewable energy sourced from the National Electricity Market.
Mark Parnell from the SA Greens is advocating a 500 MW solar thermal plant for the mine:
"Large scale solar thermal is the ideal power solution for the expansion project. Solar thermal electricity is a different technology to solar photovoltaics (PVs). A PV system converts sunshine into electricity, whereas solar thermal converts sunshine to heat. This heat is then transferred to a fluid, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. A big advantage of solar thermal electricity is that the heat energy can be stored, potentially allowing electricity to be generated when the sun goes down.
“Solar thermal technology is available now, with 500MW plants currently planned for California and Nevada, where the technology has been road-tested for 20 years. Australia’s biggest engineering firm, WorleyParsons said last year it wants to build 34 large-scale solar thermal power stations in Australia by 2020. The Roxby expansion is the ideal project to kick-start this plan – the Olympic Dam mine needs huge amounts of power, in a spot that’s well away from the grid and bakes in the sun all year round.
“Investing in cutting edge renewable technology will provide a huge smart job boost for South Australia, placing our state at the centre of a new growth industry. The Rann Government must insist BHP Billiton’s enormous appetite for electricity is sated from the sun, not dirty fossil fuels. Otherwise, we’ll be left struggling with old technology and old thinking as the Roxby expansion sends our State’s greenhouse pollution levels sky high.”
7. SUMMARY OF NEW OR UPGRADED INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE MINE WOULD INCLUDE (MOST INFORMATION FROM THE DRAFT EIS):
* A 280 mega litre per day (ML/d) coastal desalination plant at Point Lowly on the Upper Spencer Gulf (to supply 200 ML/d of additional water via a 320 km pipeline connection to Olympic Dam and with the potential to supply 80 ML/d elsewhere).
* Either a new 270 km electricity transmission line from Port Augusta to Olympic Dam, and/or a gas pipeline from Moomba and a new gas-fired power station at Olympic Dam.
* A 105 km rail line to connect Olympic Dam to the national rail network near Pimba.
* A new airport to replace the existing airport at Olympic Dam.
* A landing facility on the Upper Spencer Gulf to unload equipment from barges, and an access corridor to a pre-assembly yard on the north-western outskirts of Port Augusta.
* Additional port facilities in SA at Outer Harbor and in the Northern Territory at the Port of Darwin to import supplies and export product.
* A new accommodation village for workers.
* Expansion of the Roxby Downs township.
More information
Information in this article is sourced from Friends of the Earth, Green Left Weekly, the Australian Conservation Foundation, various BHP/Roxby documents, the ABC, Great Artesian Basin Protection Group
Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/roxby
ACF www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2324
Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service www.sea-us.org.au/roxby/roxby.html
FoE Adelaide www.adelaide.foe.org.au
For more information on the Mound Springs see G. Mudd, “The long term sustainability of Mound Springs in South Australia: implications for Olympic Dam.”
http://users.monash.edu.au/~gmudd/files/1998-UMH-2-ODam-v-MoundSprings.pdf
http://civil.eng.monash.edu.au/about/staff/muddpersonal
And on the Cuttlefish: