Mines Paper # 8
When the four uranium deposits* in the Alligator Rivers region were discovered over 1969-70 there were concerns about developing them. Rum Jungle, on the Finniss River, had become a notable source of pollution (albeit mostly not from the uranium mining). Would the same happen here so as to damage biologically important wetlands and spoil the area proposed as a large new national park?
* Ranger, Nabarlek, Jabiluka, Koongarra.
The Commonwealth government set up the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (since Ranger was the first and largest development proposal) in 1975. It reported two years later that there was no reason not to proceed with development if certain measures were taken.
The government responded by adopting most of the Inquiry's recommendations. The three mining leases (apart from Ranger # 2 orebody, close to Mt Brockman) were excluded from the Kakadu National Park in 1979 and 1984 as it was progressively set up. Full environmental assessment (EIS) procedures were required. In addition to the rigorous EIS procedures, and to ensure that the continuing operations did not damage the environment, particularly the Kakadu National Park, the Office of the Supervising Scientist was established as Commonwealth watchdog. It is an independent statutory authority. No other mining in Australia, or anywhere else in the world, would be subject to such intense scrutiny and required to perform to such high standards.
Ranger opened in 1980 and has set new standards of environmental performance for the industry. It has over thirty people on its environment management team and the mine has operated for over 20 years without detriment to the surrounding National Park. Furthermore, the Commonwealth holds a bond of about $30 million to ensure that eventual rehabilitation of the lease will be to the same high standard. There have been incidents, publicly reported and recorded, but none have had off-site effects.
Under Pancontinental Mining, Jabiluka got set to follow Ranger. Its EIS was approved in 1979. In August 1982 a Mineral Lease was granted by the Northern Territory for a period of 42 years following the signing of an agreement with the Northern Land Council and the traditional Aboriginal owners. The agreement, approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, was to provide $210 million to local Aboriginal people, and the benefits have since been increased. No sites of cultural importance to Aboriginals would be disturbed (those on the 73 square kilometre lease are mostly in an exclusion zone managed so as to preserve them).
By the end of 1982 all necessary mining and environmental approvals had been obtained from governments for the underground mining of the Jabiluka 2 orebody and the company had been cleared by the Commonwealth to seek sales contracts. Significant marketing progress was made, firm commitments being obtained for the supply of 15 600 tonnes of uranium oxide over ten years. However, with the Australian Labor Party coming to power in the 1983 federal election, Commonwealth approval was withdrawn and development ceased until after the change of government in 1996. Meanwhile, in 1991, Jabiluka (with its development agreements) was purchased by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), the owner and operator of the adjacent Ranger mine, for A$ 125 million.
A completely new EIS for Jabiluka was approved in 1997, following public comment and the company's response to that. Under the original Aboriginal agreement, changes to the design and operation of the mine were negotiated with the Northern Land Council and agreed in May 1998. However, because of opposition by the traditional owner who had inherited that 1982 agreement, the company faced the prospect of being forced to mill the ore at the mine site itself rather than at Ranger, 20 kilometres south. Accordingly, a Public Environmental Report (PER) was undertaken for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative. This was approved in August 1998, after a 3-week extension of time for Commonwealth consideration of it and to allow an independent review of it. Meanwhile, mine development was cleared to proceed. A total of less than 100 hectares would have been disturbed on the lease.
click to enlarge
Ranger and Jabiluka leases
click to enlarge
Jabiluka mine as it would have looked with milling being undertaken at Ranger, 20 km away.
An Access Economics study commissioned by ERA indicated that Jabiluka would contribute A$ 6.2 billion to Australia's Gross Domestic Product over 28 years.
Conservation groups, principally the Australian Conservation Foundation, have consistently opposed all four mine developments from the outset in the mid 1970s, both because of the perceived threat to the local environment and on broader grounds related to the nuclear fuel cycle. They have cranked up a campaign to stop Jabiluka since the mid 1990s.
The Aboriginal traditional owners have been ambivalent. In the 1980s and early 1990s there was considerable support for mine development in the region, and also the tourist development associated with the National Park. Agreements for Ranger, Nabarlek and Jabiluka development were signed with the Aboriginal elders, and the Gagudju Association was formed to bring together those concerned with Ranger. Over $153 million has flowed to the Northern Territory Aboriginal people from Ranger alone, with some of it being invested in tourist infrastructure.
The present senior traditional owner inherited the Jabiluka agreement from her father, and now disagrees with it, despite the fact that she was part of a group of five Aboriginal traditional owners who lobbied the federal Labor government in 1991 to allow Jabiluka to proceed. She and about 25 others broke away from the Gagudju Association in 1995 and set up the Gundjeihmi Corporation, which now receives the local share of Ranger royalties. It is aligned with "green" opposition and substantially influenced by it. Many of Kakadu's 400+ Aboriginal people support the development, including members of the Djabulukgu Association (set up in 1982 and designated recipients of 80% of Jabiluka royalties) who have written to the federal Environment Minister urging him to expedite it.
In 1996-97 the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study was undertaken under the direction of local Aboriginal people. It investigated experiences and perceptions of developments so far, and looked at how Aboriginal people might be better placed to deal with and benefit from further developments. ERA committed to assisting with the implementation of the study's outcomes.
In 1998 UNESCO sent a team to investigate whether the Jabiluka mine development posed a threat to the World Heritage values of the adjacent National Park. Its report suggested that there was a threat, but to reach this conclusion it applied criteria in a way which would have either precluded the Heritage listing of the National Park in the first place (due to the Ranger mine), or put it immediately on the "in danger" list. Subsequently another UN report showed that far from being in particular danger from development, the Kakadu National Park is among many World Heritage areas which accommodate adjacent development. Only 16 of 123 world heritage sites had no extractive activities, 26% had mining within or adjacent, and many of these activities had never been through any rigorous EIS scrutiny. "Many of the factors which UNESCO claims are putting Kakadu at risk are commonplace in world heritage areas around the world" said Environment Minister, Robert Hill. The UN agency makes it clear that human uses such as mining are not incompatible with World Heritage status. In December 2000 the World Heritage Committee concluded that the development of Jabiluka would not in fact threaten the health of people or the ecological systems of the National Park and rejected attempts to put the Park on any "in danger" list.
In December 1998, in connection with World Heritage Committee deliberations, ERA pointed out:
"ERA's uranium operations are located on mineral leases that pre-date Kakadu
National Park. Ranger and Jabiluka have never been part of the Park or
World Heritage listing, but have been progressively surrounded by both. The
Ranger open cut mine has been subjected to 18 years of independent
assessment from a broad range of scientific bodies, all of whom have found
that the operation has had no detrimental impact on Kakadu National Park.
"The World Heritage Committee has recognised Kakadu on three separate occasions as having World Heritage values - the last time for natural and cultural values in 1993 after Ranger had been operating for thirteen years and with the full knowledge that Jabiluka was going ahead."
The Jabiluka mine development proceeded in 1998-99 with relevant agreements in place. However, mining was deferred until Ranger output starts to decline towards the end of its life, and until agreement was reached regarding treatment of Jabiluka ore at the Ranger mill. The mine was developed with an 1150 metre access decline and a further 700 metres of excavation around the orebody. About 50,000 tonnes of mineralised material removed during development was stockpiled under cover on the surface.
In August 2003 the Northern Territory government approved ERA's proposal for long-term care and maintenance, covering plans to backfill the decline and new water management plans. The backfilling operation, involving the mineralised material along with a similar quantity of waste rock, was undertaken soon after approval was granted.
click to enlarge
These operations comply with the wishes of the Mirrar traditional owners, and are also desirable for economic and environmental reasons. After lengthy negotiations, a Jabiluka Long-term Care and Maintenance agreement was signed in February 2005 covering the Jabiluka lease. The parties to the agreement are ERA, the Mirrar traditional owners of Jabiluka, and the Northern Land Council.
ERA (whose parent company is Rio Tinto) has said it will not proceed with the Jabiluka mine unless there is support from the traditional owners.
Incidentally, the Kakadu National Park covers 19,800 square kilometres, about the size of Israel, or half the size of Switzerland. And there are definitely threats to it, including aquatic weeds, exotic grasses, Mimosa pigra, the relentless advance of the cane toad, and fire management. But these have tended to be low priority with protesters and associated conservation organisations.
Further information on Jabiluka is available on ERA's web site .
See also UIC Papers:
or Return to Index
AUSTRALIAN URANIUM ASSOCIATION Ltd.
A.C.N. 005 503 828
GPO Box 1649, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 8616 0440